Flux integral over a parabolic cylinder

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on evaluating the flux integral ##\int\int_S \textbf{F}\cdot\textbf{n} dS## for the vector field ##\textbf{F}=(z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k}## over a surface bounded by the parabolic cylinder defined by ##z = 4-y^2##, and the planes ##x=0## and ##x=3##. The correct evaluation of the flux integral yields a total of 48 when considering the curved surface, while the contributions from the flat surfaces at ##x=0## and ##x=3## were initially miscalculated. The normals for these surfaces are confirmed to be ##\pm \hat{i}##, and the limits for ##y## should be set to ##-2## and ##2##.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector fields and flux integrals
  • Familiarity with surface integrals in multivariable calculus
  • Knowledge of parameterization techniques for surfaces
  • Proficiency in evaluating integrals in Cartesian coordinates
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Divergence Theorem and its applications in flux integrals
  • Learn about parameterizing different types of surfaces in 3D
  • Practice evaluating surface integrals with varying boundary conditions
  • Explore the implications of normal vectors in surface integral calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are working on problems involving vector calculus and surface integrals.

Forcefedglas
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Evaluate ##\int\int_S \textbf{F}\cdot\textbf{n} dS ## where ##\textbf{F}=(z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k}## and S is the surface region bounded by ##z = 4-y^2, x=0, x=3## and the x-y plane with ##\textbf{n}## directed outward to S.

The attempt at a solution

I've worked out the correct answer but can't seem to fully understand why that is. I tried splitting up the flux integral into 3 separate surfaces: 1 for the parabola at x=3, another for the parabola at x=0, and lastly a parametric surface between them. At each parabola I just evaluated the flux integral in cartesian coordinates, which were ##\int_{-2}^2 \int_0^{4-y^2}(2y\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k})##, which worked out to be 256/5 and 0, at x=0 and x=3 respectively.

I parameterized the parabolic cylinder as ##\mu\textbf{i}+\lambda\textbf{j}+(4-\lambda^2)\textbf{k}##, so the flux integral for this was ## \int_0^2 \int_0^3(2\lambda\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z^2-x)\textbf{i}-\mu\lambda\textbf{j}+(12-3\lambda^2)\textbf{k})d\mu d\lambda## which works out to be 48, which is the correct answer. This might seem like a dumb question but I've been staring at it for hours and can't understand why the value of the flux integral at the x=0 parabola is ignored. I considered the possibility that it excludes the surfaces at x=0 and x=3 but similarly worded questions did not do this. Any help/tips will be appreciated, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Forcefedglas said:
Homework Statement
Evaluate ##\int\int_S \textbf{F}\cdot\textbf{n} dS ## where ##\textbf{F}=(z^2-x)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k}## and S is the surface region bounded by ##z = 4-y^2, x=0, x=3## and the x-y plane with ##\textbf{n}## directed outward to S.

The attempt at a solution

I've worked out the correct answer but can't seem to fully understand why that is. I tried splitting up the flux integral into 3 separate surfaces: 1 for the parabola at x=3, another for the parabola at x=0, and lastly a parametric surface between them. At each parabola I just evaluated the flux integral in cartesian coordinates, which were ##\int_{-2}^2 \int_0^{4-y^2}(2y\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z-x^2)\textbf{i}-xy\textbf{j}+3z\textbf{k})##, which worked out to be 256/5 and 0, at x=0 and x=3 respectively.
First, is the x-component of the vector field ##z^2-x## or ##z-x^2##? You used the wrong normal for evaluating the surface integrals on the x=0 and x=3 planes.

I parameterized the parabolic cylinder as ##\int_0^2\int_0^3\mu\textbf{i}+\lambda\textbf{j}+(4-\lambda^2)\textbf{k}##, so the flux integral for this was ##(2\lambda\textbf{j}+\textbf{k})\cdot((z-x^2)\textbf{i}-\mu\lambda\textbf{j}+(12-3\lambda^2)\textbf{k})d\mu d\lambda## which works out to be 48, which is the correct answer. This might seem like a dumb question but I've been staring at it for hours and can't understand why the value of the flux integral at the x=0 parabola is ignored. I considered the possibility that it excludes the surfaces at x=0 and x=3 but similarly worded questions did not do this. Any help/tips will be appreciated, thanks!
There seems to be numerous errors or typos in what you've written here. Could you please clean it up?
 
vela said:
First, is the x-component of the vector field ##z^2-x## or ##z-x^2##? You used the wrong normal for evaluating the surface integrals on the x=0 and x=3 planes.There seems to be numerous errors or typos in what you've written here. Could you please clean it up?

I fixed up most of the errors I think (left i component in terms of z and x since it goes to 0 anyway). The x component was supposed to be ##z^2-x##. Would the correct normals in the x=0 and x=3 planes be the unit vector i at x=3 and -i at x=0?
 
I think you meant for the limits for ##y## on the last integral to be ##-2## and ##2##. Yes, the normals are ##\pm \hat i##. I get the same result you do integrating over just the curved part of the surface. With the three flat surface included, I get 16 for the total flux.
 
vela said:
I think you meant for the limits for ##y## on the last integral to be ##-2## and ##2##. Yes, the normals are ##\pm \hat i##. I get the same result you do integrating over just the curved part of the surface. With the three flat surface included, I get 16 for the total flux.

Guess the given answer must be off then, thanks for clearing that up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
978
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K