Find Flux Through Cube & Sphere

  • Thread starter Thread starter dpa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cube Flux
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the flux through a cube given a vector field defined as F = r/r^2 and a unit sphere. Participants suggest using the divergence theorem, but one user expresses confusion about applying divergence in spherical coordinates. It's advised to compute the divergence of F using the identity for scalar and vector fields, while also noting the importance of specifying the cube's location and orientation. Caution is raised regarding the singularity at the origin when using Gauss's Law, and a potential error in the problem statement regarding the denominator of the field is highlighted. The conversation emphasizes careful consideration of the mathematical approach and the specifics of the problem setup.
dpa
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Flux through sphere

Homework Statement


Given \vec{F}=\frac{\vec{r}}{r^2} and unit sphere, find the flux through the surface of the cube.


Homework Equations


Surface Integral of F dS=volume integral of Div. F d^3r


The Attempt at a Solution


After the above formula, I do not have idea how to use divergence in spherical coordinate system.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
why not do it the easier way by using F dS ?
 
dpa said:
I do not have idea how to use divergence in spherical coordinate system.

You do not need to worry so much about the divergence in SPs. Just compute the divergence of ##\vec{F}## using the identity for ##\nabla \cdot (\phi \vec{a})##, where ##\phi## and ##\vec{a}## are scalar and vector fields respectively.
 
First of all you have to specify the cube, i.e., its location and orientation. If the origin is contained inside the cube, it's not a good idea to use Gauss's Law and the volume integral over the divergence, because you have to find out how to treat the non-trivial singularity at the origin.

Last but not least, it's a pretty unusual long-ranged field. Are you sure that there isn't r^3 in the denominator? Better check your problem again!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top