Is There an Analytic Solution for This Non-Homogeneous Differential Equation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nrhoades
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diffeq
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for an analytic solution to a non-homogeneous differential equation of the form y"(c+dx+ex^2) + ay + b = 0, with specified boundary conditions. Participants explore the implications of the equation, its physical context, and the mathematical challenges involved in finding a solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks an analytic solution for the differential equation and specifies boundary conditions.
  • Another participant questions the formulation of the differential equation, seeking clarification on the meaning of y'' evaluated at c+dx+ex^2 and the physical relevance of such a relationship.
  • A participant describes the context of their investigation involving a sensor and the interactions of heat transfer, joule heating, and potential theory, outlining the physical processes involved.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of the variable definitions and the implications of the geometry of the setup on the differential equation.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the potential need for Bessel functions in the solution process.
  • A later reply introduces a complex expression for T(z) involving hypergeometric functions, indicating a potential direction for the solution but without asserting its correctness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the formulation and interpretation of the differential equation, with some seeking clarification and others proposing complex solutions. No consensus is reached regarding the analytic solution or the interpretation of the variables involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of defining the domain of the variables and the physical constraints of the problem, indicating that assumptions about the parameters may affect the validity of the proposed solutions.

nrhoades
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Is there an analytic solution for:

y"(c+dx+ex^2) + ay + b = 0,

y (x=0) = Ts
y'(x=L) = 0

where a,b,c,d,e are all constants?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nrhoades said:
Is there an analytic solution for:

y"(c+dx+ex^2) + ay + b = 0,

y (x=0) = Ts
y'(x=L) = 0

where a,b,c,d,e are all constants?
I don't understand this DE. Are you saying that the second derivative of y, evaluated at c+dx+ex^2, is equal to -ay(x) - b, where y is now evaluated at x? What physical mechanism could give such a remote relationship? What about the domain? Over what range of x is this equation supposed to hold? Are c, d, and e such that c + dx + ex^2 precisely maps this range to itself? If not, how do we deal with the regions where y''(c+dx+ex^2) is defined but y(x) isn't, or vice versa?
 
Good questions.

I am investigating the properties of a sensor I am making, which involves the simultaneous interactions of convective heat transfer, joule heating, and potential theory. I am trying to build an analytic model that approximates all of these physics for simple geometries, namely a pipe with a pipe thickness. The major contributing factor is that the pipe material's resistance changes with temperature.

Basically here is what happens for the simple geometry of a coaxial setup:
1. Inside pipe surface is connected to ground, outside pipe surface is given a voltage.
2. Fluid goes through pipe.
3. Current flows from the outer pipe surface to the inner surface.
4. The pipe heats up.
5. The fluid advects some heat downstream.
6. A downstream section of pipe touches sligtly hotter fluid because of the advection.
7. This downstream section of pipe heats up a little bit more.
8. The resistance of the downstream pipe section increases.
9. The current in the downstream section is reduced.
10. Less heat is produced in the downstream section.
11. Less heat is conducted into the fluid...
12. Less heat is advected...
etc...

So there is some balance that exists between all of this. I've already solved the heat transfer math; all it needs is heat flux as a function of the inner pipe temperature. This looks like

q"(Ts) = A*Ts + B

making the simplification that the resistance changes linearly with temperature.

Now, finding q"(Ts) for a coaxial setup is easy.
1. The e-field is the same everywhere radially AND axially. The E-field is E(z)=V/(Ro-Ri) where z is the distance in the radial direction from Ri to Ro. Actually, this is a constant, so E=V/(Ro-Ri) (z isn't needed as a variable).

Assuming that the pipe is insulated T'(z=Z)=0 and that T(z=0)=Ts, the diffEQ is the one you helped me solve before:

T" + AT + b = 0. Oh yeah, big Z is equal to Ro-Ri to make things easier.
Anyway, the heat flux turns out to be

q"(Ts) = Aj*Ts + Bj
Aj = k*a/(sqrt(|a|) * tan(h)(sqrt(|a|Z)
Aj = k*b/(sqrt(|a|) * tan(h)(sqrt(|a|Z)
a = alpha/k*E(z)^2
b = beta/k*E(z)^2

where

E(z) = V/(Ro-Ri) const.

and alpha is in [Siemens]/[m*K] and beta is in [Siemens]/[m]

Simple and neat solution.

Now I want to explore the geometry when, instead of there being an inner and outer conductor in the pipe, the pipe is split in half (like a C) and the conductors as placed on the edges of the C. I call this "split". The e-field is only the same axially, no longer radially. Therefore, z must come into play somehow. In this case, E(z)=(pi*V)/(Ri+z*Z) (or something like this, my notes are in my office).

The DiffEQ becomes

T" + a/(c+dz+ez^2)*T + b/(c+dz+ez^2) = 0

because of the squaring action of E(z), or more simply

T"*(c+dz+ez^2) + a*T + b = 0

where I am reusing a through e as dummy variables.

That's where it comes from. How would I go about solving this? The domain of z must be > 0 because it is a real distance (pipe thickness). a can be positive or negative, and b,c,d,e > 0 always. T > 0 [Kelvins]
 
I think what's confusing me is that you never explicitly give the argument of T (or y in the original). Originally you wrote
[tex] y^{\prime\prime}\left(c+dx+ex^2\right) + ay + b = 0[/tex]

which would ordinarily be understood, not as y'' multiplied by c+dx+ex^2, but y'' evaluated at c+dx+ex^2. But If I understand correctly what you just wrote, your DE is actually

[tex] (c+dz+ez^2)T^{\prime\prime}\left(x\right) + a*T\left(x\right) + b = 0[/tex]

where x is along the pipe, and z is perpendicular to the pipe (and so would y be -- I'm not sure why it's OK to leave that out).

There are a lot of reasons why this looks wrong to me, so I'm guessing I still don't understand correctly.
 
it's actually

(c + dz + ez^2)*T"(z) + a*T(z) + b = 0
T(z=0) = Ts
T'(z=Z) = 0

Don't let my explanation confuse you; forget the axial direction x for now; right now I'm solving a one dimensional ODE (radially only) with lots of constants, shown above.

I'm scared of the word "Bessel", but it might have to come into play here. This is where I have no experience.
 
Last edited:
Oh, boy, you're going to love this. No Bessel functions, but -- are you ready?

[tex] T(z)\to \left((b+a \text{Ts}) \left((a+2 e) (c+Z (d+e Z)) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{7 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(7-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);3;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)-2 \left(d^2-4 c e\right) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)\right) G_{2,2}^{2,0}\left(-\frac{4 e (c+z (d+e z))}{d^2-4 c e}|<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{1}{4} \left(5-\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}\right),\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}+5\right) \\<br /> 0,1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)+8 e \left((b+a \text{Ts}) (c+z (d+e z)) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 e (c+z (d+e z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)-b c \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 c e}{d^2-4 c e}\right)\right) G_{2,2}^{2,0}\left(-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}|<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{1}{4}-\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{4 \sqrt{e}},\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}+1\right) \\<br /> 0,0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)+b \left(2 \left(d^2-4 c e\right) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)-(a+2 e) (c+Z (d+e Z)) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{7 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(7-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);3;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)\right) G_{2,2}^{2,0}\left(-\frac{4 c e}{d^2-4 c e}|<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{5}{4}-\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{4 \sqrt{e}},\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}+5\right) \\<br /> 0,1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)\right)/\left(a \left(8 c e \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 c e}{d^2-4 c e}\right) G_{2,2}^{2,0}\left(-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}|<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{1}{4}-\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{4 \sqrt{e}},\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}+1\right) \\<br /> 0,0<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)+\left((a+2 e) (c+Z (d+e Z)) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{7 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(7-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);3;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)-2 \left(d^2-4 c e\right) \, _2F_1\left(\frac{3 e+\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{4 e},\frac{1}{4} \left(3-\frac{\sqrt{e (e-4 a)}}{e}\right);2;-\frac{4 e (c+Z (d+e Z))}{d^2-4 c e}\right)\right) G_{2,2}^{2,0}\left(-\frac{4 c e}{d^2-4 c e}|<br /> \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{5}{4}-\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{4 \sqrt{e}},\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{\sqrt{e-4 a}}{\sqrt{e}}+5\right) \\<br /> 0,1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)\right)\right)[/tex]

Here's the same thing in Mathematica's native form (useful because the names identify special functions you've probably never heard of):

[tex] T[z] -> ((b + <br /> a Ts) (-2 (d^2 - 4 c e) Hypergeometric2F1[(<br /> 3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(4 e), <br /> 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))] + (a + 2 e) (c +<br /> Z (d + e Z)) Hypergeometric2F1[(7 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(<br /> 4 e), 1/4 (7 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 3, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))]) MeijerG[{{}, {1/<br /> 4 (5 - Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e]), <br /> 1/4 (5 + Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e])}}, {{0, 1}, {}}, -((<br /> 4 e (c + z (d + e z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))] + <br /> 8 e (-b c Hypergeometric2F1[(3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(4 e), <br /> 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 c e)/(d^2 - 4 c e))] + (b + a Ts) (c + <br /> z (d + e z)) Hypergeometric2F1[(3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(<br /> 4 e), 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 e (c + z (d + e z)))/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))]) MeijerG[{{}, {1/4 - Sqrt[-4 a + e]/(<br /> 4 Sqrt[e]), 1/4 (1 + Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e])}}, {{0, <br /> 0}, {}}, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))] + <br /> b (2 (d^2 - 4 c e) Hypergeometric2F1[(3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(<br /> 4 e), 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))] - (a + 2 e) (c +<br /> Z (d + e Z)) Hypergeometric2F1[(7 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(<br /> 4 e), 1/4 (7 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 3, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))]) MeijerG[{{}, {5/4 - Sqrt[-4 a + e]/(<br /> 4 Sqrt[e]), 1/4 (5 + Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e])}}, {{0, <br /> 1}, {}}, -((4 c e)/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))])/(a (8 c e Hypergeometric2F1[(<br /> 3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(4 e), <br /> 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 c e)/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))] MeijerG[{{}, {1/4 - Sqrt[-4 a + e]/(<br /> 4 Sqrt[e]), 1/4 (1 + Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e])}}, {{0, <br /> 0}, {}}, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(<br /> d^2 - 4 c e))] + (-2 (d^2 - 4 c e) Hypergeometric2F1[(<br /> 3 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(4 e), <br /> 1/4 (3 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 2, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))] + (a + <br /> 2 e) (c + Z (d + e Z)) Hypergeometric2F1[(<br /> 7 e + Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)])/(4 e), <br /> 1/4 (7 - Sqrt[e (-4 a + e)]/e), <br /> 3, -((4 e (c + Z (d + e Z)))/(d^2 - 4 c e))]) MeijerG[{{}, <br /> {5/4 - Sqrt[-4 a + e]/(4 Sqrt[e]), <br /> 1/4 (5 + Sqrt[-4 a + e]/Sqrt[e])}}, {{0, 1}, {}}, -((<br /> 4 c e)/(d^2 - 4 c e))]))[/tex]
 
My computer keeps locking up. Haha.
 
You should get Mathematica. Seriously. It's expensive, but if you need to deal with stuff like this, it's the tool for the job.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Volterra equation of the second kind
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
967
Undergrad Correct Upper/Lower limits for continuation of solutions for ODE
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Undergrad Question about solving linear first order non-homogeneous ODEs
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Second order non-homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Nonlinear Second Order ODE: Can We Find an Analytical Solution?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Fundamental matrix of a second order 2x2 system of ODEs
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Undergrad General solution vs particular solution
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
9K
Undergrad Homogeneous equation and orthogonality
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Why Lagrange’s method of solving Pp + Qq=R works?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Solving Differential Equation Using Reduction of Order
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K