Possible simple formula for ellipse circumference

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the circumference of an ellipse, exploring various methods and formulas. Participants examine a proposed formula derived from geometric considerations involving a cylinder and also reference established online calculators and historical approaches to the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a formula for the circumference of an ellipse based on the geometry of a cylinder and provides a specific calculation method involving the minor and major radii.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of the proposed method, pointing out that the unwrapped shape does not form a triangle due to the nature of the ellipse's curvature.
  • A later reply acknowledges the flaw in the initial proposal and expresses a sense of discovery despite the error.
  • Another participant shares a different formula derived from online calculators, suggesting it yields results closer to expected values and questions the reliability of the initial method.
  • Historical context is provided, mentioning that notable mathematicians like Euler and Fagnano have explored similar problems related to ellipse circumference and arc length.
  • A participant shares a link to additional resources for further exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the initial formula, with some agreeing on its flaws while others explore alternative methods. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to calculate the circumference of an ellipse.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various formulas and methods, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about the geometry involved and the accuracy of the online calculators compared to the proposed method.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in mathematical modeling, geometry, and historical approaches to problems in calculus and ellipse properties may find this discussion relevant.

ktoz
Messages
170
Reaction score
12
TL;DR
ellipse circumference = 4 * sqrt(minor^2(pi^2/4 - 1) + major^2)
While fighting a CAD program, today, I might have stumbled on a potential way to easily calculate the circumference of an ellipse. I checked my method against a half a dozen online ellipse calculators and while my formula gives different results, I can't see where I'm making any logical errors. Perhaps someone can take a look and see if they can spot the error(s).

Basically the method starts with the realization that if you cut a cylinder with an angled plane, the resulting face is an ellipse. Given that, its possible to construct a cylinder that naturally fits any given ellipse. From there, the length of one quadrant of the ellipse is just a matter of getting the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle wrapped around the cylinder and multiplying by 4.

Given
a = minor radius
b = major radius

The wrapped quadrant triangle can be computed like this

Use the minor radius as the radius of the wrapping cylinder
triangle base length, q = pi * a / 2

Use the major radius as the hypotenuse of a triangle that starts at the center of the cylinder base
and intersects the cylinder face above the base
quad triangle height, h = sqrt(b^2 - a^2)

Compute the hypotenuse of the wrapped quad triangle
triangle hypotenuse, c = sqrt(q^2 + h^2)

Multiply by 4 to get the circumference
ellipse circumference = 4 * c

Wrap it all together, simplify and you get the following formula

ellipse circumference = 4 * sqrt(a^2(pi^2/4 - 1) + b^2)

I checked out several examples in a CAD program and, at least to the resolution of the program, the ellipses constructed by cutting derived cylinders in the above way, all matched perfectly.

As I said at the start, this formula gives a different answer than online calculators that use more advanced methods, but the concept is so simple, I don't see where I might be going wrong.

Does the logic hold up? Or does someone see my error(s)?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you unwrap the cylinder then the 1/4 ellipse is not a triangle because the "hypothenuse" is not a straight line. You can see this e.g. from the connection point at the semi-major axis where the two lines connect at a 90 degree angle.
 
mfb said:
If you unwrap the cylinder then the 1/4 ellipse is not a triangle because the "hypothenuse" is not a straight line. You can see this e.g. from the connection point at the semi-major axis where the two lines connect at a 90 degree angle.
Hmmm, right you are. Seemed so promising … at 3:00 am. Thanks for pointing out the flaw.

Back to designing what I was originally working on in the CAD program. 🙂

Guess a moderator can mark this as closed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
Dont feel bad, just enjoy the Aha moment and realize that all great ideas have likely been thought of before.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Keith_McClary
jedishrfu said:
Dont feel bad, just enjoy the Aha moment and realize that all great ideas have likely been thought of before.

I'm not making the mistake of thinking I'm right, but I revisited the problem, today, by plugging a bunch of (a, b) pairs into two online ellipse calculators and managed to reverse engineer their algorithm. They seem to be using c = pi / a * sqrt((a^2 + b^2) / 2) (a is major axis, b is minor). Every example I checked was very close to their result. (9 decimal places)

Armed with this formula, I checked other online calculators and found they were giving values roughly 2x larger than the first ones. Logically, these ones seems better, because I've read that the problem isn't easy and c = pi / a * sqrt((a^2 + b^2) / 2) is pretty easy. I wonder how sites using it get away without being swamped with corrections.
 
You are in good company being fascinated by this problem. Apparently also Euler, and before him Fagnano, explored these formulas,( given apparently by integrals of reciprocals of square roots of quartic polynomials). Unsuccessful at rationalizing these integrals by means of substitutions analogous to those which worked for trig functions, (computing arc length of circles), Fagnano discovered that, although one could not readily compute the length of a given arc of an ellipse, nonetheless given one point (and a base point), one could compute the further point at which the arclength would be doubled! From that Euler obtained an "addition formula" for elliptic integrals, and started the theory of abelian integrals. The story is pursued in vol. 1 of a magnificent trilogy by Carl L. Siegel, Topics in Complex Analysis, which I found quite challenging but quite rewarding too.

(Looking back, Fagnano actually worked with the arc of a lemniscate, but apparently a closely related problem.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: uart, olivermsun and ktoz

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K