MHB Find the Volume of Mt. Vesuvius After 79AD in Terms of pi

  • Thread starter Thread starter ruu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi Terms Volume
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the volume of Mt. Vesuvius after its 79 AD eruption, using its dimensions before and after the event. The initial volume is calculated using the formula for a cone, yielding approximately 1.4019 x 10^10 π cubic feet. The volume of the material erupted is determined, leading to a final volume of about 8951318293 π cubic feet post-eruption. Participants highlight an error in the calculation of the erupted volume, emphasizing the need to correctly account for height changes. The conversation concludes with a suggestion to verify calculations for accuracy and consistency.
ruu
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii was a conic volcano with a height from its base 7950 feet and a base radius of 2300 feet. In 79 AD, the volcano erupted, reducing its height to 4200 feet . Find the volume of the volcano after 79 AD in terms of pi.


WORK:
Volume of Volcano(Before 79AD)= \pi *r^2*h/3
=\pi *(2300)^2 * 7950/3
=5290000\pi * 2650
= 1.4019 * 10^10 * \pi

Volume of Volcano part erupted off:
Height: 7950 ft - 2300 ft = 5650 ft
Radius= 5650 * (2300/7950) = 1634.5912 ft
Volume= \pi *r^2*h/3
= \pi *(1634.5912)^2*5650/3
=2671888.375 \pi * 1896.6667
=5067681707* \pi

Volume of Volcano(After 79AD)= (Volume of Volcano(Before 79AD)) - (Volume of Volcano part erupted off)
=(1.4019 * 10^10 * \pi) - (5067681707* \pi)
= 8951318293* \pi

Note to reader: Please check my work. I'm not sure if my solutions are correct or if i did the problem correctly.
Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
We know the radius $r$ of the cone decreases linearly as a function of height $h$, and this linear function contains the two points:

$$(r,h)=(2300,0),\,(0,7950)$$

Thus, using the point-slope formula, we obtain:

$$r(h)=-\frac{2300}{7950}h+2300=2300\left(1-\frac{h}{7950}\right)=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-h)$$

Now, the volume $V$ of the frustum of a cone is given as:

$$V=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_1+A_2+\sqrt{A_1A_2}\right)$$

where $$A_i=\pi R_i^2$$

Frustum_750.gif


Hence:

$$V=\frac{\pi h}{3}\left(R_1^2+R_2^2+R_1R_2\right)$$

With $h=4200\text{ ft}$, we obtain:

$$R_1=2300\text{ ft}$$

$$R_2=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-4200)\text{ ft}=\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}$$

And so, we have:

$$V=\frac{\left(4200\text{ ft}\right)\pi}{3}\left(\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)^2+\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)^2+\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)\right)$$

$$V=\frac{35245154000000}{2809}\pi\text{ ft}^3\approx1.2547224635101458\times10^{10}\text{ ft}^3$$

This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)
 
MarkFL said:
We know the radius $r$ of the cone decreases linearly as a function of height $h$, and this linear function contains the two points:

$$(r,h)=(2300,0),\,(0,7950)$$

Thus, using the point-slope formula, we obtain:

$$r(h)=-\frac{2300}{7950}h+2300=2300\left(1-\frac{h}{7950}\right)=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-h)$$

Now, the volume $V$ of the frustum of a cone is given as:

$$V=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_1+A_2+\sqrt{A_1A_2}\right)$$

where $$A_i=\pi R_i^2$$
Hence:

$$V=\frac{\pi h}{3}\left(R_1^2+R_2^2+R_1R_2\right)$$

With $h=4200\text{ ft}$, we obtain:

$$R_1=2300\text{ ft}$$

$$R_2=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-4200)\text{ ft}=\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}$$

And so, we have:

$$V=\frac{\left(4200\text{ ft}\right)\pi}{3}\left(\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)^2+\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)^2+\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)\right)$$

$$V=\frac{35245154000000}{2809}\pi\text{ ft}^3\approx1.2547224635101458\times10^{10}\text{ ft}^3$$

This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)
Hello, thank you for your help so far.However, how can I find the final volume of the volcano after 79 AD without the knowledge of the volume of a frostum.
For example, can you solve this problem by subtracting the total volume of the volcano before 79AD minus the volume of the part of the volcano that blew off? And how?
 
ruu said:
Hello, thank you for your help so far.However, how can I find the final volume of the volcano after 79 AD without the knowledge of the volume of a frostum.
For example, can you solve this problem by subtracting the total volume of the volcano before 79AD minus the volume of the part of the volcano that blew off? And how?

I used the formula for the volume of a conical frustum as a means of checking your work, as you requested. Once I found that gave a result different from what you posted, I looked through your work and found the error:

MarkFL said:
...This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)

Make that correction and see if your result then agrees with the result I posted. :D
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top