It seems to me that integrating a polar equation should give you the(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); arc lengthof the curve, rather than the area under it. This is my reasoning:

A polar equation is in the form of:

(1) [tex]

r = f(\theta)

[/tex]

The arc length of a segment of a circle where the radius is constant is given by [tex]s = r\theta

[/tex]

If you let [tex] \theta -> 0[/tex] then r essentially becomes constant over the interval [θ , θ +dθ]

So, multiplying eq. (1) by [tex]d\theta[/tex] gives [tex]rd\theta = f(\theta)d\theta[/tex] and gives an arc length of zero width.

Now integrate with respect to [tex] \theta [/tex]:

[tex] \int{f(\theta)d\theta} = s[/tex] and you have the length of the curve.

Is my reasoning correct?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Integrating a polar equation

Loading...

Similar Threads - Integrating polar equation | Date |
---|---|

I Q about finding area with double/volume with triple integral | Sep 13, 2017 |

B How to integrate a polar graph with respect to radius | Jun 28, 2017 |

I Limits of integration on Polar curves | Mar 6, 2017 |

I Integral problems with polar coordinates and variable substitution | Apr 9, 2016 |

Integrating Gaussian in polar coordinates problem | Jun 15, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**