Boundary Value Problem from Laplace's eq (Thermal)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a boundary value problem for a semi-infinite rectangular plate using Laplace's equation. The plate has specific temperature conditions at its edges, with T=0°C at y=0 and varying temperatures along the x-axis. The initial approach involved separation of variables, leading to a general solution form, but complications arose due to multiple boundary conditions. Participants suggested shifting the origin to simplify the problem and using linear superposition of solutions to handle the different temperature regions. The key to progressing involves determining the appropriate values of k that satisfy all boundary conditions and applying them to find the coefficients in the series solution.
lanan
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A rectangular plate extends to infinity along the y-axis and has a width of 20 cm. At all faces except y=0, T= 0°C. Solve the semi-infinite plate problem if the bottom edge is held at
T = {0°C when, 0 < x < 10,
T = {100°C when, 10 < x < 20.

Homework Equations



2T=0

The Attempt at a Solution



I generalized Laplace's equation for two dimensions, then used separation of variables to find solutions of the form T(x,y)=X(x)Y(x) such that
Y = {eky , e-ky }
X = {sinkx, coskx }

Then, by applying two of the initial conditions required to satisfy T (y→∞ T=0 and x=0 T=0) I was able to eliminate one of the possible choices for X and Y each, leaving a T of:

T=e-kysinkx.

Here is where I'm having trouble. In other problems from this section I could continue to apply the boundary conditions and solve for k then use a Fourier series approximation to solve the remaining condition where T=100°C. However, with x broken into several more cases I am unsure how to solve for a k that works for all of the conditions (for which there are a confusing six, rather than the previous 3 I solved). Any guidance would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi lanan. Welcome to Physics Forums.

I don't consider myself an expert on this type of problem, but the first thing I would do would be to shift the origin to x = 10, so that the region of interest is from x = -10 to x = + 10. The base temperature would then be 0 from x = -10 to x = 0, and 100 from x = 0 to x = +10. I would then represent the solution as the linear superposition of two solutions. In solution 1, T = 50 over the entire base from x = -10 to x = +10. This could be described by a cosine series. In solution 2, the base temperature would be T = -50 from x = -10 to x = 0, and T =+50 from x = 0 to x = +10. This could be described by a sine series. This approach should simplify things considerably (I think).

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
In solution 1, T = 50 over the entire base from x = -10 to x = +10. This could be described by a cosine series. In solution 2, the base temperature would be T = -50 from x = -10 to x = 0, and T =+50 from x = 0 to x = +10. This could be described by a sine series.

Chet

Thank you, this is helping a little. However, this is my first time actually solving a physical problem with difeq, so I'm not sure how to apply multiple boundary conditions over x for these two circumstances (do I just use 20?). Also, I'm not sure why you used T=50 over the entire base for solution one. Also, do I construct the same T for each solution? I'm really quite lost.
 
Last edited:
There are only certain values of k that are allowed. Use the condition for x=20 cm to find these. So you have a solution of the form
$$T(x,y) = \sum_n c_nT_n(x,y) = \sum_n c_ne^{-k_n y}\sin k_n x.$$ You now apply the boundary condition at y=0 to solve for the ##c_n##'s.
 
This is follow up to vela's post. You need to determine the kn's and cn's. To determine the kn's, you choose the sequence of values for the kn's that automatically satisfy the boundary conditions at both x boundaries. The solution vela wrote down already satisfies the boundary condition at x = 0.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top