Flux integral over a parabolic cylinder

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on evaluating the flux integral of the vector field F over a surface defined by a parabolic cylinder and the x-y plane. The user successfully computed the flux for the curved surface but struggled with the contributions from the flat surfaces at x=0 and x=3, initially obtaining a value of 0 for the x=3 surface. Clarifications revealed that the correct normals for these surfaces should be ±i, and the limits for y were confirmed to be -2 to 2. Ultimately, it was concluded that including all surfaces led to a total flux of 16, suggesting the original answer provided may have been incorrect. The conversation highlights the importance of careful evaluation of surface normals and limits in flux 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.
 
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...