Calculus - Taylor Expansion, maybe. Not sure how to simplify.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving the derivation of an equation for temperature as a function of depth within a planet, utilizing spherical coordinates. The original poster is attempting to simplify an expression related to the volume of a thin spherical shell and the heat flux associated with it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the volume of a spherical shell and questions the validity of neglecting higher-order terms as the thickness approaches zero. They also inquire about simplifying the expression for heat flux at the outer boundary of the shell using a Taylor expansion. Other participants discuss properties of differentiable functions and provide insights into the notation used for volume changes.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring different mathematical approaches and clarifying concepts related to the volume of the shell and heat flux. Some have provided guidance on the properties of differentiable functions, while the original poster has made progress in their calculations and is seeking further validation of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations of assumptions regarding the limits of thickness and the implications of heat flux in the context of thermal physics. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity in mathematical expressions as participants work through the problem.

Tsunoyukami
Messages
213
Reaction score
11
I am attempting to complete a problem for a problem set and am having difficulty simplifying an expression; any help would be greatly appreciated!

The question is a physics question which attempts to derive an equation for the temperature within a planet as a function of depth assuming spherical co-ordinates. "Conside a thin spherical shell whose inner boundary has radius r and outer boundary had radius r + ∂r. The heat flux into the shell from the inner boundary is q_{r}(r) and the heat flux out of the shell at the top boundary is q_{r}(r + ∂r). The energy produced by radioactivity in the shell is \rho\rhoHV where V is the volume of the spherical shell, H is the heat generation rate per unit mass and \rho is the density."

To determine the volume of the shell V I have used:

V = V(r + ∂r) - V(r)

Using the fact that ∂r \rightarrow 0 I have found:

V = 4\pir^{2}∂r + 4\pir ∂r^{2}

Is this a reasonable time to use the fact that ∂r \rightarrow 0? Is the second term in my expression for V negligible?


The primary question I have is whether or not there is a way to simplify q_{r}(r + ∂r); I feel like there is - and I feel like it might have to do with a Taylor expansion, but I haven't been able to figure it out - all the links I find when I do a google search are either too simple or too complex. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(After I do this I have to write an expression that says the sum of the heat going in, the heat leaving and the heat produced inside the shell equals 0 [by assuming in is either positive or negative and out is the opposite sign of in).

Again, any help would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I will use the notation ##\Delta V = V(r+\Delta r)-V(r)= 4\pi r^2\Delta r + 4\pi r (\Delta r)^2##. This is a consequence of a general property of differentiable functions. If ##f(x)## is differentiable at ##x##, then$$
f'(x)-\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}\rightarrow 0\hbox{ if }h\rightarrow 0$$so we might use the notation$$f'(x)-\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}=o(h)$$where ##o(h)## represents a term that goes to 0 as h does. $$hf'(x) -(f(x+h)-f(x)) = ho(h)$$ $$
\Delta f = hf'(x) -ho(h)$$That last term is h times a term that goes to zero with h, so is a higher order zero than ##hf'(x)##. That is why for ##h## small the second term is neglected and you say approximately ##\Delta f = hf'(x)##. Your example is a special case where the variable is ##r## instead of ##x## and $$
f(r)=\frac 4 3 \pi r^3$$the volume of a sphere.
 
Thank you very much!

As to my second question - is there any way to write q_{r}(r + ∂r) another way so that I can simplify my equation when I do an energy balance? That is, what does q_{r}(r + ∂r) equal mathematically? (I don't need any kind of really deep proof, just some kind of evidence so I can understand how you get to what it equals).
 
Alright, so I've made some progress.

Using the following:
E_{in} = q_{r}(r) x A(r) = q_{r}(r) x 4\pir^{2}
E_{out} = q_{r}(r +\deltar) x A(r +\deltar) = q_{r}(r +\deltar) x 4\pi(r +\deltar)^{2}
E_{produced} = \rhoHV = \rhoH4\pir^{2}\deltar

I have written the following equation:

E_{in} - E_{out} + E_{produced} = mC\DeltaT = \rhoVC\DeltaT = \rho4\pir^{2}\deltar C\DeltaT (this follows from discussion in class; its part of thermal physics).

I can write out the formula (it kinda sucks):

E_{in} - E_{out} + E_{produced} = 4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r) - 4\pi(r +\deltar)^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) + 4\pi\rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rho4\pir^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r) - 4\pi(r^{2} + 2r\deltar + (\deltar)^{2})q_{r}(r +\deltar) + 4\pi\rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rho4\pir^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r) - (4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) + 8\pir\deltarq_{r}(r +\deltar) + 4\pi(\deltar)^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar)) + 4\pi\rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rho4\pir^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r) - 4\pir^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) - 8\pir\deltarq_{r}(r +\deltar) - 4\pi(\deltar)^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) + 4\pi\rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rho4\pir^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

r^{2}q_{r}(r) - r^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) - 2r\deltarq_{r}(r +\deltar) - (\deltar)^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar) + \rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rhor^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

- (r^{2}(q_{r}(r +\deltar) -q_{r}(r)) + 2r\deltarq_{r}(r +\deltar) + (\deltar)^{2}q_{r}(r +\deltar)) + \rhoHr^{2}\deltar = \rhor^{2}\deltarC\frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

So far I have expanded a perfect square, divided through by 4\pi and factored to simplify somewhat. (My solution on paper looks a bit nicer, but I'm not very good at coding this so that it looks proper so I apologize if it looks really messy). Next, I divide through by what is left of the volume term, r^{2}\deltar. It's hard for me to get fractions to appear nicely on here, so I'm going to skip a step (the step in which I would show everything in both the numerator and denominator) and then just show you what I'm left with:

-(\frac{r^{2}(q_{r}(r + \delta r) -q_{r}(r)}{r^{2} \delta r} + \frac{2r\delta rq_{r}(r + \delta r)}{r^{2} \delta r} + \frac{(\delta r)^{2}q_{r}(r +\delta r)}{r^{2} \delta r}) + \frac{\rho Hr^{2}\delta r}{r^{2} \delta r} = \frac {\rho r^{2}\delta rC \frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}}{r^{2} \delta r}

-(\frac{(q_{r}(r + \delta r) -q_{r}(r)}{\delta r} + \frac{2q_{r}(r + \delta r)}{r} + \frac{\delta rq_{r}(r +\delta r)}{r^{2}}) + \rho H = \rho C \frac{(T(t + \delta t) - T(t))}{\delta t}

Next we take the limit as \delta r and \delta t approach 0 - then I get the right answer (as I was typing this I found I had missed a 2 going from one step to the next which was throwing me off, but I was so close to finishing typing this up that I decided I might as well continue). Anyways, disregard my previous questions; if you find anything wrong with this please let me know!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
14K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K