Equations of two concentric paraboloids

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around obtaining the equations of two concentric paraboloids separated by a distance L in the z-direction. The original poster attempts to plot the region between the two surfaces defined by the equations but encounters issues with the expected size of the region.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the interpretation of separation between the paraboloids and question the definition of "thickness" in relation to a paraboloid. There are inquiries about constructing surfaces parallel to the given paraboloid and the normal vectors at specific points on the surface.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide clarifications regarding the nature of paraboloids and the implications of distance L. There is ongoing exploration of the mathematical relationships and properties of the surfaces involved, with no explicit consensus reached on the original problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of defining surfaces with thickness in the context of paraboloids and the challenges of deriving equations for curves parallel to them. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and approaches without resolving the initial query.

MCB277
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I need to obtain the equation of 2 paraboloids separated by a distance L.

Homework Equations


I think that the equations should be:

z_1=x^2+y^2
z_2=x^2+y^2-L

The Attempt at a Solution


The problem is that when I plot the region between two inequations,
x^2+y^2>=z and z+L>=x^2+y^2
the region is not of size L

Thanks[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you have done is to construct two paraboloids that are separated by a distance ##L## in the ##z##-direction. Being separated by ##L## in the ##z##-direction is not the same thing as the closest point on the second surface to a given point on the first being a distance ##L## away. In order to solve the problem, you need to specify which of these is your intended problem and solve that problem.

Edit: It should also be pointed out that the curve that is everywhere a distance ##L## away from a paraboloid is not a paraboloid in itself.
 
Last edited:
So, if I want to build a paraboloid with a certain thickness L, how would it be done?
 
MCB277 said:
So, if I want to build a paraboloid with a certain thickness L, how would it be done?
You cannot. A paraboloid is a hypersurface of one dimension lower than the space you are constructing it in. It does not have a thickness.
 
you are right there is no such thing, I want to find a surface parallel to the paraboloid given in that equation.
 
So for a given point on the paraboloid, what is the normal vector to the paraboloid?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MCB277
Thanks you !
 
MCB277 said:
Thanks you !
Do you think you could follow up here or via message how you proceeded from this point?

I made an attempt to do the analogous problem in one variable, starting with y = x^2 and its normal vectors, but I got buried in algebra trying to convert the resulting equations for "the point (x1, y1) which is distance L from (x, x^2) along the normal" to a closed form y1 = f(x1).
 
RPinPA said:
Do you think you could follow up here or via message how you proceeded from this point?

I made an attempt to do the analogous problem in one variable, starting with y = x^2 and its normal vectors, but I got buried in algebra trying to convert the resulting equations for "the point (x1, y1) which is distance L from (x, x^2) along the normal" to a closed form y1 = f(x1).

Since this isn't the OP's question, I will give a bit more suggestion to you. Let's write the parabola in vector form ##\vec r(t) = \langle t, t^2\rangle##. A tangent vector is ##r'(t) = \langle 1,2t \rangle## and a unit normal pointed down is ##\hat n(t) =\frac 1 {\sqrt{1+4t^2}}\langle 2t,-1\rangle##. Now let's say you want a parallel curve ##h## distance from and below the parabola, use$$
\vec q(t) = \vec r(t) +h\hat n(t)$$Here's a picture with ##h=1##:
wide.jpg
 

Attachments

  • wide.jpg
    wide.jpg
    8.4 KB · Views: 527
  • #10
Pretty much what I did, giving me ##<q_1(x), q_2(x)>## parametrically in terms of ##x##. But I was hoping to eliminate the ##x## so that I could analyze the result to describe exactly what kind of curve it is, if not a parabola.
 
  • #11
RPinPA said:
Pretty much what I did, giving me ##<q_1(x), q_2(x)>## parametrically in terms of ##x##. But I was hoping to eliminate the ##x## so that I could analyze the result to describe exactly what kind of curve it is, if not a parabola.
I don't think you will have much luck with that in general. For example, if you take the parabola ##y = x^2## and look for the curve that three units away and parallel "above" it, that is too high to fit above it near the vertex and you get a graph that looks like this:
par2.jpg

The equation for that is$$
\vec R(t) =\langle t - \frac{6t}{\sqrt{1+4t^2}}, t^2 - \frac{3}{\sqrt{1+4t^2}} \rangle$$I haven't tried it, but looking at the image I'm guessing if you manage to put this in the ##y = f(x)## form, it won't be either simple or and some "standard" form you would recognize. It gets even more interesting if you do the same thing to an ellipse and put the second curve too far on the inside.
 

Attachments

  • par2.jpg
    par2.jpg
    9.7 KB · Views: 595
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K