Boundary conditions with dielectrics question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the application of boundary conditions (BCs) in electrostatics involving a conducting sphere, an insulating layer, and a vacuum. The user initially attempted to apply the same BCs from a dielectric sphere problem in Jackson's textbook but encountered incorrect results. The correct approach, as outlined in Griffiths' problem 4.24, emphasizes that the potential must be continuous at the conductor/insulator interface, while both E and D conditions apply at the insulator/vacuum interface. The discrepancy arises because the conductor's infinite permeability allows for a simplified boundary condition at the first interface.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electrostatics and boundary conditions
  • Familiarity with Legendre Polynomial expansions
  • Knowledge of electric displacement field (D) and electric field (E) concepts
  • Experience with Griffiths' "Introduction to Electrodynamics" and Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics"
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Griffiths' problem 4.24 for detailed boundary condition applications
  • Review Jackson's treatment of dielectric spheres in uniform electric fields
  • Learn about the implications of infinite permeability in conductors
  • Explore Legendre Polynomial applications in electrostatics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electrostatics, boundary conditions, and potential theory in electromagnetism.

VortexLattice
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm doing what should be a pretty simple problem, but some theory is giving me trouble.

Basically, in this problem I have a conducting sphere, surrounded by a thick insulating layer, and then vacuum outside that. I'm attempting to solve for the potential in the insulating layer by using a Legendre Polynomial expansion. To find the coefficients of the expansion in the different regions, I have to match boundary conditions (BC's) at the interfaces.

Now, I just did a different problem in Jackson, a dielectric sphere in a uniform E field. Here, he uses the same method, and the BC's he applies at the dielectric/vacuum interface are that E_{parallel} and D_{normal} must be continuous at the boundary, which he writes as (a is the radius of the dielectric sphere and epsilon is its dielectric constant):

E_{parallel}:

(-1/a)\frac{\partial \phi_{in}}{\partial \theta} |_{r =a}= (-1/a)\frac{\partial \phi_{out}}{\partial \theta}|_{r =a}

D_{normal}:

-\epsilon\frac{\partial \phi_{in}}{\partial r}|_{r =a} = -\epsilon_0\frac{\partial \phi_{out}}{\partial r}|_{r =a}

And then he proceeds to solve it like that. So I tried applying that to this problem, but it gave me garbage answers (the potential of the conducting sphere is constant, so E_{parallel} & D_{normal} are zero for it, which then made all the coefficients of the Legendre expansion for the insulator potential 0...which clearly isn't right).

Luckily, I found a solution to this problem (It's actually problem 4.24 in Griffiths), but I still don't understand it. In this problem, the BC's they used were that the potential has to be continuous on the conductor/insulator interface, but nothing about either D or E. They said the same thing about the insulator/vacuum interface, but that one also seems to have the D_{normal} condition.

My question is, why is the continuous potential the only BC on the first interface, while they use both on the second interface? Further, why isn't there the E_parallel BC at all?

If it helps, the solution I found to this problem is here, on page 2: www.physics.utah.edu/~wu/phycs4420/notes/solutions06.pdf

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VortexLattice said:
My question is, why is the continuous potential the only BC on the first interface, while they use both on the second interface? Further, why isn't there the E_parallel BC at all?

At each interface, you want to use the continuity condition to "connect" the potential in the two adjacent regions. Conditions (1) just demands that the potential is finite at the origin. Condition and (2) conveys the information that the sphere is placed in an otherwise uniform electric field. Condition (5) conveys the information about the permeability of the dielectric - you could just as well use the same type of boundary condition at the 1st interface instead of at the second if not for the fact that the permealibilty of the conductor is infinite (if you had a hollow core instead of a conductor, you wouldn't have that problem).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
935
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K