Question about volume calculation using disks or shells

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pamparana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Volume
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating volumes in 3D using the methods of shells and disks, specifically in the context of Single Variable Calculus from MIT OpenCourseWare. The example involves a cauldron modeled as a parabola, where the limits of integration were initially set from 0 to \(\sqrt{a}\). A key clarification was made regarding the limits, emphasizing that the negative limit is unnecessary due to the nature of the shell method, which inherently accounts for both sides of the parabola through the circumference of the shell.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Single Variable Calculus concepts
  • Familiarity with the method of disks and shells for volume calculation
  • Knowledge of definite integrals and limits
  • Basic understanding of geometric shapes, specifically parabolas
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of disks in detail for volume calculations
  • Explore the method of shells and its applications in volume determination
  • Learn about setting up definite integrals for symmetric functions
  • Investigate the geometric interpretation of integrals in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, educators teaching volume calculations, and anyone interested in understanding the application of integration techniques in geometry.

pamparana
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I was going through the Single Variable Calculus lectures on the MIT Opencourseware site and looking at calculating volumes in 3D using the method of shells and disks.

In both these methods, we sweep the infinitesmal region in 3D sweeping and sweep a disk. My question is actually about setting up the limits for the definite integral to calculate the final volume.

In the example, they were looking at calculating the volume of a couldron where the body was modeled like a parabola and path sweeped by the disk was modeled as a shell. Now the parabola was symmetric around the origin and when taking the limit, they only considered one side of the parabola (so, the lower limit was 0 and the upper limit was [tex]\sqrt{a}[/tex].

My question is that should't the limit be from [tex]\sqrt{-a}[/tex] to [tex]\sqrt{+a}[/tex]. There was brief discussion about this but I could not follow the reasoning which was along the lines that the sweeping dx region took care of the other half...

Would be vert grateful if someone can clarify this for me.

And a merry xmas and new year to all!

Cheers,

Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pamparana said:
Hello everyone,

I was going through the Single Variable Calculus lectures on the MIT Opencourseware site and looking at calculating volumes in 3D using the method of shells and disks.

In both these methods, we sweep the infinitesmal region in 3D sweeping and sweep a disk.
They don't both sweep a disk. A shell is not the same as a disk.
My question is actually about setting up the limits for the definite integral to calculate the final volume.

In the example, they were looking at calculating the volume of a couldron where the body was modeled like a parabola and path sweeped by the disk was modeled as a shell. Now the parabola was symmetric around the origin and when taking the limit, they only considered one side of the parabola (so, the lower limit was 0 and the upper limit was [tex]dV=\sqrt{a}[/tex]

My question is that should't the limit be from [tex]\sqrt{-a}[/tex] to [tex]\sqrt{+a}[/tex].

You mean [itex]-\sqrt{a}[/itex] not [itex]\sqrt{-a}[/itex], but no, you don't want the negative limit. The dV element of the shell is generally

[tex]( 2\pi x) (y_u-y_l)dx[/tex]

for revolution about the y axis. The [itex]( 2\pi x)[/itex] is the circumference of the shell at position x and the y-upper - y-lower is the height of the shell. You get both sides of the x-axis because the circumference goes all the way around.
 

Similar threads

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