Vector potential in a coaxial cable

koroljov
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have to find the magnetic vector potential in a round coaxial cable. The internal conductor has a finite (known) conductivity. The external conductor is a perfect electrical conductor. Both the radius of the internal and the external conductors are known.

I have to assume that everything happens in sinusoidal regime, hence the use of phasors.

Furthermore, the current and the vector potential have only a component along the z-axis. I have to use the Coulomb gauge, and magneto-quasi-static approximations.

First of all, I had to show that the z-component of the vector potential, Az, obeys a certain differential equation in the inner conductor. (see "relevant equations" below). That was no problem. I had to solve this equation which was no problem either. To find the actual solution, I needed two boundary conditions. This too was no problem.

The actual problem is that I have to find a third boundary condition to find E0.

Homework Equations


The differential equation:

Laplacian(Az) - j*omega*mu0*sigma*Az = -mu0*sigma*E0

with E0 a constant, and j the imaginary unit. E0=dV/dz,the derivative of the scalar potential (this can be shown to be constant easily using the restrictions on the components of the E and A vectors, and the law of Faraday).

The solution of this equation:
Az(r) = BesselJ(0,(-mu0*sigma*omega*j)^(1/2)*r)*c-1/omega*E0*j

where c is a constant that can be determined from the boundary conditions. Another bessel function was thrown away because it has a singularity at r=0.

The boundary conditions:
-The B-field must be 0 for r=0 (no extra infrmation follows from this)
-the B-field must be equal to mu0*I_totaal/(2*Pi*a) at r=a
where I_totaal is the total current, and a is the radius of the inner conductor.

The Attempt at a Solution


Knowing all this, I can solve the differential equation completely. It is surprising that nor the E-field, nor the B-field depend on E0. Look:
Ez = -dAz/dt + E0
thus
Ez = -j*omega*Az + E0
Ez = -j*omega*Az + E0
Ez = -j*omega*(something -1/omega*E0*j) + E0
Ez = -j*omega*something -E0 + E0
Ez = -j*omega*something
where "something" does not depend on E0.

For the B-field, I have to take the curl of A, which implies taking spatial derivatives. E0 will disappear, since it is independent of position.

Yet I still have to find a "third condition" to determine E0. I think that, since there are no free charges anywhere in the problem, and in the magneto-quasi-static approximation one ignores the slight charge buildups that could be associated with electrical waves in a conductor, the scalar potential V has to be constant (independent of position), and hence, that E0 has to be zero. Unfortunately, this sounds slightly too easy to be true. Am I overlooking something?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I found the answer. Thanks anyway.
 
Can you share your solution to this problem with us?
I need to solve a very simular problem.

Thanks in advance.
 
koroljov said:

Homework Statement


I have to find the magnetic vector potential in a round coaxial cable. The internal conductor has a finite (known) conductivity. The external conductor is a perfect electrical conductor. Both the radius of the internal and the external conductors are known.

Do you study Burgerlijk Ingenieur in the Ugent ?

"Indien ja, is dit het project van DeVisschere"

:wink:

marlon
 
marlon said:
Do you study Burgerlijk Ingenieur in the Ugent ?

"Indien ja, is dit het project van DeVisschere"

:wink:

marlon

Yep, heeft hij dit mss ooit al eens gevraagd? Ik vond het nogal raar om exact onze opgave terug te vinden op internet.
 
Hmmm. The solution, which is well-known by now, so it doesn't matter anymore anyway, is to demand that the vector potential becomes zero at r=infinity. (hence it becomes zero at r=b). There are other possibilites that will yield the correct solution too.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top