MHB Equilibrium Soln for $u_{t}=K u_{xx}+\gamma$

  • Thread starter Thread starter Markov2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equilibrium
Markov2
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Well I don't know if is the correct term for this for here goes:

Let

$\begin{align}
& {{u}_{t}}=K{{u}_{xx}}+\gamma ,\text{ }0<x<L,\text{ }t>0, \\
& u(0,t)=\alpha ,\text{ }u(L,t)=\beta ,\text{ }t>0, \\
& u(x,0)=0,
\end{align}
$

where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are constant, then find the equilibrium solution. I don't know what I need to do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Markov said:
Well I don't know if is the correct term for this for here goes:

Let

$\begin{align}
& {{u}_{t}}=K{{u}_{xx}}+\gamma ,\text{ }0<x<L,\text{ }t>0, \\
& u(0,t)=\alpha ,\text{ }u(L,t)=\beta ,\text{ }t>0, \\
& u(x,0)=0,
\end{align}
$

where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are constant, then find the equilibrium solution. I don't know what I need to do.

To find the equilibrium solution $U(x)$, set

$0=Ku_{xx}+\gamma$
$U(0)=\alpha$
$U(L)=\beta$
 
So I get $u(x)=-\dfrac\gamma{2K} x^2,$ does this make sense? Why the boundary conditions aren't something like $u(0,t)$ ?
 
Markov said:
Why the boundary conditions aren't something like $u(0,t)$ ?

We removed the t parameter.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Markov said:
So I get $u(x)=-\dfrac\gamma{2K} x^2,$ does this make sense?

Shouldn't you have a constant of integration?
 
dwsmith said:
Shouldn't you have a constant of integration?
Oh yes, yes, so then I just put the initial conditions and that's it?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top