Finite element solving of Laplace's equation doesn't converge

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around difficulties in numerically solving Laplace's equation for a charged sphere using COMSOL's finite element method. The user has applied Neumann boundary conditions on the sphere's surface and a flux=0 condition on the surrounding box but is facing convergence issues. Attempts to switch to Dirichlet conditions did not resolve the problem, leading to speculation about potential basic errors in the setup. A suggestion was made regarding the compatibility of boundary conditions, particularly if non-homogeneous Neumann conditions are being used, which could conflict with the equation being solved. The conversation emphasizes the importance of ensuring that boundary conditions align with the differential equation to achieve convergence.
crum
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm trying to solve Laplace's equation numerically in 3d for a charged sphere in a big box. I'm using Comsol, which solves using the finite elements method. I used neumann BC on the surface of the sphere, and flux=0 BC on the box in which I have the sphere. The result does not converge.

Homework Equations


Laplace's equation \[\nabla^2 \phi=0\]

The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried using derichlet BC instead of neumann, and a fixed potential at the box (instead of flux=0), but the result still doesn't converge. Convergance errors usually appears when the mesh is not fine enough or I'm missing a boundary condition, but I don't see how using neumann at the surface and flux=0 at the box wouldn't be enough boundary conditions. I have used the same BCs using the Poisson-Boltzman eq and it worked fine there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is it being solved iteratively?
 
Chestermiller said:
Is it being solved iteratively?
Yes, that's how COMSOL works.

@crum: can you give more details about how you are setting up the problem in COMSOL?
 
DrClaude said:
Yes, that's how COMSOL works.

@crum: can you give more details about how you are setting up the problem in COMSOL?
I make a small sphere inside of a big simulation box (100times the size of the sphere). I set the laplace to hold inside of the simulation box and inside the sphere. I set neumann conditions on the surface of the sphere, and flux=0 BC on the edge of the box. I don't know what other info i could give you.

I tried making a small-scale 1d model and it still didn't work, so I'm guessing it has to do with some more basic error. I set Laplace's equation to hold on an interval, with neumann BC on one side of the interval, and flux=0 BC on the other side. The result still didn't converge.
 
crum said:
I set neumann conditions on the surface of the sphere, and flux=0 BC on the edge of the box. I don't know what other info i could give you.
When you say you set Neumann conditions on the surface of the sphere, are you implying that you have non-homogenous Neumann conditions? If so, this would imply a non-zero flux into (or out of) your volume and no sources inside the volume. Thus, your boundary conditions would be incompatible with your differential equation.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top