Laplace equation, cylindrical 2D

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the Laplace equation in cylindrical coordinates with the assumed solution u(rho, Phi) = rho^n * Phi(phi). The general solution is confirmed to be u(rho, Phi) = SUM [A*cos(...) + B*sin(...)]*rho^n. Participants clarify that differentiation with respect to rho is necessary, and the correct form of the argument in the trigonometric functions must be maintained. There are corrections made regarding the transition from cylindrical to plane polar coordinates, emphasizing that only the z-component is omitted. Ultimately, the participants agree that the approach works when properly applied.
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Laplace equation, cylindrical 2D

Homework Statement


I am given the Laplace eq. in cylindrical coord. (2D), and I am told that we can assume the solution u(rho, Phi) = rho^n * Phi(phi).

Find the general solution.

The Attempt at a Solution


My teacher says that the general solution is u(rh,Phi) = SUM [A*cos(...) + B*sin(...)]*rho^n.

It is tis version of the Laplace equation on the first equation on page 12 in here:

http://people.ifm.liu.se/boser/elma/Lect4.pdf

Why do we not differentiate rho?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Niles said:

Homework Statement


I am given the Laplace eq. in cylindrical coord. (2D), and I am told that we can assume the solution u(rho, Phi) = rho^n * Phi(phi).

Find the general solution.

The Attempt at a Solution


My teacher says that the general solution is u(rh,Phi) = SUM [A*cos(...) + B*sin(...)]*rho^n.

It is tis version of the Laplace equation on the first equation on page 12 in here:

http://people.ifm.liu.se/boser/elma/Lect4.pdf

Why do we not differentiate rho?

You do differentiate with respect to rho! Just plug in the general solution and you will see that it works, at the condition of choosing the constant inside the trig function correctly . You cannot put any old constant multiplying phi inside the trig function.
write the argument of the trig function as c \phi and plug the general solution in Laplace's equation and you will see that it does work at the condition of choosing "c" to be some particular value (in terms of "n").
 
Ok, now I have substituted u(rho,Phi) in Laplaces equation, divided through by rho^n*Phi and multiplied by rho^2:<br /> \frac{\rho }{{\rho ^n }}\frac{\partial }{{\partial \rho }}\left( {\rho \frac{{\partial \rho ^n }}{{\partial \rho }}} \right) + \frac{1}{\Phi }\frac{{\partial ^2 \Phi }}{{\partial \phi ^2 }} = 0<br />

The rho-part does not equal rho^n. Or am I wrong here?
 
Niles said:
Ok, now I have substituted u(rho,Phi) in Laplaces equation, divided through by rho^n*Phi and multiplied by rho^2:


<br /> \frac{\rho }{{\rho ^n }}\frac{\partial }{{\partial \rho }}\left( {\rho \frac{{\partial \rho ^n }}{{\partial \rho }}} \right) + \frac{1}{\Phi }\frac{{\partial ^2 \Phi }}{{\partial \phi ^2 }} = 0<br />

The rho-part does not equal rho^n. Or am I wrong here?

Look again at the laplacian in cylindrical coordinates. There are two mistakes in the expression you wrote above!
 
Duh, I meant plane polar, not cylindrical - sorry!

So the above is written in plane polar, but it still doesn't work.

EDIT: The only thing that changes when going to plane polars from cylindrical is that the z-part is missing. So that counts for one of the errors. So one error is remaining, but there is none?
 
Last edited:
This is what you want.
<br /> <br /> \rho \frac{\partial }{{\partial \rho }}\left( {\rho \frac{{\partial \Phi }}{{\partial \rho }}} \right) + \frac{{\partial ^2 \Phi }}{{\partial \phi ^2 }} = 0<br /> <br />

Just take the cylindrical form, drop z and multiply by rho^2. It does work.
 
By doing that, I get {\frac{\rho}{\rho ^n} \frac{\partial }{{\partial \rho }}\left( {\rho \frac{{\partial \rho ^n}}{{\partial \rho }}} \right) + \frac{1}{\Phi}\frac{{\partial ^2 \Phi }}{{\partial \phi ^2 }} = 0.<br /> <br /> <br />

What I did was to insert u(rho, Phi) = rho^n*Phi in the expression Dick wrote to the right of the partial d's, right? Then I divide by rho^n and Phi, and the above expression is what I end up with.

EDIT: Yeah, it really does work. Thanks to both of you!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K