Flux integral over a parabolic cylinder

In summary, the flux integral for the given vector field over the surface region bounded by ##z = 4-y^2, x=0, x=3## and the x-y plane is 16, taking into account the three separate surfaces and using the correct normal vectors.
  • #1
Forcefedglas
26
0
Homework Statement
Evaluate ##\int\int_S \textbf{F}\cdot\textbf{n} dS ## where ##\textbf{F}=(z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k}## and S is the surface region bounded by ##z = 4-y^2, x=0, x=3## and the x-y plane with ##\textbf{n}## directed outward to S.

The attempt at a solution

I've worked out the correct answer but can't seem to fully understand why that is. I tried splitting up the flux integral into 3 separate surfaces: 1 for the parabola at x=3, another for the parabola at x=0, and lastly a parametric surface between them. At each parabola I just evaluated the flux integral in cartesian coordinates, which were ##\int_{-2}^2 \int_0^{4-y^2}(2y\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k})##, which worked out to be 256/5 and 0, at x=0 and x=3 respectively.

I parameterized the parabolic cylinder as ##\mu\textbf{i}+\lambda\textbf{j}+(4-\lambda^2)\textbf{k}##, so the flux integral for this was ## \int_0^2 \int_0^3(2\lambda\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z^2-x)\textbf{i}-\mu\lambda\textbf{j}+(12-3\lambda^2)\textbf{k})d\mu d\lambda## which works out to be 48, which is the correct answer. This might seem like a dumb question but I've been staring at it for hours and can't understand why the value of the flux integral at the x=0 parabola is ignored. I considered the possibility that it excludes the surfaces at x=0 and x=3 but similarly worded questions did not do this. Any help/tips will be appreciated, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Forcefedglas said:
Homework Statement
Evaluate ##\int\int_S \textbf{F}\cdot\textbf{n} dS ## where ##\textbf{F}=(z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k}## and S is the surface region bounded by ##z = 4-y^2, x=0, x=3## and the x-y plane with ##\textbf{n}## directed outward to S.

The attempt at a solution

I've worked out the correct answer but can't seem to fully understand why that is. I tried splitting up the flux integral into 3 separate surfaces: 1 for the parabola at x=3, another for the parabola at x=0, and lastly a parametric surface between them. At each parabola I just evaluated the flux integral in cartesian coordinates, which were ##\int_{-2}^2 \int_0^{4-y^2}(2y\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z-x^2)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k})##, which worked out to be 256/5 and 0, at x=0 and x=3 respectively.
First, is the x-component of the vector field ##z^2-x## or ##z-x^2##? You used the wrong normal for evaluating the surface integrals on the x=0 and x=3 planes.

I parameterized the parabolic cylinder as ##\int_0^2\int_0^3\mu\textbf{i}+\lambda\textbf{j}+(4-\lambda^2)\textbf{k}##, so the flux integral for this was ##(2\lambda\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z-x^2)\textbf{i}-\mu\lambda\textbf{j}+(12-3\lambda^2)\textbf{k})d\mu d\lambda## which works out to be 48, which is the correct answer. This might seem like a dumb question but I've been staring at it for hours and can't understand why the value of the flux integral at the x=0 parabola is ignored. I considered the possibility that it excludes the surfaces at x=0 and x=3 but similarly worded questions did not do this. Any help/tips will be appreciated, thanks!
There seems to be numerous errors or typos in what you've written here. Could you please clean it up?
 
  • #3
vela said:
First, is the x-component of the vector field ##z^2-x## or ##z-x^2##? You used the wrong normal for evaluating the surface integrals on the x=0 and x=3 planes.There seems to be numerous errors or typos in what you've written here. Could you please clean it up?

I fixed up most of the errors I think (left i component in terms of z and x since it goes to 0 anyway). The x component was supposed to be ##z^2-x##. Would the correct normals in the x=0 and x=3 planes be the unit vector i at x=3 and -i at x=0?
 
  • #4
I think you meant for the limits for ##y## on the last integral to be ##-2## and ##2##. Yes, the normals are ##\pm \hat i##. I get the same result you do integrating over just the curved part of the surface. With the three flat surface included, I get 16 for the total flux.
 
  • #5
vela said:
I think you meant for the limits for ##y## on the last integral to be ##-2## and ##2##. Yes, the normals are ##\pm \hat i##. I get the same result you do integrating over just the curved part of the surface. With the three flat surface included, I get 16 for the total flux.

Guess the given answer must be off then, thanks for clearing that up.
 

1. What is a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder?

A flux integral over a parabolic cylinder is a mathematical calculation that measures the flow of a vector field through a parabolic cylinder. It is commonly used in physics and engineering to calculate the amount of a physical quantity, such as electric or magnetic fields, passing through a specific surface.

2. How is the flux integral over a parabolic cylinder different from a regular flux integral?

The main difference between a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder and a regular flux integral is the shape of the surface used in the calculation. While a regular flux integral uses a flat surface, a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder uses a curved surface, specifically a parabolic cylinder.

3. What is the formula for calculating a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder?

The formula for calculating a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder is: ∫∫S F(x,y,z) • dS = ∫∫D F(x,y,z(x,y)) ∙ (dx dy), where S is the surface of the parabolic cylinder, F is the vector field, and D is the projection of the surface onto the xy-plane.

4. What are some real-world applications of flux integrals over parabolic cylinders?

Flux integrals over parabolic cylinders have various real-world applications, including calculating the flow of air or water through a curved pipe, determining the electric field strength inside a parabolic antenna, and measuring the magnetic field around a solenoid or a cylindrical magnet.

5. What are some methods for solving a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder?

There are several methods for solving a flux integral over a parabolic cylinder, including using the divergence theorem, converting it into a surface integral and using double integrals, and using cylindrical coordinates. The method used may depend on the complexity of the problem and the available information about the vector field and the surface.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
883
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
632
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
893
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
984
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
782
Back
Top