Solve Unperturbed Field on Rectangle w/ Small Disk

Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
9,621
Reaction score
9

Homework Statement


The overall question is to construct an asymptotic approximation for a harmonic field on a rectangle with a small disk. However, I'm having difficulty finding the unperturbed field. Perhaps I've been staring at it for too long, but I can't seem to find a solution.

The unperturbed field satisfies the following Neumann problem:

\Delta u =0 \;\;\;\;\;\;\text{in}\;\;\;\;\;\;\Omega = \left\{\left(x_1,x_2\right)\; : \; \left|x_1\right| < 2 \;,\; \left|x_2\right| < 1 \right\}\;,

\left.\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_2}\right|_{x_1=\pm2} = 1 \;,

\left.\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_1}\right|_{x_2=\pm1} = 2 \;,​

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


The usual method to solving such problems is to make an educated guess, however, I'm having some problems guessing the solution. Clearly u(x) = Const. is not a solution. My first thought was that u(x) must either be a linear combination of x1 and x2, or a linear combination of x1.x2. However, as far as I can see, none of these functions can satisfy either the top and bottom or left and right boundary conditions simultaneously.

A nudge towards the correct 'guess', or any other help would be very much appreciated.

Edit: I just thought that I'd add that a solution does exist since the existence condition is clearly satisfied,

\oint_{\partial\Omega}\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}dS = 0
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
u(x1,x2)=2*x1+x2?? Am I missing something?
 
Dick said:
u(x1,x2)=2*x1+x2?? Am I missing something?
Gahh! I knew that it was going to be simple and I was just being dense!

#Bangs head against desk#

Many thanks Dick!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top