What is the rate of change for a spherical raindrop's radius as it evaporates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jordanfc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Related rates
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the rate of change of a spherical raindrop's radius as it evaporates, with a focus on the relationship between volume and surface area. The constant of proportionality is clarified to indicate that the rate of volume change is negative, suggesting evaporation rather than augmentation. Participants debate the implications of using a positive versus negative constant and how it affects calculations. The formula derived indicates a constant rate of change for the radius, leading to questions about the relevance of evaluating the rate specifically when the radius is 2. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting the problem and the nature of the rates involved.
jordanfc
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
This is the problem as it appears in the text. "As a spherical raindrop evaporates, its volume changes at a rate proportional to its surface area A. If the constant of proportionality is 3, find the rate of change of the radius r when r=2." My first question is does the constant of proportionality refer to \frac{dV}{dA}? Secondly, am I being asked to find the rate of change of the radius with respect to time \frac{dr}{dt} or another rate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, I don't think the problem makes sense. But I will try to answer your questions.

No, if you are told that A is proportional to B, it means there is a constant k such that A = kB. Here, it means that dV/dt = kA, for a certain constant k. Next, you are told that k = 3. But this is nonsense in my opinion because the raindrop is evaporating... and a positive dV/dt means V is augmenting. So I'd try doing the problem with k = -3 instead; it'd make more sense.

Yes, the rate of change of radius wrt time is dr/dt.
 
thanks quasar, with that information ill try the problem.
\frac{dV}{dt}=\frac{dV}{dr}\frac{dr}{dt}

Since \frac{dV}{dt}=-3A

Then -3(4{\pi}r^2)=\frac{dV}{dr}\frac{dr}{dt}

But now it seems if i differentiate the volume with respect to the radius ill get the equation for surface area and it will cancel out and leave
\frac{dr}{dt}=-3
And that can't be right, where have i erred?
 
Why can't it be right? I'd say it can't be wrong. :smile:
 
well then, thanks again quasar. so was it irrelevant to ask to find the rate of change when the radius was 2, meaning its a constant rate of change when the volume and surface area decrease proportionally?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
35K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K