Is V = xy the correct potential function for this geometry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter satchmo05
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining if V = xy is the correct potential function for a specified geometry between conducting plates with relative permittivity εr = 3.0. Participants highlight the importance of verifying that the function satisfies Laplace's equation and the relevant boundary conditions. It is confirmed that the Laplacian of V equals zero, which is necessary but not sufficient alone for it to be a valid solution. The boundary conditions V(0,y)=0, V(x,0)=0, V(1,y)=1, and V(x,1)=1 must also be satisfied to conclude that V = xy is the correct potential function. The conversation emphasizes the need for both mathematical verification and physical relevance in potential function solutions.
satchmo05
Messages
108
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Determine whether or not V = xy is the correct potential function for the geometry shown in the figure: http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/446/48401266.jpg for the region 0 < x< 1 and 0 < y < 1. Why or why not? Assume that the region between the conducting plates has a relative permittivity of εr = 3.0.

Image for problem shown at this URL: http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/446/48401266.jpg

Homework Equations


There are multiple equations for the potential function V. I do not know which one to use/how to use it.


The Attempt at a Solution


Don't really know to get started on this one. I would appreciate any help that you can provide. I just need to know how to get started. Thanks for the help!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You're testing whether or not the trial function obeys laplace's equation with the correct boundary conditions.
 
Ah, that makes sense Mindscape. Thank you. Ok, so I have determined that del^2(V) does in fact equal 0. What does this tell me? Is it the correct potential function? By the uniqueness principle, can I conclude that V=xy is the only potential function for this design, given the boundary conditions?
 
You also need to check the boundary conditions for V(x,y):

V(0,y)=0
V(x,0)=0
V(1,y)=1
V(x,1)=1
 
I thought there were 2 criteria though for determining whether or not a given potential function is the solution the DiffEQ. I have already determined that the Laplacian holds true, what is the other?
 
Well, if you're going to guess a solution, you'd better make sure that it satisfies the PDE to start with, and secondly that it satisfies the actual physical conditions when all is said and done.

V(x,y)=5x+7y

is that a solution? Why or why not?

Do you know how to find the solution from scratch if you had to? Maybe that would help you understand a little better.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top