Multivariable temperature variation while swimming in a hot spring

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the temperature variation in a multivariable context while swimming in a hot spring, specifically focusing on the gradient of temperature based on a given temperature function influenced by two heat sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the gradient of the temperature function and question the accuracy of the formula provided for temperature. There are varying results for the gradient at the point (20, 20), leading to discussions about potential errors in calculations and assumptions regarding the formula.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing with participants sharing their calculations and questioning the correctness of the temperature formula. Some have expressed uncertainty about their results, while others have confirmed similar values, indicating a collaborative effort to verify calculations without reaching a consensus on the correctness of the initial gradient values.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules, which may limit the information available for deriving the temperature function. There are also discussions about the precision of calculations and the implications of rounding errors on the final results.

Poetria
Messages
267
Reaction score
42
Homework Statement
You are swimming along the surface of a large natural hot water spring. The temperature is hottest near the geothermal heat sources, and cools off inversely proportional to the distance from the heat source as you move away. The hot spring you have found has two heat sources. One is located below x=0, y =0, the other is located x=-10, y=20

Approximation of the temperature:

##T(x,y) = \frac {450} {\sqrt{x^2+y^2+1}}+\frac {420} {\sqrt{(x+10)^2+(y-20)^2+1}}##

You enter the pool at the edge x=20, y=20, where the temperature is 30 degrees Celsius.

What is the gradient of the temperature?
Relevant Equations
$$\nabla (\frac {450} {\sqrt{x^2+y^2+1}}+\frac {420} {\sqrt{x+10)^2+(y-20)^2+1}})$$
I have computed
##T_x## and ##T_y## and evaluated it at the point (20, 20).

## \frac {-450*x}{x^2 + y^2 + 1)^(\frac {3} {2}} - \frac {420*(x + 10)} {(x + 10)^2 + (y - 20)^2 + 1)^(\frac {3} {2}}, \frac {-450*y}{x^2 + y^2 + 1)^(\frac {3} {2}} - \frac {420*(y - 20)} {(x + 10)^2 + (y - 20)^2 + 1)^(\frac {3} {2}}##

I got [-0.8628, -0.3970]. But it is not correct.
So the answer to the next question: At what rate does the temperature rise per unit distance in that direction?
is not correct:

-2.1732 degrees per meter
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Poetria said:
Homework Statement:: You are swimming along the surface of a large natural hot water spring. The temperature is hottest near the geothermal heat sources, and cools off inversely proportional to the distance from the heat source as you move away. The hot spring you have found has two heat sources. One is located below x=0, y =0, the other is located x=-10, y=20

Approximation of the temperature:

##T(x,y) = \frac {450} {\sqrt{x^2+y^2+1}}+\frac {420} {\sqrt{(x+10)^2+(y-20)^2+1}}##

You enter the pool at the edge x=20, y=20, where the temperature is 30 degrees Celsius.

What is the gradient of the temperature?

I don't think the formula for T is correct. Was that given in the question, or did you have to derive it yourself?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
pasmith said:
I don't think the formula for T is correct. Was that given in the question, or did you have to derive it yourself?
This formula was given. I have checked it once more. What's wrong with this equation?
 
I get the same formula for the gradient, but a different value at (20,20). I get (-0.3745, 0.749). Can you check that calculation? I am not completely confident in my calculations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
Of course. Still the same:
-0.862892919050474097014734857686704644880586505653053268225642320
-0.397002951313243437752836778926172651474292918967096802620165023

Perhaps there is a mistake in my formula you haven't noticed. Weird anyway.
 
Poetria said:
Of course. Still the same:
-0.862892919050474097014734857686704644880586505653053268225642320
-0.397002951313243437752836778926172651474292918967096802620165023

Perhaps there is a mistake in my formula you haven't noticed. Weird anyway.
I rechecked my calculations and got the same answers you got. (I made reasonable assumptions about some missing parenthesis in the gradient in your post #1.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
FactChecker said:
I rechecked my calculations and got the same answers you got. (I made reasonable assumptions about some missing parenthesis in the gradient in your post #1.)
Thank you very much. :) I need more practice with Latex.

I can't understand why it's marked as wrong. :(
 
Thank you very much.
I have decided to continue with the next part of this exercise and it turned out that the value -0.862892919050474097014734857686704644880586505653053268225642320
should be rounded -0.8629 while I have given -0.8628.

And of course the result: -2.1732 degrees per meter is not correct.
It's the gradient's length as the slope of a tangent plane: 0.9498.

Thanks once more for your patience. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Poetria said:
Thank you very much.
I have decided to continue with the next part of this exercise and it turned out that the value -0.862892919050474097014734857686704644880586505653053268225642320
should be rounded -0.8629 while I have given -0.8628.

And of course the result: -2.1732 degrees per meter is not correct.
It's the gradient's length as the slope of a tangent plane: 0.9498.

Thanks once more for your patience. :)
Yes. I think that your initial value had a little more precision than required. ;-)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Steve4Physics, Poetria and Delta2
  • #10
Poetria said:
Thank you very much.
I have decided to continue with the next part of this exercise and it turned out that the value -0.862892919050474097014734857686704644880586505653053268225642320
should be rounded -0.8629 while I have given -0.8628.

And of course the result: -2.1732 degrees per meter is not correct.
It's the gradient's length as the slope of a tangent plane: 0.9498.

Thanks once more for your patience. :)
I'm curious about what tools you used to do your calculations to that precision.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
  • #11
I agree with the vector ##(-0.8628,-0.3970)## for gradient, I calculated it using wolfram.
However the answer to the second question is simply the magnitude of the gradient vector. I don't understand how you calculated -2.1732 degrees per met.
 
  • #12
FactChecker said:
I'm curious about what tools you used to do your calculations to that precision.
I have used Wolfram Alpha.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K