MHB SW1986's question at Yahoo Answers regarding a solid of revolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkFL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Revolution Solid
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the volume of a solid of revolution defined by the function y=(x^3)-(x^5) between x=0 and x=1, revolving around the line x=3. The shell method is suggested for finding the volume, with the volume element expressed as dV=2π(3-x)(x^3-x^5)dx. After integrating, the volume is calculated to be V=27π/70. The washer method is deemed impractical due to difficulties in expressing y in terms of x. The response encourages further calculus inquiries in the forum for additional assistance.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

Volume of a solid of revolution about x=3?

What is the volume of the solid of revolution bounded by
y=(x^3)-(x^5)
y=0
x=0
x=1

I have been using the shell method and I keep getting a negative answer which is obviously incorrect. (I keep getting 2pi(-14183/140). I'm trying to get the integral set up to use the washer method but I am having a very hard time integrating with respect to y instead of x. For example, I don't know how to express y=x^3-x^5 in terms of y. Help?

Here is a link to the question:

Volume of a solid of revolution about x=3? - Yahoo! Answers

I have posted a link there to this topic so the OP can find my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: SW1986's question at Yahoo! Answers regarding a sold of revolution

Hello SW1986,

The first thing I like to do is plot the region to be revolved:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/806._xfImport

Using the shell method, we may first compute the volume of an arbitrary shell:

$$dV=2\pi rh\,dx$$

where:

$$r=3-x$$

$$h=x^3-x^5$$

and so we have:

$$dV=2\pi (3-x)\left(x^3-x^5 \right)\,dx=2\pi\left(x^6-3x^5-x^4+3x^3 \right)\,dx$$

Summing the shells by integration, we then find:

$$V=2\pi\int_0^1 x^6-3x^5-x^4+3x^3\,dx=2\pi\left[\frac{x^7}{7}-\frac{x^6}{2}-\frac{x^5}{5}+\frac{3x^4}{4} \right]_0^1=2\pi\left(\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{5}+\frac{3}{4} \right)=\frac{27\pi}{70}$$

In this case, since we cannot explicitly solve the given function for $x$, using the washer method is impractical.

To SW1986 and any other guests viewing this topic, I invite and encourage you to post other calculus questions here in our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f10/ forum.

Best Regards,

Mark.
 

Attachments

  • sw1986.jpg
    sw1986.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 87
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top