Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: I don't agree with the solution manual of a mixed poisson problem

  1. May 17, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Solve mixed poisson's problem on disk given

    [itex]\nabla^2 U= r sin \theta \hbox{ for } 0 <r< \frac{1}{2}[/itex]

    [itex]\nabla^2 U= 0 \hbox{ for } \frac{1}{2} < r < 1[/itex]

    With given boundary condition [itex]U(1,\theta)=0[/itex]


    2. Answer from the solution manual

    [tex] U(r,\theta) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\phi_{mn}(r,\theta) [/tex]

    [tex] \phi_{mn}(r,\theta)= J_m(\lambda_{mn}r)[A_{mn}cos (m\theta) + B_{mn}sin (m \theta)] [/tex]

    Helmholtz [tex]\Rightarrow \nabla^2 \phi_{mn}(r,\theta)= -\lambda_{mn}\phi_{mn}(r,\theta) [/tex]

    [tex] \nabla^2 \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\phi_{mn}(r,\theta) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}-\lambda_{mn}J_m(\lambda_{mn}r)[A_{mn}cos (m\theta) + B_{mn}sin (m\theta)] = r sin(\theta) [/tex]

    Using Fourier series expansion:

    [tex]\Rightarrow \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} -\alpha^2_{1n} B_{1n} sin(\theta) J_1(\alpha_{1n}) = r sin(\theta) [/tex]

    [tex]\Rightarrow -sin(\theta) \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} \alpha^2_{1n} B_{1n} J^2_{1n}(\alpha_{1n}r)rdr = \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}}sin(\theta) r^2 J_1(\alpha_{1n}r)dr [/tex]

    [tex]-\alpha^2_{1n} B_{1n} = \frac{J_2(\frac{\alpha_{1n}}{2}}{2\alpha_{1n}J^2_2(\alpha_{1n})}[/tex]

    3. My questions:


    Why is this treated as only a poisson problem only for 0<r<1/2 and ignor 1/2<r<1.

    I thought this is a two parts problem where it is a poisson problem for 0<r<1/2 and Laplace problem for 1/2<r<1.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. May 18, 2010 #2
    Anyone please?

    I know this is very similar to fourier series expansion like:

    f(x) = h(x) for 0<x<1
    f(x) = 0 for 1<x<2

    0<x<2

    Where the fourier series expansion only integrate from x=0 to x=1 only and totally ignor the portion of x=1 to x=2.

    I never see the prove, this only show up in the work problems. Can anyone show me the prove of this.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook