Find the upward flux of the inverse square field F ( r ) = π 1 ∣ ∣ r ∣ ∣ 3 r through the triangle T with its vertices at ( 2 , 0 , 0 ) , ( 0 , 3 , 0 ) , and ( 0 , 0 , 5 ) .
(from a recent quiz on calculus)
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Yes, this is the short (and elegant) version of my solution. Thank you! The solid angle is exactly the area of the radial projection onto the unit sphere, of course.
Log in to reply
I realized that it is not very different from yours, but I wanted to write it up because I was so happy that I found the shortcut (instead of doing a nasty surface integral).
Let W be the solid region in the first octant bounded by the triangle T and the portion S of the sphere x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = 1 in the first octant. Since ∇ ⋅ F = 0 , the flux of F out of W is 0, by Ostrogradsky's theorem. Since the flux of F through the coordinate planes is 0, this implies that ∫ T F ⋅ d S = ∫ S F ⋅ d S , both oriented upward. But ∫ S F ⋅ d S = ∫ S π 1 d S = π 1 ( area of S ) = 8 π 4 π = 0 . 5 .
Sir, i found the right answer by converting the triangle equation into spherical coordinates(from cartesian). After i got rho as a function of phi and theta, turns out that rho terms were cancelled anyway. That leaves me with the integration of sin(theta) dtheta dphi both from 0 to pi/2 times1/pi as a constant from the radial vector funtion. The final answer is yes, 1/2, by this method.
However, i am confused by how it turns out. Does my method happen to cancel its own mistakes? Or does it mean that total flux is independent of triangle area(and its distance from origin)?
Thanks in advance, im sorry for terrible english and inability to write in latex as im on phone.
Log in to reply
You can certainly do the problem this way, but expressing ρ as a function of θ and ϕ leads to a rather complicated expression. I don't quite understand at which point in your computations the ρ terms were "cancelling away."
Log in to reply
to my understanding, doesn't the inverse square get cancelled when it is multiplied by infinitesimal area of the triangle(rho squared sin(theta) dtheta dphi)?
Log in to reply
@Dwi Harits – Yes exactly! So, if you know that, you probably don't want to go through the tedious exercise of expressing ρ as a function of θ and ϕ in the first place, only to see it cancel out later (see the three given solutions).
For 0 < ε < 1 , let V ε be the volume bounded by the triangle T defined by the three vertices of the question, the planes x = 0 , y = 0 and z = 0 , and the sphere x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = ε 2 , and let S ε be the octant of that sphere for x , y , z ≥ 0 . Note that F = − ∇ ϕ , where ϕ ( r ) = π r 1 is harmonic away from the origin. The upward-pointing normal for T is then the outward-pointing normal for T as a part of V ε . Equip S ε with the radially-outward-pointing normal.
Since F points radially at all times, F ⋅ d S = 0 on any of the planes x = 0 , y = 0 or z = 0 , and we see that ∬ T F ⋅ d S − ∬ S ε F ⋅ d S = ∭ V ε ∇ ⋅ F d V = − ∭ V ε ∇ 2 ϕ d V = 0 and hence (as usual, Ω represents solid angle) ∬ T F ⋅ d S = ∬ S ε F ⋅ d S = ∬ S ε π ε 2 1 d S = π 1 ∬ S ε d Ω = 2 1
Yes, that's about what I had in mind! Thank you! I will post the same solution in a more plain (simple-minded?) language ;)
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The triangle covers exactly 1/8th of the full solid angle (everything for x ≥ 0 , y ≥ 0 , z ≥ 0 , but nothing elsewhere). For the inverse square field we are dealing with here the flux only depends on the solid angle, and its value is ϕ = Ω F 0 , where F 0 = 1 / π is the field strength at unit distance. In our case Ω = 4 π / 8 = π / 2 the flux is ϕ = Ω F 0 = 1 / 2