Divergence and Volume Integrals

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the divergence of the vector field F and evaluating the volume integral over a specified cylinder. The divergence is initially miscalculated, but corrections reveal it to be (3 - sin(φ))/ρ, with concerns raised about the singularity at ρ = 0. Participants suggest defining the lower limit of the ρ integral as ε to avoid the singularity, though this may not significantly affect the result. Additionally, using the divergence theorem is proposed as a potentially simpler method for evaluating the volume integral. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying mathematical principles in vector calculus.
BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



(3 i) Using \nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\rho}}}{\partial \rho} + \frac{\mathbf{F_{\rho}}}{\rho} + \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\phi}}}{\partial \phi} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{z}}}{\partial z} calculate the divergence of the vector field \mathbf{F} = 3\mathbf{e_{\rho}} + \cos(\phi)\mathbf{e_{\phi}} + 5\rho\mathbf{e_{z}}.

(ii) Evaluate the volume integral of \nabla . \mathbf{F} over the cylinder defined by -H \leq z \leq H, x^{2} + y^{2} \leq R^{2}.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not sure if I'm doing the volume integral properly.

\frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\rho}}}{\partial \rho} = 0

\frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\phi}}}{\partial \phi} = -\sin(\phi)

\frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{z}}}{\partial z} = 0

\nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{3}{\rho} + \frac{1}{\rho}(-\sin(\phi) + 0 = \frac{3 - \sin(\phi)}{\rho}

So that's part one done - Moving on to converting this cylinder to cylindrical polar coordinates.

x = \rho \cos(\phi)

y = \rho \sin(\phi)

\rho^{2} \cos^{2}(\phi) + \rho^2 \sin^{2}(\phi) \leq R^{2}

\cos^{2}(\phi) + \sin^{2}(\phi) = 1

\rho^{2} \leq R^{2}

\rho \leq R

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = \int^{H}_{-H} \int^{2\pi}_{0} \int^{\rho}_{0} \frac{3 - \sin(\phi)}{\rho} \rho d\rho d\phi dz

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = \int^{H}_{-H} \int^{2\pi}_{0} \int^{\rho}_{0} 3 - \sin(\phi) d\rho d\phi dz

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = \int^{H}_{-H} \int^{\rho}_{0} [3 - \sin(\phi)]^{2\pi}_{0} d\rho dz

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = 6\pi \int^{H}_{-H} \int^{\rho}_{0} d\rho dz

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = 6\pi \rho \int^{H}_{-H} dz

\int_{V} \nabla . \mathbf{F} dV = 12 \pi \rho H

I'm not that confident in my treatment of the limits, so it would be good to get some feedback/know if I'm doing this wrong.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have the wrong expression for the divergence. There is no term which does not contain a derivative. Your integration limits are fine apart from the fact that the ##\rho## should be an ##R##, ##\rho## is the coordinate which you integrate over. Also note that the result you get is not really correct anyway, the vector field has a singularity at ##\rho = 0##, which is not captured by your expression for the divergence, which only holds outside of ##\rho = 0##.
 
Orodruin said:
You have the wrong expression for the divergence. There is no term which does not contain a derivative.

Thanks for catching that - It's a mistake on the handout.

From my notes;

\nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \rho \mathbf{F_{\rho}}}{\partial \rho} + \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\phi}}}{\partial \phi} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{z}}}{\partial z}

Which actually gives me the same function.

\nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{3 - \sin(\phi)}{\rho}

Orodruin said:
Your integration limits are fine apart from the fact that the ##\rho## should be an ##R##, ##\rho## is the coordinate which you integrate over.

Thank you, this makes sense.

Orodruin said:
Also note that the result you get is not really correct anyway, the vector field has a singularity at ##\rho = 0##, which is not captured by your expression for the divergence, which only holds outside of ##\rho = 0##.

How do I deal with this? Define the interval of rho to be not inclusive of zero? That would give me a cylinder with an infinitely small hole through the center I think...
 
BOAS said:
Thanks for catching that - It's a mistake on the handout.
It's actually not a mistake, so it's no surprised you ended up with the same expression for the divergence. In your original post, the product rule had already been applied to the ##\partial_\rho(\rho F_\rho)## term.

How do I deal with this? Define the interval of rho to be not inclusive of zero? That would give me a cylinder with an infinitely small hole through the center I think...
You could set the lower limit of the ##\rho## integral to ##\varepsilon## and take the limit as ##\varepsilon \to 0^+##. It wouldn't change the result though.
 
vela said:
It's actually not a mistake,

Indeed, for some reason I was thinking gradient, my bad.

BOAS said:
How do I deal with this?

In this case it is not really a problem, the divergence of this vector field goes to infinity at rho equals zero, but this is compensated by the rho in the volume element. Depending on the vector field, you may run into trouble or not. Try the same thing with the vector field ##\vec e_\rho/\rho## for example. The "safe" bet is applying the divergence theorem.
 
BOAS said:
Thanks for catching that - It's a mistake on the handout.

From my notes;

\nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \rho \mathbf{F_{\rho}}}{\partial \rho} + \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{\phi}}}{\partial \phi} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{F_{z}}}{\partial z}

Which actually gives me the same function.

\nabla . \mathbf{F} = \frac{3 - \sin(\phi)}{\rho}
Thank you, this makes sense.
How do I deal with this? Define the interval of rho to be not inclusive of zero? That would give me a cylinder with an infinitely small hole through the center I think...

Couldn't (ii) be more easily done using the divergence theorem, ##\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{F} \, dv = \oint_{S} \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{S}##?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
533
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K