Flux of a vector field through a surface

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the flux of a vector field through a specified surface, defined by a parametrization involving variables u and v. The vector field is given as F(x, y, z) = (0, z, y), and the surface is described by the equation x = 2y²z² with constraints on y and z.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the computation of the normal vector using a determinant and question the signs of its components. There are inquiries about the implications of the angle between the normal vector and the x-direction, as well as the positivity of the cosine of an acute angle.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing dialogue about the correctness of the determinant calculation and the signs of the normal vector components. Some participants express uncertainty regarding the original poster's understanding and the implications of their edits to the initial post. Guidance has been offered on how to handle corrections in forum discussions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that editing the original post can lead to confusion for others following the thread, suggesting that it may be more effective to post corrections separately. There is mention of a previous error in the sign of the j component of the normal vector, which has since been addressed by the original poster.

DottZakapa
Messages
239
Reaction score
17
Homework Statement
Consider the vector field F (x, y, z) = (0, z, y) and the surface Σ= (x,y,z)∈R^3 : x=2y^2z^2, 0≤y≤2, 0≤z≤1
oriented so that its normal vector forms an acute angle with the fundamental versor of the x–axis. Compute the flux of F through Σ.
Relevant Equations
flux of F through sigma
Given
##F (x, y, z) = (0, z, y)## and the surface ## \Sigma = (x,y,z)∈R^3 : x=2 y^2 z^2, 0≤y≤2, 0≤z≤1##

i have parametrised as follows

##\begin{cases}
x=2u^2v^2\\
y=u\\
z=v\\
\end{cases}##

now I find the normal vector in the following way

##\begin{vmatrix}
i & j & k \\
\frac {\partial x} {\partial u} & \frac {\partial y} {\partial u}& \frac {\partial z} {\partial u} \\
\frac {\partial x} {\partial v} & \frac {\partial y} {\partial v}& \frac {\partial z} {\partial v} \\
\end{vmatrix} =
\begin{vmatrix}
i & j & k \\
4uv^2 & 1 & 0 \\
4u^2v & 0 & 1\\
\end{vmatrix} = \vec i(1)-\vec j(4uv^2)+\vec k(- 4u^2v) ##

##\Rightarrow N(u,v) = (1,-4uv^2,- 4u^2v) ##

Is there anything wrong on the normal vectors signs? what having an acute angle with x translates in?
I don't understand why in the solution the second and third components have negative sign.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You should double check your determinant computation.
DottZakapa said:
what having an acute angle with x translates in?
What is the cosine of an acute angle? How do you find the cosine between the x-direction and an arbitrary vector?
 
Orodruin said:
You should double check your determinant computation.
minus in front of ## j##
 
Orodruin said:
What is the cosine of an acute angle? How do you find the cosine between the x-direction and an arbitrary vector?
the cos has to be positive, ok so the ##\vec i## component must be positive, hence the normal vector satisfy the requirement.
correct?
 
I don't see an error. I'm not sure, what @Orodruin is after...
 
vanhees71 said:
I don't see an error. I'm not sure, what @Orodruin is after...
OP has edited out the error (last edit at 12.01) after my post (made at 11.49). In the original post, the j component had the opposite sign, as indicated in #3 (where OP wrote the response inside the quotes of my post).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
DottZakapa said:
the cos has to be positive, ok so the ##\vec i## component must be positive, hence the normal vector satisfy the requirement.
correct?
Correct, you have also edited out the sign error from your original post, which should also mean that your question regarding the signs is resolved.

Please note that correcting errors by editing the original post can be very confusing to others reading the thread (as evidenced by @vanhees71 in post #5) and therefore generally should not be done. It is better to make a new post in the thread with the correction and also mentioning if your questions have been fully answered or if you still have doubts.
 
Orodruin said:
Correct, you have also edited out the sign error from your original post, which should also mean that your question regarding the signs is resolved.

Please note that correcting errors by editing the original post can be very confusing to others reading the thread (as evidenced by @vanhees71 in post #5) and therefore generally should not be done. It is better to make a new post in the thread with the correction and also mentioning if your questions have been fully answered or if you still have doubts.
yes, sorry about it, you are absolutely right.
Next time i'll do as you have correctly said.
Thank you, should i edit again the original post, restoring the wrong sign?
 
I usually correct typos and errors within the post but making an editorial note. I find this better than to make another posting, which may get not recognized by the readers of the thread and then leading to confusion.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K