How Does the Reduced Potential u(r) Simplify the Poisson-Boltzmann Equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter greisen
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on simplifying the Poisson-Boltzmann equation by introducing a reduced potential, u(r), defined as u(r) = q*φ/(kT). The transformation leads to a new form of the equation, where the hyperbolic sine function can be approximated under the assumption that q*u/kT is much less than one. This approximation simplifies the equation significantly, allowing for easier analysis of electrostatic interactions. The key takeaway is that the reduced potential facilitates a more manageable approach to solving the Poisson-Boltzmann equation in specific conditions. Understanding this simplification is crucial for applying the equation effectively in relevant fields.
greisen
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
The problem is going from the Poisson-Boltzmann equation

\nabla (e(r)*\nabla \phi(r)) - \kappa^2(kT/q)*sinh(q*\phi(r)/kT) = -4*\pi \rho(r)

The equation is than rewritten in terms of a reduced potential u

\nabla (e(r)*\nabla u(r)) - \kappa^2 sinh(u(r)) = -4\pi*\rho(r)

The reduced potential is defined as u(r) = q*\phi / (kT) - I can see that term q/kT is multiplied on the right side but nothing changes on the left side?

Have I totally misunderstood the equation and the approximation of the PBE?
Any help or advice appreciated. Thanks in advance.

best regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I have it here; the electrostatic potential \phi can be written as the reduced potential u. If one again assumes that q*u / kT << 1 than the hyperbolic function can be approximated as
sinh(q*u/kT) \approx q*u/kT
which than reduces to the equation.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top