jeff1evesque
- 312
- 0
Statement:
The definition of the Divergence is given by the following,
\nabla \cdot \vec{V} \equiv lim_{\Delta v \rightarrow 0}(\frac{\int \int _{surface}\vec{V} \cdot \vec{ds}}{\Delta v}),
where v is the unit volume.Relevant questions:
The expression \vec{V} \cdot \vec{ds} on the right side corresponds to the amount of the vector field V diverging in the normal direction of the surface (\vec{ds}). If V is perpendicular in the direction of \vec{ds}, then for the particular surface element of the entire surface, the divergence will have a value zero associated with it. Could someone tell me if my understanding is correct? Also, what if V, and \vec{ds} are not perpendicular, nor parallel with one another (but in-between). How would the definition define that (if my question, makes any sense)?Thanks,Jeffrey
The definition of the Divergence is given by the following,
\nabla \cdot \vec{V} \equiv lim_{\Delta v \rightarrow 0}(\frac{\int \int _{surface}\vec{V} \cdot \vec{ds}}{\Delta v}),
where v is the unit volume.Relevant questions:
The expression \vec{V} \cdot \vec{ds} on the right side corresponds to the amount of the vector field V diverging in the normal direction of the surface (\vec{ds}). If V is perpendicular in the direction of \vec{ds}, then for the particular surface element of the entire surface, the divergence will have a value zero associated with it. Could someone tell me if my understanding is correct? Also, what if V, and \vec{ds} are not perpendicular, nor parallel with one another (but in-between). How would the definition define that (if my question, makes any sense)?Thanks,Jeffrey
Last edited: