exitwound said:
... I can't grasp why I take the derivative of the Area of the large disc to find the area of the small ring.
I can't tell you why you would do this, but I can explain why the derivative of the area w.r.t. the radius gives you the differential area of the ring.
POINT 1: Imagine two disks. On of them has area A, and the other one, slightly larger, has area A+ΔA. So,
ΔA is the area of the ring that is formed when the first disk is subtracted from the second disk.
POINT 2: Let the radius of the first disk be r, and the radius of the slightly larger disk be r+Δr. The area of the first disk in terms of r is A=πr^2, and the area of the second disk in terms of r is A+ΔA=π(r+Δr)^2=πr^2+2πrΔr+π(Δr)^2. So,
the area of the ring is ΔA=2πrΔr+π(Δr)^2.
POINT 3: Divide by Δr. This gives ΔA/Δr=2πr+πΔr. Now, assume that Δr<<r. Then, ΔA/Δr≈2πr, and so the area of the ring is ΔA≈2πrΔr. When we assume that Δr→0, then the approximation approaches an equality (for r>0), and the Δ's become d's: dA/dr=2πr. Now, dA is the area of a
very thin ring:
dA=(dA/dr)dr=2πrdr.
In general, though, the Jacobian approach is more convenient.