Why is the Height of Each Cylinder in a Cone dS and not dH?

In summary: That is the correct way to think of the problem.In summary, the person is trying to find the lateral surface area of a cone by cutting it into infinitesimal disks with heights of dS, where S is the slant height of the cone. This method was also used by someone else on a physics forum, but the person asking the question is confused because they believe the height of the disks should be dH, where H is the height of the cone. However, this is not the case as the lateral sides of the disks are perpendicular to their bases and therefore parallel to the height of the cone, not the slant height. This can be seen by creating a 3-dimensional representation of the cone and the disks.
  • #1
dtseng96
13
0
Hello, I have actually asked a similar question before, but I just realized something and I want to edit the question now:

I am trying to derive the formula for the lateral surface area of a cone by cutting the cone into disks with infinitesimal height, and then adding up the lateral areas of all of the disks/cylinders to find the lateral area of the cone. (Similar to using the volume of revolution, but just taking the surface area). I assumed that the heights of each of the disk was dH, where H = the height of the cone. However, using that method, I got pi*radius*height instead of pi*radius*(slant height).

On another thread in physics forum (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354134) , a person used a similar method as I did, and someone replied saying that the height of each disk is dS, where S = the slant height of the cone, not dH, where H = the height of the cone. This seems to work. However, it doesn't make sense to me, because it seems like the height of each disk should be dH, not dS. I tried to show my argument/confusion in this picture:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29312856/Cone.jpg [Broken]

P.S. I basically used the method shown in another person's video () to find the volume of the cone, and that person assumed that the height of each disk is dH, not dS, and in that case, dH worked. :O

Can anyone tell me why the height of each cylinder is dS, not dH? Or can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Thanks in advance! It's been bothering me for days... :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
dtseng96 said:
Hello, I have actually asked a similar question before, but I just realized something and I want to edit the question now:

I am trying to derive the formula for the lateral surface area of a cone by cutting the cone into disks with infinitesimal height, and then adding up the lateral areas of all of the disks/cylinders to find the lateral area of the cone. (Similar to using the volume of revolution, but just taking the surface area). I assumed that the heights of each of the disk was dH, where H = the height of the cone. However, using that method, I got pi*radius*height instead of pi*radius*(slant height).

On another thread in physics forum (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354134) , a person used a similar method as I did, and someone replied saying that the height of each disk is dS, where S = the slant height of the cone, not dH, where H = the height of the cone. This seems to work. However, it doesn't make sense to me, because it seems like the height of each disk should be dH, not dS. I tried to show my argument/confusion in this picture:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29312856/Cone.jpg [Broken]

P.S. I basically used the method shown in another person's video () to find the volume of the cone, and that person assumed that the height of each disk is dH, not dS, and in that case, dH worked. :O

Can anyone tell me why the height of each cylinder is dS, not dH? Or can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Thanks in advance! It's been bothering me for days... :(



I think you forgot you're actually trying to do some 3-dimensional stuff with a 2-dimensional drawing...:) .

Grab a children-party hat, draw on its courved surface the curved rectangles (which aren't actual rectangles at all, of course)

and then make an actual drawing of a segment of line representing the lateral height, and you'll get convinced

this line is ACTUALLY perpendicular to the "rectangles'" sides and it is thus their height!

DonAntonio
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Hi DonAntonio, thank you for replying! :D

First, to clear things up, my drawing was just a cross-section of a cone to demonstrate what I meant. (Imagine cutting a party hat in half). The rectangles are actually cross-sections of the cylinders :)
Here's a better cross-section of the cone:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29312856/Cone.jpg [Broken]

Now here's the problem: The cylinders' lateral sides are perpendicular to their bases, so the sides are parallel to the height (H) of the cone but not the lateral side (S) of the cone. Also, if the cylinder's height was actually dS, then it would contradict the person's method shown here: , because that person used dH as the cylinders' height when calculating the volume.

So basically, it's a gigantic confusion that I can't get my head around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
dtseng96 said:
Hi DonAntonio, thank you for replying! :D

First, to clear things up, my drawing was just a cross-section of a cone to demonstrate what I meant. (Imagine cutting a party hat in half). The rectangles are actually cross-sections of the cylinders :)
Here's a better cross-section of the cone:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29312856/Cone.jpg [Broken]

Now here's the problem: The cylinders' lateral sides are perpendicular to their bases, so the sides are parallel to the height (H) of the cone but not the lateral side (S) of the cone. Also, if the cylinder's height was actually dS, then it would contradict the person's method shown here: , because that person used dH as the cylinders' height when calculating the volume.

So basically, it's a gigantic confusion that I can't get my head around.




You keep on repeating what I think is your main mistake: drawing a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation, and the mistake:

you DEDUCE stuff from this 2-D picture, and this is wrong...in your cross section you even drew the "rectangles"

as ACTUAL rectangles and this is wrong: what you get are rings around the cone, which if you translate the cone's

height to their side it is NOT even close to be perpendicular to their boundaries!

In short: you're drawing this "circular rectangles" of yours, you're pasting (projecting, in fact) them as actual

rectangles to a plane where also the cone's hieght is drawn, and then you deduce "hey, these guys are

perpendicular to each other!"...wrong!

On the cone, on each ring (your rectangle) around the cone , the LATERAL height is the one which is

perpendicular to each ring's boundary (call it side if you like). Do build a cone and do what I proposed to you last time.

DonAntonio
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
The problem I think is that you wouldn't get the surface area if you used cylinders whose sides aren't parallel to the sides of the shape. For example, consider trying to "square" the perimeter of a circle. For illustration: http://qntm.org/trollpi

The sides of the square are cut into many pieces, and then "steps" are created from it, but you can always combine the steps back into the side of the square. Consider the fourth picture in the link, look at the upper half of the circle. The whole upper side of the square is there, it is just in pieces. So you can jag them all you want, the perimeter is the same and doesn't start approximating a circle.

In the cross section of the cone, considering it as a 2-d object, you can also try to calculate the perimeter of the slice. If you add up the sides of the rectangles, they will always add up to 2H, no matter how small you make them, however you can check using Pythagoras that it should be more. because its twice (for two sides of the slice) the square root of H^2+R^2
 
  • #6
Ok, thank you DonAntonio and chingel! I completely understand it now. I really really really appreciate the time you guys spent to answer my question. It's been bothering me for days, and I finally get it! :D Thanks!
 

What is the formula for finding the surface area of a cone?

The formula for finding the surface area of a cone is A = πr(r + √(h^2 + r^2)), where A is the surface area, r is the radius of the base, and h is the height of the cone.

How do you find the radius of the base of a cone?

The radius of the base of a cone can be found by dividing the diameter of the base by 2. Alternatively, it can also be found by using the Pythagorean theorem, where r = √(h^2 + (A/π)^2), where h is the height of the cone and A is the surface area.

What is the difference between lateral surface area and total surface area of a cone?

The lateral surface area of a cone refers to the surface area of the curved side of the cone, while the total surface area includes the lateral surface area as well as the surface area of the base.

How do you calculate the surface area of a cone with a slant height?

To calculate the surface area of a cone with a slant height, you can use the formula A = πr(l + r), where A is the surface area, r is the radius of the base, and l is the slant height of the cone.

Can the surface area of a cone be negative?

No, the surface area of a cone cannot be negative as it is a measure of the amount of surface covered by the cone and cannot have a negative value.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
991
Replies
7
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
4
Views
913
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top