Surface integral use stokes/divergence/whatever is convenient

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a surface integral over a closed surface defined by the graph of a paraboloid and a unit disk in the xy-plane. Participants are exploring the application of Stokes' theorem and the divergence theorem in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the simplification of the integral using the divergence of the vector field and consider switching to cylindrical coordinates for easier computation. Questions arise regarding the bounds for the integral and the nature of the surface being integrated over.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different approaches to the problem, with some participants suggesting alternative methods and questioning the setup of the integral. Guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of the surface and the bounds of integration, but no consensus has been reached on the final approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the necessity of calculating the integral directly and consider whether other theorems might provide a more straightforward solution. There is a recognition of the complexity involved in integrating over the defined surface.

ArcanaNoir
Messages
778
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


Consider the closed surface S consisting of the graph [itex]z=1-x^2-y^2[/itex] with [itex]z \ge 0[/itex] and also the unit disc in the xy plane. Give this surface an outer normal. Compute: [itex]\int \int_s \mathbf{F} \cdot d \mathbf{S}[/itex]


Homework Equations



Stokes theorem, divergence theorem

The Attempt at a Solution



Well the divergence of F is 5.
So I should calculate [tex]\int \int \int_S 5 dV[/tex]

I'm not really sure where to go with this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That expression already looks a lot simpler then the double integral! ;)

So how to calculate a 3 dimensional integral?
Perhaps you should switch to cylindrical coordinates to make it easier?
 
So I really just calculate [tex]\int \int \int_S 5 dV[/tex] ?

so.. would it be [tex]5 \int \int \int r \; dz \; dr \; d \theta[/tex] ?

How do I bound z?
 
Yes and yes. :)

Your problem statement already gives a lower bound for z.
What is the highest value of z where it still has an actual value (and does not become imaginary)?
 
oh, 1.
so I get 5 pi ?
 
Almost.
I get a slightly different result.
Perhaps one of us made a calculation error?
 
I calculated [tex]5 \int_0^{2\pi } \int_0^1 \int_0^1 r \; dz \; dr \; d \theta[/tex]
 
That's not quite right.
The bounds of r depend on z.
 
Are we integrating over a cylinder with height 1 and radius 1? If we are, we are allowed to use volume formulas. We aren't supposed to actually calculate stuff.
 
  • #10
No, it's not a cylinder.

The graph of ##z=1−x^2−y^2## is a paraboloid that extends downward.
You can think of it as a kind of rounded cap of which you need the volume.

Can you convert the equation of that graph to cylindrical coordinates?
 
  • #11
z=1-r^2?
 
  • #12
ArcanaNoir said:
z=1-r^2?

Yep.
The r in this equation is the upper bound for the r in your integral.

Can you write this upperbound of r as a function of z?
 
  • #13
I shouldn't have to. I'm doing something wrong. If I actually calculate an integral I've done it wrong and missed the point here. Perhaps some other theorem would be a better approach?
 
  • #14
Seems unlikely.

You would not supposed to be calculating the double integral with the dot product.
That is indeed a lot of work.

But you would need to calculate the volume integral.
Do you have a formula handy for the volume of a paraboloid?

Otherwise, you will have to calculate it.
There is an easier way however if you consider the volume to consist of a number of stacked circle disks.
Each circle disk has volume ##\pi r^2 dz## with ##r^2## being equal to ##1-z##.
This should be easy to integrate.
 
  • #15
Okay, I'm going to let this problem go for a while. I'm not getting any of the other problems either, so I'm going to go back to the drawing board and study the theorems some more. thanks for the help so far :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K