MHB Proving Steady State Temperature Distribution in a Disk

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
Prove that the steady state temperature in a disk is never higher than the highest temperature on the boundary.
Prove that for a steady state temperature distribution in a disk, the coldest spot is on the boundary, unless the temperature is constant throughout the disk.
How is this part suppose to help? I don't see it.
$$
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}P(r,\theta)d\theta = 1
$$
Recall from calculus that
$$
m(b - a)\leq\int_a^bf(x)dx\leq M(b - a)
$$
where $M$ and $m$ are the maximum and minimum, respectively on the interval $[a,b]$.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's apply this to our disk. Let $M$ be the highest temperature on the boundary and $m$ be the lowest temperature on the boundary. Applying the above theorem, we get$$m(\pi - (-\pi)) \leq \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}P(r,\theta)d\theta \leq M(\pi - (-\pi))$$Since the integral of any function is equal to 1, we can conclude that $$m \leq 1 \leq M$$Therefore, the maximum temperature is $M$, which is the highest temperature on the boundary, and the steady state temperature in a disk is never higher than the highest temperature on the boundary.To prove that for a steady state temperature distribution in a disk, the coldest spot is on the boundary, unless the temperature is constant throughout the disk, we can use the same proof as above. Since the integral of any function is equal to 1, if the temperature was constant throughout the disk, then the maximum and minimum would be equal, and they would both be equal to 1. However, since the temperature on the boundary is not constant, we can assume that the maximum temperature on the boundary is greater than the minimum temperature on the boundary. Thus, the maximum temperature in the disk is the maximum temperature on the boundary, which is the coldest spot, and the temperature in the disk is never colder than the temperature on the boundary.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
12K