What is wrong with this flux integral?

In summary, the issue discussed in this conversation is the parameterization of a vector field. The specific problem being referred to is #27 in chapter 16.7 of the 8th edition of Stewart. It is suggested to use the formula for the surface element as parametrized by ##t## and ##s##, which is given by ##d\vec S = \vec r_t \times \vec r_s \, dt\, ds##. This formula accounts for the cross product of ##\vec r_r## and ##\vec r_\theta## and should be used instead of adding an additional ##r## in the surface element.
  • #1
james weaver
28
4
I think the issue is how I parameterize my vector field, but not quite sure. In case you were wondering, this is problem # 27, chapter 16.7 of the 8th edition of Stewart. Thanks for any help.

1651694133448.png

1651694182004.png

1651694211040.png
 

Attachments

  • math question.pdf
    832.1 KB · Views: 129
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Your problem is that you add an additional ##r## in your surface element. This is presumably because you think that in polar coordinates you need to use ##r\,dr\,d\theta## for the area element, but the ##r## is already accounted for in the cross product ##\vec r_r \times \vec r_\theta##. (Consider the flux of ##\hat j## through ##y=0## and ##x^2+z^2 \leq 1##, which should clearly be -up to a sign depending on normal direction- ##\int r \, dr\, d\theta## over the same ranges of ##r## and ##\theta## as you have.)

Generally, the surface element as parametrized by ##t## and ##s## is given by
$$
d\vec S = \vec r_t \times \vec r_s \, dt\, ds
$$
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes berkeman and james weaver
Back
Top