Volume by Cylindrical Shells using Method of Shells

  • Thread starter Thread starter tony873004
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shell Volume
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the volume generated by rotating the region bounded by y=e^(-x^2), x=0, and x=1 around the y-axis using the method of cylindrical shells. The initial setup was incorrect, as the formula used for volume was based on the area of a circle rather than the cylindrical shell method. The correct approach involves using the formula for the volume of a cylindrical shell, which is 2πrh, where r is the radius and h is the height. Substitution with u=-x^2 simplifies the integration process, and the importance of adjusting the limits of integration when switching variables is emphasized. The final answer was confirmed, but the discussion highlights the need for careful attention to detail in the integration process.
tony873004
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
143
I think I've got it set up correctly, but I'm stuck on the integration.

Use the method of cylindrical shells to find the volume generated by rotating the region bounded by y=e^(-x^2), x=0, x=1, rotated about the y axis.

<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {\pi r^2 h\,\,dx} = \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {\pi x^2 e^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} = \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {x^2 e^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} \\ <br /> \end{array}<br />

I just don't know how to anti-deriv xe^(-x^2). I've tried substitution with u= -x2 with no joy. I'll bet this is easy, but it's got me stumped.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So if I understand correctly you rotate a Gaussian around the y-axis and want to know the volume enclosefd up to a distance 1 from the y-axis?

If that is the case I would reconsider the first integral you wrote down. keep in mind that you want to 'add' a lot of infinetesimally high cilinders (volume pi x^2 dy) and use the relation you have between x and y to change variables.

Good luck!

PS:
I just don't know how to anti-deriv xe^(-x^2).
how about -(1/2)e^(-x^2)...
 
tony873004 said:
I think I've got it set up correctly, but I'm stuck on the integration.

Use the method of cylindrical shells to find the volume generated by rotating the region bounded by y=e^(-x^2), x=0, x=1, rotated about the y axis.

<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {\pi r^2 h\,\,dx} = \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {\pi x^2 e^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} = \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {x^2 e^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} \\ <br /> \end{array}<br />

I just don't know how to anti-deriv xe^(-x^2). I've tried substitution with u= -x2 with no joy. I'll bet this is easy, but it's got me stumped.
First, xe^{-x^2} is simple to integrate, as Wiemster says, but your problem is integrating x^2e^{-x^2} which is whole different matter.

Your real problem is that your formula, \pi r^2h dx, is wrong. It can't possibly be a differential of volume- it has units of distance4! A cylindrical shell has volume 2\pi r, the circumference around the shell, times h, times the thickness,dy= dx. In this case, the thickness is dr, the height is the y value, h= e^{-x^2}, and the radius is r= x.
That does, in fact, reduce to
\pi \int_0^1 xe^{-x^2}dx
and the substitution u= x^2 works nicely.
 
tony873004 said:
I just don't know how to anti-deriv xe^(-x^2).

Wiemster said:
how about -(1/2)e^(-x^2)...

Sorry, I forgot to square x. I meant the anti-deriv of x^2*e^(-x^2).
 
radius = function; in this case e^(-x^2). But is it x*e^(-x^2) or e^(-x^2)?
h = dy or dx

If it's x*e^(-x^2), simple u substitution if it's the other it's just it's own derivative however you get ugly numbers.
 
Thanks, everyone. I got the answer (confirmed by the back of the book). But I had to use u=-x^2 instead of x^2, or I would have had to anti-deriv e^-u, which I don't know how to do. Can that be done?

My mistake, as Halls of Ivy pointed out was using pi r squared for circumference instead of 2pi r. oops... Last chapter we were using areas instead of shells. I guess I just got too used to using pi r squared.

<br /> \begin{array}{l}<br /> \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {\left[ {{\rm{circumference}}} \right]\left[ {{\rm{height}}} \right]\left[ {{\rm{thickness}}} \right]} \\ <br /> \\ <br /> {\rm{circumference}} = 2\pi r,\,\,\,r = x \\ <br /> {\rm{height}} = e^{ - x^2 } \\ <br /> {\rm{thickness}} = \Delta x \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {2\pi rh\,\,dx} = \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {2\pi xe^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} = \\ <br /> \\ <br /> 2\pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {xe^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} ,\,\,\,\,u = - x^2 ,\,\,\frac{{du}}{{dx}} = - 2x,\,\,dx = \frac{{du}}{{ - 2x}} \\ <br /> \\ <br /> 2\pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {xe^{ - x^2 } \,\,dx} = 2\pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {xe^u \,\,\frac{{du}}{{ - 2x}}} = \frac{{2\pi }}{{ - 2}}\int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {e^u \,\,du} = - \pi \int\limits_{\rm{0}}^{\rm{1}} {e^u \,\,du} = \\ <br /> \\ <br /> \left. { - \pi e^u } \right]_0^1 = \left. { - \pi e^{ - x^2 } } \right]_0^1 = \left( { - \pi e^{ - 1^2 } } \right) - \left( { - \pi e^{ - 0^2 } } \right) = - \pi \left( {e^{ - 1} - 1} \right) = \pi \left( { - e^{ - 1} + 1} \right) =\pi \left( {1 - 1/e} \right)<br /> \\ <br /> \end{array}<br />

Now although I got the right answer, I think there's still an intermediate mistake I'm making. Once I switch from dx to du, I have to switch the limits of the integration, don't I? I've been getting lazy since I know I'm going to switch back to x before solving. How do I do that? Since my u=-x^2 in this do I just change my 0 and 1 to 0 and -1 wherever I'm using du? And if I do that, should I even bother switching back to x before solving, or just solve with u and my newly-computed limits, which gives me the same answer? I've seen it done both ways, and I'm not sure if there is an advantage of one over the other.

Also, what's the difference between
\begin{array}{l}<br /> \int_0^1 {} \\ <br /> and \\ <br /> \int\limits_0^1 {} \\ <br /> \end{array}
 
Last edited:
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K