Surface integral problem - don't need to use Jacobian for polar?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
8 replies · 6K views
ishanz
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Evaluate the surface integral.
∫∫S x^2*z^2 dS
S is the part of the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2 that lies between the planes z = 1 and z = 3.


Homework Equations



[itex]\int \int _{S}F dS = \int \int _D F(r(u,v))|r_u\times r_v|dA[/itex]
[itex]x=rcos(\theta)[/itex]
[itex]y=rsin(\theta)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


First, I parametrized the cone.
[itex]z^2=x^2+y^2\Rightarrow z=\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \Rightarrow z=r[/itex]
Therefore, the cone's vector equation should be
[itex]{\bf R}(r,\theta)=rcos(\theta){\bf i}+rsin(\theta){\bf j}+r{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_r=cos(\theta){\bf i}+sin(\theta){\bf j}+{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_\theta=-rsin(\theta){\bf i}+rcos(\theta){\bf j}[/itex]
[itex]|{\bf R}_r \times {\bf R}_\theta| = r\sqrt{2}[/itex]
[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}[/itex]

Now, this is the right answer as per the book. My question is, when we go from [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]drd\theta[/itex], why don't we use the Jacobian for polar coordinates, r? Had we included the Jacobian, the degree of r in the final double integral would have been six instead of five, giving us a completely different answer. My confusion here: Why is [itex]dA[/itex] not equal to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex]?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, the final step of the integration process didn't come out right. Here it is:

[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}[/itex]
 
ishanz said:

Homework Statement



Evaluate the surface integral.
∫∫S x^2*z^2 dS
S is the part of the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2 that lies between the planes z = 1 and z = 3.

Homework Equations



[itex]\int \int _{S}F dS = \int \int _D F(r(u,v))|r_u\times r_v|dA[/itex]
[itex]x=rcos(\theta)[/itex]
[itex]y=rsin(\theta)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


First, I parametrized the cone.
[itex]z^2=x^2+y^2\Rightarrow z=\sqrt{x^2+y^2} \Rightarrow z=r[/itex]
Therefore, the cone's vector equation should be
[itex]{\bf R}(r,\theta)=rcos(\theta){\bf i}+rsin(\theta){\bf j}+r{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_r=cos(\theta){\bf i}+sin(\theta){\bf j}+{\bf k}[/itex]
[itex]{\bf R}_\theta=-rsin(\theta){\bf i}+rcos(\theta){\bf j}[/itex]
[itex]|{\bf R}_r \times {\bf R}_\theta| = r\sqrt{2}[/itex]
[itex]\int_0^{2\pi}\int_1 ^3 {(rcos(\theta))^2(r)^2(r\sqrt{2})}drd\theta=\frac{364\sqrt{2}\pi}{3}}[/itex]

Now, this is the right answer as per the book. My question is, when we go from [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]drd\theta[/itex], why don't we use the Jacobian for polar coordinates, r? Had we included the Jacobian, the degree of r in the final double integral would have been six instead of five, giving us a completely different answer. My confusion here: Why is [itex]dA[/itex] not equal to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex]?

The |R_r x R_theta| factor already includes the r in dA. If the surface were just the x-y plane and they wanted you to find area by integrating 1. Think about what that factor would be.
 
Last edited:
I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals (e.g., if my vector [itex]{/bf R}[/itex] wer
 
God, I'm bad at this whole Latex + forum thing. I'm so sorry about the double posts... I think I accidentally hit submit or something.

I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals, would that factor take care of the whole [itex]\rho^2sin(\phi)[/itex] factor for me?
 
ishanz said:
God, I'm bad at this whole Latex + forum thing. I'm so sorry about the double posts... I think I accidentally hit submit or something.

I don't quite understand. I don't know if it's because of the totally methodical and unintuitive way that our professor has taught us (i.e., simply equating [itex]dA[/itex] to [itex]rdrd\theta[/itex] in all scenarios) or because of my own negligence. Does the [itex]|{\bf R}_r\times{\bf R}_\theta|[/itex] factor always take care of the Jacobian for surface integrals, then? In something akin to spherical coordinate integrals, would that factor take care of the whole [itex]\rho^2sin(\phi)[/itex] factor for me?

r and theta here are really just a convenient parametrization of the surface. [itex]dS=|r_u\times r_v| du dv[/itex]. I wouldn't substitute dA for du dv, if it's going to confuse you.
 
I see, that makes sense. Are there any situations in which I would ever have to actually worry about a Jacobian factor when doing a surface integral similar to the one I've described above? Or is it something I should only worry about when explicitly executing coordinate transforms?
 
ishanz said:
I see, that makes sense. Are there any situations in which I would ever have to actually worry about a Jacobian factor when doing a surface integral similar to the one I've described above? Or is it something I should only worry about when explicitly executing coordinate transforms?

You don't have to worry about it if you use that formula. Like I said, the 'jacobian' part is the [itex]|r_u\times r_v|[/itex] factor.
 
Got it. Thanks very much, Dick.