Calculating the surface area of a solid of rotation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating the surface area of the solid formed by rotating the curve defined by the equation x^(3/2) + y^(3/2) = 1 around the x-axis. Participants discuss rewriting the equation as a function of y(x) and using integration to find the area, specifically using the formula S = 2π∫(1-x^(3/2))^(2/3)√(1+(f'x)^2)dx from 0 to 1. The conversation reveals confusion regarding the correct integral setup and the potential for numerical solutions, with some participants suggesting that the problem may not be solvable in a conventional manner.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically integration techniques.
  • Familiarity with the concept of solids of revolution.
  • Knowledge of parametric equations and their applications.
  • Experience with numerical methods for solving integrals.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of calculating surface area of solids of revolution using the formula S = 2π∫f(x)√(1+(f'x)^2)dx.
  • Learn about parameter substitution techniques in integration.
  • Explore numerical integration methods, such as Simpson's Rule or the Trapezoidal Rule.
  • Investigate the use of software tools like Wolfram Alpha for solving complex integrals.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for first-semester calculus students, educators in mathematics, and anyone interested in the practical application of integration techniques to solve problems involving solids of revolution.

  • #31
NascentOxygen said:
W-alpha says the answer is a little over 4¼
Funny. I see 5.5 (also when I do it in Excel) ? And Wolfram gives no clue of anything analytic.

I sympathize with Wi_N -- this thing looks, and is, horrible. Perhaps we are overlooking something, as @Wi_N suspects in #21, but I for sure don't see it. All I can think of is the numerical solution, but that's not appropriate for calc 101. So my best guess is teacher (or the exercise composer) made a mistake somewhere.
Let us know how this goes !

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wi_N
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
BvU said:
Funny. I see 5.5 (also when I do it in Excel) ? And Wolfram gives no clue of anything analytic.

I sympathize with Wi_N -- this thing looks, and is, horrible. Perhaps we are overlooking something, as @Wi_N suspects in #21, but I for sure don't see it. All I can think of is the numerical solution, but that's not appropriate for calc 101. So my best guess is teacher (or the exercise composer) made a mistake somewhere.
Let us know how this goes !

##\ ##
thank you so much for your help. i get the answer tomorrow on friday. i will make sure to update you in this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU and WWGD
  • #33
Update:
Showed my professor the problem he stared at it for a few minutes and said he would get back to me. The questions are automated so there is a chance i received a question that is not solvable. My professor is world famous (he has a wikipedia page) so I don't think its solvable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD and BvU
  • #34
Was this problem solved finally? or is it not solvable?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K