Can you solve the volume of a cube with unequal heights?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ThunderSkunk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cube Volume
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around calculating the volume of a cube-like shape with four unequal heights and a perfect square base, given the surface area of all sides except for the top. Participants propose various methods, including calculating the volume by averaging the heights at the corners and using integration techniques. A key formula presented is V = (1/6)(h1 + 2h2 + 2h3 + h4)a² cubic units, where h4 is the height of the fourth corner. The conversation highlights the complexity of the problem, especially if the top surface is not planar.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of geometric volume calculations
  • Familiarity with trapezoidal shapes and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly integration
  • Ability to visualize three-dimensional shapes and their dimensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research geometric volume formulas for irregular shapes
  • Explore integration techniques for calculating volumes of complex solids
  • Study the properties of trapezoids and their applications in volume calculations
  • Investigate methods for fitting surfaces to non-planar shapes
USEFUL FOR

Students in mathematics or engineering, researchers in geometry, and anyone interested in solving complex volume calculation problems related to irregular shapes.

  • #61


ThunderSkunk said:
I am trying to map the the volume of space shaded by irregular objects with a light source coming from a given angle...
I am not able to understand this fully , Can i have more information and example on this ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #62


vrmuth said:
I am not able to understand this fully , Can i have more information and example on this ?

I have to agree, this is VERY odd wording. I think everyone got interested in solving the immediate problem of finding the volume of the enclosed figure he drew and no one commented on this part of it.

I too do not get how you "map a volume of space" in this regard or why it would be meaningful to do so.
 
  • #63


phinds said:
I have to agree, this is VERY odd wording. I think everyone got interested in solving the immediate problem of finding the volume of the enclosed figure he drew and no one commented on this part of it.

I too do not get how you "map a volume of space" in this regard or why it would be meaningful to do so.

Well, if we take it literally, it is simply the entire volume that is in the shadow of an object lit by a single light source.
 
  • #64


Yeah, that makes sense, but what could be the point? I was primarliy confused because I somehow go it in my head that he had said that the light shines UP, so I was (clearly incorrectly) envisioning an infinitely expanding cone out into space with a rectangular (or trapazoidal) cross section.

I could see it making sense if he was looking for the AREA on the ground that is covered by the shadow, but the VOLUME ?
 
  • #65


phinds said:
Yeah, that makes sense, but what could be the point? I was primarliy confused because I somehow go it in my head that he had said that the light shines UP, so I was (clearly incorrectly) envisioning an infinitely expanding cone out into space with a rectangular (or trapazoidal) cross section.

I could see it making sense if he was looking for the AREA on the ground that is covered by the shadow, but the VOLUME ?

I don't know why he wants this. Perhaps he is studying architecture of large buildings on nearby greenhouses. As his OP says:

I am trying to map the the volume of space shaded by irregular objects with a light source coming from a given angle (so I can ask an interesting sunlight competition question for my undergraduate senior project in plant ecology).
 
  • #66


DaveC426913 said:
I thought we'd settled this. We are given the height of the four corners, in order. The OP has base and all sides already built, so he knows what they are.
No Dave, the op doesn't know the heights , he is giving us only the surface areas.And moreover, while the volume is not uniquely determined by the surface area and his objective is to find volume , i don't know why he is going for surface area,what's his difficulties in measuring the heights.He might have satisfied by your formula for the trivial case but his problem still gives lots of other interesting ideas.For eg. even if he gives surface areas there exist infinite set of values for h's and that too under a condition if A1+A3=A2+A4 similar to h1+h3=h2+h4, otherwise no solution at all (isn't it interesting ? :smile:)
ThunderSkunk said:
if you are given the surface area of all sides, including the base, except for its top?...field measurements could yield an average volume that would be represented by a shape similar to the one I've described (because I believe I've already figured out a way to find the area of all the sides and the base).
 
Last edited:
  • #67


vrmuth said:
No Dave, the op doesn't know the heights , he is giving us only the surface areas.
I did not get that impression from the OP's message. Though I grant that yours may be a valid interpretation.
 
  • #68


vrmuth said:
... op doesn't know the heights , he is giving us only the surface areas.
can anyone give "A" [= B(h+h')/2] without knowing "h',h" ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
15K