Clarifying the Volume of a Cone

  • Thread starter Thread starter bodensee9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cone Volume
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the volume of a cone using triple integrals, specifically in polar coordinates. The original poster presents an approach involving the relationship between the radius and height of the cone, questioning the bounds for integration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different bounds for the volume integral, questioning the validity of expressing the volume with varying limits for r based on z. There is a focus on understanding the geometric implications of the integration limits.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, providing clarifications and exploring the implications of the integration order. There is some confusion regarding the setup of the integral and the interpretation of the bounds, but guidance has been offered regarding the correct order of integration.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the importance of visualizing the cone and the relationship between the variables to clarify the integration limits. There is recognition of the potential for misinterpretation of the original question and the need for careful consideration of the integration setup.

bodensee9
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
I am wondering if someone can help clarify the following? Suppose that I’m asked to find the volume of a cone. So, the volume would be ∫∫∫dxdydz or using polar coordinates ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ. Therefore the volume would be if I have a cone with base radius R and height H, I can express the radius r at any height z using similar triangles. I would get that r = Rz/H, where z is the height at any point in the cone.

Hence the volume would be ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ where Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R, 0 ≤ z ≤ H, and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π.

But I’m wondering why I can’t express the volume as ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ where 0 ≤ r ≤ Rz/H, and 0 ≤ z ≤ H and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bodensee9 said:
But I’m wondering why I can’t express the volume as ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ where 0 ≤ r ≤ Rz/H, and 0 ≤ z ≤ H and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π? Thanks!

Because you've got the bounds on r in terms of z. That means that the r integration has to come before the z integration.
 
bodensee9 said:
I am wondering if someone can help clarify the following? Suppose that I’m asked to find the volume of a cone. So, the volume would be ∫∫∫dxdydz or using polar coordinates ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ. Therefore the volume would be if I have a cone with base radius R and height H, I can express the radius r at any height z using similar triangles. I would get that r = Rz/H, where z is the height at any point in the cone.

Hence the volume would be ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ where Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R, 0 ≤ z ≤ H, and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π.
No, it would not. The way you have set up this cone, it has vertex at the origin and base at z= H. The inside of the cone has 0≤ r≤ Rz/H. Your limits of integration gives the volume of the part of the cylinder of radius R and height H outside the cone.

But I’m wondering why I can’t express the volume as ∫∫∫rdzdrdθ where 0 ≤ r ≤ Rz/H, and 0 ≤ z ≤ H and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π? Thanks!
You can. This is the correct integral!
\int_{z=0}^H\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi}\int_{r= 0}^{Rz/H} rdrd\theta dz
= 2\pi \int_{z=0}^H (1/2)(R^2 z^2)/H^2 dz= \pi R^2/H^2 \int_0^H z^2
= \pi R^2/H^2 (1/3)H^3= (1/3)\pi R^2 H
which is the standard formula for area of a cone.

Your original formula,
\int_{z=0}^H\int_{\theta= 0}^{2\pi}\int_{r= Rz/H}^R rdrd\theta dz
= 2\pi \int_{z=0}^H (1/2)(R^2- R^2z^2/H^2)dz= \pi R^2\int_0^H(1- z^2/H^2)dz
= (2/3)\pi R^2 H
Notice that those two volumes add to \pi R^2 h[/tex], the volume of the cylinder.<br /> <br /> (Tom, I think you misinterpreted his question. Well, <b>one</b> of us did!)
 
Thanks, that was helpful. But I'm still a little bit confused.
I am wondering how integrating from Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R gives you the volume outside of the cone? I understand that if you integrate from bottom up that would give you 0 ≤ r ≤ Rz/H. But, I thought that since you know that the maximum value for r is R, you can also write it as Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R?
Sorry.
 
bodensee9 said:
Thanks, that was helpful. But I'm still a little bit confused.
I am wondering how integrating from Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R gives you the volume outside of the cone? I understand that if you integrate from bottom up that would give you 0 ≤ r ≤ Rz/H. But, I thought that since you know that the maximum value for r is R, you can also write it as Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R?
Sorry.

The axis of the cone is the positive z-axis, isn't it? So that r= 0 is always inside the cone, no matter what z is?

Draw a graph. Take the horizontal axis to be "r" and the vertical axis to be z. Draw the straight lines r= Rz/H or z= Hr/R and z= -Hr/R representing the sides of the cone and the vertical line r= R. Where is the inside of the cone and where is the outside? Where is Rz/H ≤ r ≤ R?
 
Okay, I see it now. Thanks so much!
 
HallsofIvy said:
(Tom, I think you misinterpreted his question. Well, one of us did!)

I confess that I didn't really read above the line that said, "why can't I express the volume as...?" in the OP. But my point is that he had the variables of integration out of order. dr has to be to the left of dz in the integrand to use the bounds that he stated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K