Laplace equation boundary conditions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the Laplace equation in cylindrical coordinates with specific boundary conditions. Participants explore the implications of boundary conditions on the constants arising from the separation of variables method, focusing on the determination of constants in the context of Bessel functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Laplace equation and boundary conditions, expressing uncertainty about how to determine five constants from only four equations.
  • Another participant argues that a product solution cannot be found and emphasizes the need to use a superposition of separated solutions, noting that the normalization of eigenfunctions is arbitrary.
  • A question is raised about the implications of fixing one constant among the constants A, B, C, and D to fit the boundary conditions.
  • Further clarification is provided that fixing one of the constants in the radial part is common practice, but the choice of which constant to fix can vary.
  • A participant seeks to understand why fixing constants C_m and D_m is more common, indicating a desire for deeper insight into the reasoning behind these choices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for a superposition of solutions and the arbitrary nature of normalization constants, but there is no consensus on the specific choice of which constant to fix or the reasoning behind common practices.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the uncertainty regarding the determination of constants and the implications of boundary conditions on the solution form.

chimay
Messages
81
Reaction score
8
Hi,
I need to solve Laplace equation ##\nabla ^2 \Phi(z,r)=0## in cylindrical coordinates in the domain ##r_1<r<r_2##, ##0<z<L##.
The boundary conditions are:
##
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\Phi(0,r)=V_B \\
&\Phi(L,r)=V_P \\
& -{C^{'}}_{ox} \Phi(x,r_2)=C_0 \frac{\partial \Phi(x,r)}{\partial r}\rvert_{r=r_2} \\
&\frac{\partial \Phi(x,r)}{\partial r}\rvert_{r=r_1}=0 \\
\end{aligned}
\right.
##
By separation of variable I obtain:
##
\Phi_(z,r)=(A e^{-\lambda z} + B e^{+\lambda z})(C J_0(\lambda r) + D Y_0(\lambda r))
##
##J_0## and ##Y_0## being zero order first type and second type Bessel functions.
The constants I have to determine are : ##A, B, C, D## and ##\lambda##; they are ##5## constants, but only ##4## equations are available coming from the behaviour of ##\Phi## at the boundaries of the domain, so I do not know how to proceed.
Is there any mistake in my reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot find a product solution. The reason to do the variable separation is so that you can expand the solution in the eigenfunctions of Bessel's differential operator. The normalisation of your eigenfunctions is arbitrary.

Note that you really only have 4 constants as you can take an overall normalisation in one of the factors and absorb it in the other.
 
Is it the same like saying that I can fit my boundary conditions whatever the value of one constant among A, B, C and D?
 
Note what I said about the variable separation. In order to find the solution you will need a superposition of separated solutions. Your base functions in the radial direction will be composed of the Bessel functions and their normalisation constant will not matter (it will just change the normalisation of the expansion coefficients).
 
I have understood that. The first boundary condition gives:
##
\sum_m (A_m + B_m )(C_m J_0(\lambda_m r) + D_m Y_0(\lambda_m r))= V_B
##
and I can decide, for example, to choose ##A_m=1##; is this correct?
 
It would be more common to fix one of the constants in the radial (SL) part, but in essence yes.
 
Could you tell me why fixing ##C_m## and ##D_m## is more common?
Anyway, thank you for you help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K