1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Stoke's theorem

  1. Dec 12, 2016 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    I have calculate my double integral using wolfram alpha , but i get the ans = 312.5 , but according to the book , the ans is = 0 , which part of my working is wrong

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution
    Or is it z =0 , ? i have tried z = 0 , but still didnt get the ans = 0 , Which part is wrong?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 12, 2016 #2
    That depends. What is the actual problem statement?
     
  4. Dec 12, 2016 #3

    Charles Link

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I can see what the problem statement seems to be=the line integral around the triangle with vertices at (5,0,0), (0,5,0), and (0,0,5). Instead of trying to integrate across the plane of this triangle, you can also integrate over the surface consisting of the three triangle plane surfaces making up a pyramid. i.e. dydz for the x-component of the curl F at x=0; dxdz for the y-component at y=0; and dxdy for the z component at z=0. I did get zero for an answer when I summed these. I will be glad to check your work to see if you get the same answer I did for each of these. These 2-D integrals are not difficult to evaluate=their limits of integration just take a couple of minutes to compute. ## \\ ## Editing: I also solved it the way you are attempting, but you need to use ## \int \nabla \times \vec{F} \cdot \hat{n} \, dS ##. Your ## \hat{n} ## needs a ##1/\sqrt{3} ## to normalize it which will cancel the ## cos(\gamma) ## factor of ## cos(\gamma)dS=dxdy ## so that ## dS=\frac{dxdy}{cos(\gamma)} ##. (## cos(\gamma)=\hat{n} \cdot \hat{k}=1/\sqrt{3} ##. ). You correctly used ## z=5-x-y ##, but your expression that you integrate will be much simpler if you correctly use ## \nabla \times \vec{F} ## instead of ## \vec{F} ##. And yes, I did get zero for an answer this way as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2016
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Stoke's theorem
  1. Stokes theorem (Replies: 3)

  2. Stokes Theorem (Replies: 2)

  3. Stokes Theorem (Replies: 6)

  4. Stoke's Theorem (Replies: 4)

Loading...