Laplace Equation Solved by Method of Separation of Variables

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the Laplace equation using the method of separation of variables. There is confusion regarding the coefficients c5 and c10 in the assumed solution form, particularly when lambda equals zero, leading to the realization that both X(x) and Y(y) must be non-zero for a term to exist outside the series. A boundary condition is clarified, confirming that it should refer to the same function u on both sides, leading to the expression Y'(0)X(x) = Y(0)X(x). The eigenvalues are identified as λ_n = nπ, and the correct forms for the eigenfunctions are provided: Y_n(y) = nπcosh(nπy) + sinh(nπy) and X_n(x) = sin(nπx). The potential solution is then expressed as a Fourier series, setting the stage for further analysis of the boundary conditions.
6Stang7
Messages
212
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



pmXkv.png


Homework Equations


Assume the solution has a form of:
ODihc.png


The Attempt at a Solution



QMLWO.png

e7sHy.png

v6mvs.png

rCLzC.png


It looks like a sine Fourier series except for the 2c5 term outside of the series, so I'm not sure how to go about solving for the coefficients c5 and c10. Any idea?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When lambda is zero, X(x) is identically zero, which means X(x)Y(y) is also zero. So there must be nothing in front of the series.
 
voko said:
When lambda is zero, X(x) is identically zero, which means X(x)Y(y) is also zero. So there must be nothing in front of the series.

Ahhh, so for there to be a term outside the sum due to lambda=0, you must have non-zero values for both X(x) AND Y(y)? Makes sense! :D
 
I am puzzled by the boundary condition$$
\left. \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right |_{y=0} = u(x,0)$$Is that supposed to be the same ##u## on both sides? Or is it just another way to say something like$$
u_y(x,0) = f(x)$$some arbitrary function ##f##?
 
LCKurtz said:
I am puzzled by the boundary condition$$
\left. \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right |_{y=0} = u(x,0)$$Is that supposed to be the same ##u## on both sides? Or is it just another way to say something like$$
u_y(x,0) = f(x)$$some arbitrary function ##f##?

It is suppose to be u on both sides; that boundary condition is stating: Y'(0)X(x)=Y(0)X(x) since it was assumed the solution to u(x,y) had the form of X(x)Y(y).
 
OK. With that clarification for me, I would just comment about the last three lines. You already know you should have no eigenfunction for ##\lambda = 0##. Your eigenvalues are ##\lambda_n = n\pi##. Your third line from the bottom should read for the eigenfunctions ##Y_n##$$
Y_n(y) = n\pi\cosh(n\pi y)+\sinh(n\pi y)$$You don't need a constant multiple in front of them and there shouldn't be an ##x## in front of the ##\cosh## term. Similarly your eigenfunctions for ##X## are$$
X_n(x) = \sin(n\pi x)$$ Then you write your potential solution as$$
u(x,y) =\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_nX_n(x)Y_n(y)=
\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n\sin(n\pi x)(n\pi\cosh(n\pi y)+\sinh(n\pi y))$$Now you are ready for the Fourier Series solution to the last boundary condition.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K