Parameterize an offset ellipse and calculate the surface area

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the parameterization of an offset ellipse defined by the inequality (x − 2)² + 4y² ≤ 1 and the calculation of the surface area of the surface z = √(x² + y²). Participants explore various methods for parameterizing the ellipse and calculating the surface area, including the use of polar coordinates and integration techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to parameterize the ellipse using polar coordinates but struggles to obtain the correct shape, suggesting that the initial approach may not be suitable.
  • Another participant questions the necessity of parameterization, suggesting that the problem might be simplified without it by considering the properties of the surface.
  • A participant proposes calculating the surface area using the cross-product of partial derivatives, leading to a conclusion that the surface area is √2 times the area of the ellipse.
  • Some participants discuss the integration of the area under the ellipse by changing the inequality to an equality and translating the ellipse to the origin for simplification.
  • There is a suggestion that integrating the vector field over the translated ellipse would yield the same result as over the original surface, contingent on shifting the vector field appropriately.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and method of parameterization, with some advocating for simplification without it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to calculate the area of the ellipse and the implications of shifting the vector field.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the integral required for the area of the ellipse and the implications of translating the ellipse and vector field. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the integration process and the exact relationship between the surface area and the area of the ellipse.

Thales Costa
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I'm given that:

S is the surface z =√(x² + y²) and (x − 2)² + 4y² ≤ 1

I tried parametrizing it using polar coordinates setting
x = 2 + rcos(θ)
y = 2rsin(θ)
0≤θ≤2π, 0≤r≤1
But I'm not getting the ellipse that the original equation for the domain describes
So far I've tried dividing everything by 4 and also tried the method of completing the square, but no success.

I'm supposed to calculate the surface area of S. But without the parametric equations, calculating the normal vector is impossible.

EDIT: Messing with the equations on Wolfram I got the following:

x = 2 + cos(u)
y = (1/2)sin(u)
0≤ u ≤2π

But when I multiply the cosine and sine by r and make r vary from 0 to 1, the parametric plot changes to something completely different
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you need to parametrize? What is the shape of the unconstrained surface? Does the angle between the normal to the surface and the ##z## axis change over the surface? If not, can you simplify the problem and solve it without parametrization?
 
andrewkirk said:
Are you sure you need to parametrize? What is the shape of the unconstrained surface? Does the angle between the normal to the surface and the ##z## axis change over the surface? If not, can you simplify the problem and solve it without parametrization?
So I didn't need to parametrize the surface.

It was a matter of just simply calculating dS, which is the cross-product between dz/dx and dz/dy. dS = √2 dA

Then integrating over the surface ∫∫√2⋅dA I would get that the surface area I was looking for is √2 times the Area of the ellipse.

I was going in the harder direction trying to figure out the integral that would give me the area of the ellipse. And this I still don't know how.
 
Thales Costa said:
I was going in the harder direction trying to figure out the integral that would give me the area of the ellipse. And this I still don't know how.
If you change the inequality to an equality that gives you the equation of the ellipse. The area won't change if you translate it in the x direction, so translate it so that the first term becomes just ##x^2##. Now you have an ellipse centred on the origin. If you just integrate the area under the branch in one of the four quadrants and multiply that by four, there's your area of the ellipse.
 
andrewkirk said:
If you change the inequality to an equality that gives you the equation of the ellipse. The area won't change if you translate it in the x direction, so translate it so that the first term becomes just ##x^2##. Now you have an ellipse centred on the origin. If you just integrate the area under the branch in one of the four quadrants and multiply that by four, there's your area of the ellipse.

This is what I figured. I took me a while to understand that I was integrating a vector field over a surface and that the position of the surface could be shifted to the origin without changing the result.

So integrating the field over x² +4y² = 1 would be the same as integrating it over the original surface. Is that correct?
 
Thales Costa said:
So integrating the field over x² +4y² = 1 would be the same as integrating it over the original surface. Is that correct?
It would if you also shifted the vector field in the X direction by -2.
But you don't need to worry about that. Above you concluded that
Thales Costa said:
I would get that the surface area I was looking for is √2 times the Area of the ellipse.
Once you've reasoned your way to there, you can forget about the vector field and just calculate the area of the ellipse.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K