Integration of part of a circle

Click For Summary
To find the area bounded by the vertical line x = 1 and the circle centered at the origin with radius 2, the discussion explores both rectangular and polar coordinates for integration. The initial attempt in rectangular coordinates using y = √(4 - x²) proved complex, prompting a shift to polar coordinates. The area is approached by considering small triangles formed by the radius and the angle from the x-axis, with the area of each triangle expressed as 1/2 * r² * dθ. There is a debate on the appropriate bounds for integration, with clarification needed on how the line x = 1 intersects the circle. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly setting up the integral to accurately calculate the area.
Sheve
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Draw a circle centered on the origin with radius 2. Draw the vertical line x = 1. Find the area bounded on the left by x=1 and on the right by the circle.


Homework Equations


Area of a circle: x^{2} + y^{2} = r^{2}. In this race, r = 2

Polar coordinates:

x = p cos(\theta)
y = p sin(\theta)


The Attempt at a Solution



At first I tried to solve this in rectangular coordinates, using the equation y = \sqrt{4 - x^{2}} and integrating it from 1 to 2. However the antiderivative for that is messy as heck, and this is supposed to be a simple problem. I'm trying to do it in polar coords, but I'm at a loss as how to bound the integral in that case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the region of concern, r ranges from r = 1/cos(theta) = sec(theta) to r = 2. Theta ranges from theta = -arctan(sqrt(3)) to theta = +arctan(sqrt(3)), but you can let theta run from 0 to arctan(sqrt(3)) and double the value, using the symmetry of the circle.

The integral in rectangular coordinates isn't that bad if you know trig substitution.
 
I was hoping to avoid having to use arctan if at all possible...I'm having more luck with the small triangles method in polar coordinates.

You take a triangle with height along the x axis, "r". The angle from the x-axis is assumed to be very small, d\theta. Because this is very small, the base of the triangle is approximated as the arc length, given in this case by r * d\theta. The area of a triangle is 1/2 * base * height, or in this case 1/2*r^{2}d\theta. Integrating this from 0 to 2pi gives you your answer.
 
Sheve said:
I was hoping to avoid having to use arctan if at all possible...
Arctan doesn't enter into the picture at all. If you stay with rectangular coordinates, the substitution is sin(theta) = x/4
Sheve said:
I'm having more luck with the small triangles method in polar coordinates.

You take a triangle with height along the x axis, "r".
You lost me here. How can the height be along the x axis? And what does this have to do with r?
Sheve said:
The angle from the x-axis is assumed to be very small, d\theta. Because this is very small, the base of the triangle is approximated as the arc length, given in this case by r * d\theta. The area of a triangle is 1/2 * base * height, or in this case 1/2*r^{2}d\theta. Integrating this from 0 to 2pi gives you your answer.
Why would you integrate from 0 to 2pi? In polar coordinates, the line x = 1 intersects the upper part of the circle at (2, pi/3).
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K