Potential between two parallel planes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the potential between two parallel planes defined by specific boundary conditions. The user is confused about the published solution, which involves expanding the sine function in terms of cosine series and applying Laplace's equation. It is clarified that the expansion is necessary due to the symmetry of the boundary conditions, and each term in the series must satisfy Laplace's equation independently. The last equation presented relates to the conditions for the coefficients in the expansion, ensuring they adhere to the governing differential equation. Understanding these concepts is crucial for solving the problem effectively.
noamriemer
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hello ! I have an exam this Wednesday... your help will be appreciated...

There are two types of questions I can't figure out how to answer...
the first is this one:

Find the potential between two parallel planes. The first is in x=0, the second in x=L.
\Phi(x=L)=\Phi_0 |sin(ky)|
and
\Phi (x=0)=0

What I thought I should do is look for a solution of the sort:

X(x)=Ae^{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}}+Be^{-\sqrt{k^2+l^2}}
Y(y)=Csin(ky)+Dcos(ky)
Z(z)=Esin(lz)+Fcos(lz)

Then, I should start checking which of the terms should vanish.

But when I looked at the published solution, it was completely different:

|sin ky|=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{A_ncos(2kny)}<br />

\rightarrow |sin(ky)|=\frac{2}{\pi}+\sum{\frac{4}{\pi(1-4n^2)}}cos(2kny)

So now we seek a solution for Laplas eq. this way:

\Phi(x,y)=C_0x+\sum_{n=1}^\infty{C_n(x)cos(2kny)}
and:
\frac{d^2}{dx^2}C_n =(2kn)^2C_n

I don't understand this solution at all.
Why should one expand this function, |sin(ky)| ?
and what is the last equation:
\frac{d^2}{dx^2}C_n =(2kn)^2C_n

Thank you so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
noamriemer said:
Hello ! I have an exam this Wednesday... your help will be appreciated...

There are two types of questions I can't figure out how to answer...
the first is this one:

Find the potential between two parallel planes. The first is in x=0, the second in x=L.
\Phi(x=L)=\Phi_0 |sin(ky)|
and
\Phi (x=0)=0

What I thought I should do is look for a solution of the sort:

X(x)=Ae^{\sqrt{k^2+l^2}}+Be^{-\sqrt{k^2+l^2}}
Y(y)=Csin(ky)+Dcos(ky)
Z(z)=Esin(lz)+Fcos(lz)

Then, I should start checking which of the terms should vanish.
That isn't the most general solution to Laplace's equation (which with your factorization reverts to: X^{&#039;&#039;}/X + Y^{&#039;&#039;}/Y + Z^{&#039;&#039;}/Z = 0:
X&#039;&#039; = aX, Y&#039;&#039;=bY, Z&#039;&#039;=cZ, a+b+c=0.
Your set of solutions doesn't cover the case where say a=0, b+c=0. You can try to enumerate every combination of cases but it is better to start with your boundary conditions for some guidance. You see that Y(y)[/tex] is going to be non-trivial and start there.<br /> <br /> It looks like the published solution simply expresses the expansion of Y solutions using coefficients which are functions of the other independent variable(s) and re-applies the Laplace equation.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> But when I looked at the published solution, it was completely different: <br /> <br /> |sin ky|=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{A_ncos(2kny)}&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> \rightarrow |sin(ky)|=\frac{2}{\pi}+\sum{\frac{4}{\pi(1-4n^2)}}cos(2kny)<br /> <br /> So now we seek a solution for Laplas eq. this way:<br /> <br /> \Phi(x,y)=C_0x+\sum_{n=1}^\infty{C_n(x)cos(2kny)}<br /> and:<br /> \frac{d^2}{dx^2}C_n =(2kn)^2C_n<br /> <br /> I don&#039;t understand this solution at all. <br /> Why should one expand this function, |sin(ky)| ?<br /> and what is the last equation: <br /> \frac{d^2}{dx^2}C_n =(2kn)^2C_n<br /> <br /> Thank you so much! </div> </div> </blockquote>Firstly since the boundary conditions and original equation are symmetric under z translation the solution is independent of z.<br /> <br /> The text is expanding solutions of Y^{&amp;#039;&amp;#039;}=bY in terms of the cosine expansion of the boundary condition (using the fact that it is an even function of y and independent of z). (One might also have tried a hyperbolic cosine expansion if the boundary condition where even and asymptotically exponential. Cosh is the even component of exp.)<br /> <br /> By the linearity of Lap.Eqn. Each term in the expansion \Phi(x,y) = C_0(x) + C_1(x)\cos(2ky) + \cdots, must independently satisfy Laplace&#039;s eqn.<br /> <br /> You get that last equation for all terms even the first term where n=0 which is the exceptional case I mentioned above.<br /> <br /> Matching your attempt:<br /> \Phi(x,y) = \sum_{some\,a,b} X_a(x)Y_b(y),\quad a+b=0[/tex]&lt;br /&gt; =\sum_n C_n(x)\cos(2kny)&lt;br /&gt; with b = -(2kn)^2 and so a = (2kn)^2.
 
Thank you for the detailed answer!
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top