Solving laplaces equation in a 90deg annulus

  • Thread starter Thread starter EngageEngage
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving Laplace's equation in a 90-degree circular annulus defined by the conditions \( a < r < b \) and \( 0 < \theta < \frac{\pi}{2} \). The original poster presents their approach to separating variables and expresses confusion regarding the form of the general solution for the radial component.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to separate variables to solve Laplace's equation and questions the reasoning behind a specific transformation in the argument of the logarithm in the general solution. Other participants discuss the implications of this transformation and its effect on boundary conditions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring the reasoning behind the transformation of the logarithmic argument. Some guidance has been provided regarding the simplification of boundary values, and there is an acknowledgment of how this affects the coefficients in the final solution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of boundary conditions and the specific range of \( r \) in the context of the problem. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity in the transformation of variables and its implications for the solution.

EngageEngage
Messages
203
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Solve laplaces equation inside a 90 degree circular annulus(a<r<b, 0<theta<pi/2) subject to the boundary conditions:
[tex]u(r,0)=0[/tex]
[tex]u(r,\pi/2)=f(r)[/tex]
[tex]u(a,\theta)=0[/tex]
[tex]u(b,\theta)=0[/tex]

Laplaces Equation in 2 dimensions:
[tex] r \left( {\frac {\partial }{\partial r}}u \left( r,\theta \right) +r{<br /> \frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {r}^{2}}}u \left( r,\theta \right) <br /> \right) =-{\frac {\partial ^{2}}{\partial {\theta}^{2}}}u \left( r,<br /> \theta \right) [/tex]
[tex]u(r,\theata) = \phi(\theta)*G(r)[/tex]
doing the usual method for sep of vars, i sub this and divide to get a separated expression:

[tex] {\frac {r \left( {\frac {d}{dr}}G \left( r \right) +r{\frac {d^{2}}{d{<br /> r}^{2}}}G \left( r \right) \right) }{G \left( r \right) }}=-{\frac {{<br /> \frac {d^{2}}{d{\theta}^{2}}}\phi \left( \theta \right) }{\phi \left( <br /> \theta \right) }}[/tex]
I then set both sides equal to [tex]-\lambda[/tex]:
[tex] r \left( {\frac {d}{dr}}G \left( r \right) +r{\frac {d^{2}}{d{r}^{2}}}<br /> G \left( r \right) \right) +G \left( r \right) \lambda=0[/tex]
[tex] {\frac {d^{2}}{d{\theta}^{2}}}\phi \left( \theta \right) =\phi \left( <br /> \theta \right) \lambda[/tex]

I use Cauchy-Euler method to solve the first ODE:
[tex]G = r^{p}[/tex]
subbing this into the differential equation i get:
[tex] p(p-1)+p+\lambda=0<br /> p = \pm i \sqrt{\lambda}[/tex]
[tex] G = r^{\pm i \sqrt{\lambda}}=e^{\pm i \sqrt{\lambda}*ln(r)}[/tex]
this allows me to write (unfortunately incorrectly) the general solution the the first problem:
[tex] G = c_{1}cos(\sqrt{\lambda}*ln(r))+c_{2}sin(\sqrt{\lambda}*ln(r))[/tex]
I am stuck here -- the book says the general solution of this part should be:
[tex] G = c_{1}cos(\sqrt{\lambda}*ln(\frac{r}{a}))+c_{2}sin(\sqrt{\lambda}*ln(\frac{r}{a}))[/tex]
I'm not sure how they got to this (the argument of ln has changed). It makes sense, of course because the solution works but how they got there is unclear to me. If someone could please help me get past this barrier i would appeciate it greatly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I actually read the back of the book again and found something weird:

They say that the real solutions are the ones that i got but then they say:
"it is more convenient to use independent solutions which simplify at r = a, cos(root(lambda)ln(r/a)) and sin with the same argument."...

i can see why this would simplify the problem a great deal, but what allows them to do this?
 
r ranges between a and b. You can simplify finding boundary values at a by using ln(r/a) (which is 0 at r= a) instead of ln(r). You can do this because ln(r/a)= ln(r)- ln(a) and sin(ln(r)-ln(a))= cos(ln(a))sin(ln(r)- sin(ln(a))cos(ln(r)) while cos(ln(r)- ln(a))= cos(ln(a))cos(ln(r))+ sin(ln(a))sin(ln(r)) so that changing from ln(r) to ln(r/a) only changes the constants multiplying sin(ln(r)) and cos(ln(r)).
 
Ahh, I hadn't realized that. So this will only change my coefficients at the end of the problem? Thanks a lot for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K