Electrostatic uniqueness theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the uniqueness theorem in electrostatics, highlighting a potential third boundary condition not commonly addressed alongside Dirichlet and Neumann conditions. It points out that while Neumann conditions require specifying the normal derivative of the potential at each surface point, many electrostatic problems involve known total charge rather than local derivatives. This raises questions about the applicability of the uniqueness theorem when only the total charge is specified. The reference to Franklin's "Classical Electromagnetism" suggests that the electric field can still be uniquely determined if either the potential or charge is specified on conductors. The inquiry seeks clarification on why this observation is often overlooked in educational texts.
facenian
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
There is one thing I don't understand about this and is that besides the Dirichlet and Neumann conditions there seems to be a third one which is important when the method of images is used and is never mentioned. The problem is that Newmann condition requires especification of \frac{\partial\phi }{\partial \eta} at each point on the surface while in electrostaics problems one many times knows two conditions,
a) the potencial is constant on the limit surfaces, and b) you don't know the normal derivative of phi at each point on the surface but you know the total charge of the conductor,ie, \oint_S\frac{\partial\phi }{\partial \eta}ds in which case the uniqueness theorem also seems to follow easily.
Can someone please tell me where I'm wrong or if this is not the case why this
importan observation is never even mentioned in texts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That case is covered in Sec. 3.1.1 of Franklin "Classical Electromagnetism", which states
"the electric field is uniquely specified ... if either the potential or charge is specified on each conductor."
 
Thank you, I will look for that
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top