Alternative to solids of rotation?

In summary, the conversation discusses different methods for finding the solid of rotation of a function around the x-axis and compares the traditional method of using an integral with a simpler method of finding the average value of the function over the interval and rotating a line segment. The example problem of y=x^2 over the interval [-2,2] is used to demonstrate the difference in results between the two methods, with the traditional method yielding 64pi / 5 and the simpler method yielding 64pi / 9. The conversation also references the Theorem of Pappus, which may explain the discrepancy in results.
  • #1
jld592
4
0
So I was doing my calc homework when I stumbled upon this thought:

lets say you were trying to find the solid of rotation of y=x^2 around the x-axis over the interval [-2,2].

the traditional method would entail pi * integral from -2 to 2 of (x^2)^2 dx
while this is easier for a simple graph, squaring the integrand would make a complex integral much more complex to do by hand.

Wouldn't it be simpler to find the average value of the function over the interval and rotate the line segment y = average value over the interval around the x-axis creating a cylinder.

So for the example problem this would be the cylinder created by rotating the line segment y = 4/3 where -2<x<2 around the x axis.

However I tried this and found that the traditional method yielded 64pi / 5 while my method yielded 64pi / 9. I think this has something to do with the fact that you would have to average the areas of the circles, but my brain still tells me that my method should work
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Related to Alternative to solids of rotation?

What is an alternative to solids of rotation?

An alternative to solids of rotation is a shell method, which involves integrating along the axis of rotation instead of perpendicular to it.

How does the shell method differ from solids of rotation?

The shell method involves slicing the solid into cylindrical shells and integrating their volumes, while solids of rotation involve slicing the solid into discs and integrating their areas.

When should the shell method be used instead of solids of rotation?

The shell method should be used when the axis of rotation is easier to integrate along, or when the shape of the solid is better suited for cylindrical shells rather than discs.

What are the advantages of using the shell method?

The shell method can sometimes simplify the integration process and provide a more accurate or efficient solution compared to solids of rotation.

Are there any limitations to using the shell method?

The shell method is limited to solids that can be represented by cylindrical shells, so it may not be applicable in all situations.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top