+0  
 
+5
712
9
avatar+1313 

The formula is ... Q=k*(T2-T3)/x. 

Q=0.7*(26-T2)/0.15

Q=0.45*(T2-T3)/0.09

Q=0.7*(T2-4)/0.15.

Transpose to be in matrix form.  It's staring at me in the face (at 3am.) Good night. Hope to solve this for a PBL report by today. 

Please also verify, given the equation above (for Energy conductivity) that R=the thickness of a body engery (Q) conducts through (divided by) the thermal conductivity, aka R=T/k?
Is it easier to use derivative for this (it's still Fouriers law right? Or is it a derived formula/new formula?... I should google this but yeh .. bed time. thanks for the help.

 Jul 31, 2014

Best Answer 

 #3
avatar+33616 
+10

If you take the first and the third equation you have 2 simultaneous equations in the 2 unknowns, Q and T2, so you could solve for them, then insert the values into the middle equation to get T3.  Perhaps that is what your lecturer wants you to do.

 Aug 1, 2014
 #1
avatar+33616 
+10

Fourier's law

Alan Aug 1, 2014
 #2
avatar+1313 
+5

Or really. I thought the lecturer just wanted to resolve using two equations. Though taking the inverse of a 3x2 matrix might not have been posible right? Hope I can transpose it now, knowing what i want to achieve. I wouldn't have known to invole Q and tbh I don't know why but I was just confused about how to transpose it. I think that it is an area for development this weekend to be honest and next week with Maths stupports. Really exceptional and I will do the rest. 

 Aug 1, 2014
 #3
avatar+33616 
+10
Best Answer

If you take the first and the third equation you have 2 simultaneous equations in the 2 unknowns, Q and T2, so you could solve for them, then insert the values into the middle equation to get T3.  Perhaps that is what your lecturer wants you to do.

Alan Aug 1, 2014
 #4
avatar+1313 
+5

You way will be nicest solve. No point dancing around the bush now. Getting to the neatest solution is always more benificial and makes life easier. I meant literally dancing around a bush wasting time going backwards to do that way. Should be bonus marks not less marks if solved with a 3x3 and in one go. lol. 

 Aug 1, 2014
 #5
avatar+1313 
+5

Working on this I solved the determinant from the top for and determinant of the other 2x2. Doing this the scalar in colomn 3 is a 0. What do I do? It makes the whole equation 0 right? Should I have soved with the second column?

 Aug 3, 2014
 #6
avatar+1313 
+5

Can anyone assit me with this. I cannot get the answer Alan posted. It's due in the morning and it's late. Thanks. Please post something to assit me. I have 

Can someone help with the determinant , and solving the inverse. I am not able to solve it correctly which is confusing me as to why. I should be able to.

 Aug 3, 2014
 #7
avatar+128631 
+5

So you want the determinant for this??

0.15    0.7      0

0.09   -0.45   .45

0.15   -0.7      0

 

Recopy the first two columns

0.15    0.7      0       0.15   0.7

0.09   -0.45   0.45   0.09  -0.45

0.15   -0.7      0       0.15  -0.7

Then....just use the "trick" of multiplying and subtracting the diagonals....there are only two multiplications necessary!!......so we have

[0.7 * 0.45 * 0.15] - [-0.7 * 0.45 * .15]  = .0945

I'll look at getting the inverse for you.......if I can!!

(I assume that you cannot just use some CAS to do this with??)

 

 Aug 3, 2014
 #8
avatar+33616 
+5

Stu, if you use the results I provided here: http://web2.0calc.com/questions/inverse-matrices_1 you should be able to calculate the inverse ok.

However, I don't think you should expect better marks for solving it as a 3x3 rather than as a 2x2 plus a substitution.  The latter is easier and I'm a great believer in the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid!  Or in your case, perhaps: Keep ISimple Stu!) 

 Aug 3, 2014
 #9
avatar+128631 
+5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
 Aug 3, 2014

7 Online Users

avatar
avatar
avatar