Complex Potential in Cartesians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Firepanda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Potential
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of complex potential in Cartesian coordinates, particularly focusing on the Cauchy-Riemann equations and their implications for fluid dynamics. Participants explore the formulation of complex potentials and their real and imaginary components.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants present multiple attempts to express the complex potential and its components, questioning the correctness of their formulations and the implications of using different reference points. There is also discussion on the transition from Cartesian to polar coordinates.

Discussion Status

Some participants have identified errors in earlier attempts and provided corrections, while others are exploring the implications of their findings on the behavior of vortices in fluid dynamics. The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the information available for their discussions. There is an emphasis on understanding the relationships between the components of the complex potential and their physical interpretations.

Firepanda
Messages
425
Reaction score
0
5l1kp5.jpg


Relevant Equations

I know ∂ψ/∂y = ∂φ/∂x = u

and -∂ψ/∂x = ∂φ/∂y = v (Cauchy Riemann equations)

For the complex potential ω(z) = φ(x,y) + iψ(x,y)

u = ui + vj

and dω/dz = u - iv

Attempt 1

ω(z) = - ik log(z - z0)

Take z0 = 0

=> ω(z) = - ik log(x + iy)

=> ψ = -k log(x + iy)

=> ∂ψ/∂x = -k/(x + iy)

=> v = k/(x + iy)

and

∂ψ/∂y = -ik/(x + iy)

=> u = -ik/(x + iy)

so

u = -ik/(x + iy) i + k/(x + iy) j

Is this correct? I'm a little concerned as I have an i in my u component.

Perhaps I should have just done

Attempt 2

ω(z) = - ik log(z)

dω/dz = u - iv = - ik/z

where - ik/z = - ik/(x+iy) = -ik(x-iy)/(x2+y2)

= (yk - ikx)/(x2+y2)

=> u = yk/(x2+y2)

and v = - kx/(x2+y2)

=> u = yk/(x2+y2) i - kx/(x2+y2) j

Which is correct? :)

Should I have taken z0 = 0?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For above if Z0 = 0 isn't good enough I guess I can just sub in x = x - x0 and y = y - y0.

The rest of the question:

8x07qq.jpg


Here's my basic proof of the equilateral triangle:

2vjr85g.jpg


With z = 1 etc. for the vertices.

But how to show the rotation?

Thanks.
 
An error in Attempt one is in moving from
=> ω(z) = - ik log(x + iy)
to
=> ψ = -k log(x + iy)
The two potentials ψ and φ are the real/complex parts of ω.

As a result, ψ is not quite either one of them due to the log(x + iy).

Attempt 2 is correct.

Another way to work from Attempt one is to work out this problem in polar coordinates, and transform to cartesian coordinates using the standard transformations:
r^2 = x^2 + y^2
\theta = Tan^{-1}(x\y)

For the triangle question, I find it strange that the sources can rotate, but this question can still be solved if we assume that the vortices move with the velocity flow.

I believe that after working it out, the velocity flow at each vortex is in a tangential direction, and Period = 2 \pi / |v|.

To find the fourth vortex, we know that the flow at each vortex is tangential, so we introduce a fourth vortex that eliminates this tangential component.
 
Hao said:
An error in Attempt one is in moving from
=> ω(z) = - ik log(x + iy)
to
=> ψ = -k log(x + iy)
The two potentials ψ and φ are the real/complex parts of ω.

As a result, ψ is not quite either one of them due to the log(x + iy).

Attempt 2 is correct.

Another way to work from Attempt one is to work out this problem in polar coordinates, and transform to cartesian coordinates using the standard transformations:
r^2 = x^2 + y^2
\theta = Tan^{-1}(x\y)

For the triangle question, I find it strange that the sources can rotate, but this question can still be solved if we assume that the vortices move with the velocity flow.

I believe that after working it out, the velocity flow at each vortex is in a tangential direction, and Period = 2 \pi / |v|.

To find the fourth vortex, we know that the flow at each vortex is tangential, so we introduce a fourth vortex that eliminates this tangential component.

Ok thankyou.

So in my solution to the first part am I right in thinking I change all my x's and y's to x = x - x0 and y = y - y0 respectively? i.e for z = 1 the y0 = 0 and x0 = 1.

I've done all that, but finding the tangential velocities has me stumped.
 
So in my solution to the first part am I right in thinking I change all my x's and y's to x = x - x0 and y = y - y0 respectively? i.e for z = 1 the y0 = 0 and x0 = 1.

The thinking is correct - there is usually no other way to obtain the real and complex potentials if the real and complex parts are locked up in z.

To find velocities, we rely on superposition once more. Add the velocity flows for individual point vortexes to get the velocity flow for a more complex vortex distribution. By symmetry, once we find the velocity at one point vortex, we can be sure that it will be in the same relative direction and have the same speed for other point vortices.

Knowing that the velocity at a point vortex is tangential can also be drawn from a symmetry argument.
 
Hao said:
The thinking is correct - there is usually no other way to obtain the real and complex potentials if the real and complex parts are locked up in z.

To find velocities, we rely on superposition once more. Add the velocity flows for individual point vortexes to get the velocity flow for a more complex vortex distribution. By symmetry, once we find the velocity at one point vortex, we can be sure that it will be in the same relative direction and have the same speed for other point vortices.

Knowing that the velocity at a point vortex is tangential can also be drawn from a symmetry argument.

Ok, I've probably misunderstood but I'll add the velocity flows for each point vortex

For z = 1

u = i yk/((x-1)2+y2) - j (x-1)k/((x-1)2+y2)

z = e2ipi/3

u = i (y-√3/2)k/((x+0.5)2+(y-√3/2)2) - j (x+0.5)k/((x+0.5)2+(y-√3/2)2)

z = z = e-2ipi/3

u = i (y+√3/2)k/((x+0.5)2+(y+√3/2)2) - j (x+0.5)k/((x+0.5)2+(y+√3/2)2)

So I add all the i components and add all the j components and hope it simplifies?
 
Now that you have added them up, what is the velocity flow at the point z = 1?
 
Hao said:
Now that you have added them up, what is the velocity flow at the point z = 1?

So now I just sub in all x = 1 and y = 0?

So

u = i [0 -(√3/2)k/3 + (√3/2)k/3] - j [0 + (1.5)k/3 + (1.5)k/3]

= i 0 - j k

Correct?
 
The rest being

for z = e2ipi/3

u = i [(√3/2)k/3 + 0 + (√3)k/3] - j [(-1.5)k/3 + 0 + 0]

= i (√3/2)k + j k/2

for z = e-2ipi/3

u = i [(-√3/2)k/3 + (-√3)k/3 + 0] - j [(-1.5)k/3 + 0 + 0]

= i (-√3/2)k + j k/2
 
  • #10
So here are my tangential lines.

2r3wp3p.jpg
 
  • #11
You've gotten everything right - now, the vortices will always move in a tangential direction, which results in circular motion if we recalculate the velocity after every short time interval.

As a result, for a circle of radius 1, the time is 2*pi*1/speed
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K