Where have I gone wrong with this surface integral problem?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a surface integral involving a vector field F = xi - yj + zk over a cylindrical surface defined by x^2+y^2≤4 and 0≤z≤1. The original poster attempts to apply the Divergence Theorem to verify their result.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster describes their parametrization of the surface and their calculation of the integral, raising questions about the orientation of the cross product. Other participants question whether the top and bottom surfaces of the cylinder were included in the original calculation and discuss the implications of surface orientation on the integral.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided guidance regarding the inclusion of all surfaces and the importance of specifying the orientation of the surface normals. The original poster acknowledges the oversight and expresses intent to re-evaluate their approach based on the feedback received.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of clarity regarding the orientation of the surface normals, which is essential for correctly evaluating the surface integral. The original poster's initial calculation did not account for the top and bottom surfaces of the cylinder.

Lucy Yeats
Messages
117
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Evaluate the surface integral ∫F.dS where F = xi - yj + zk and where the surface S is of the cylinder defined by x^2+y^2≤4, and 0≤z≤1. Verify your answer using the Divergence Theorem.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I parametrized the surface in terms of θ and z: r=(2cosθ, 2sinθ, z). I found dr/dθ X dr/dz=(2cosθ, 2sinθ, z). (How do I know which way round to do the cross product?). I rewrote F as (2cosθ, -2sinθ, z). I then did the following integral:
∫∫(2cosθ, -2sinθ, z).(2cosθ, 2sinθ, z)dθdz and got ∫∫4(cosθ)^2-4(sinθ)^2 dθ dz=0

But using the divergence theorem: divF=1, so I found the answer to be the volume of the cylinder, 4pi.

Where have I gone wrong?

Thanks in advance! :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you include the top and bottom surfaces of the cylinder?
 
Ah, I forgot those... Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try again now and see if I get the right answer. Could someone explain how you work out which way round to do the cross products?
 
Thanks, I got the right answer. :-)

I'm still confused about the cross product thing I mentioned before though...
 
Your original problem, "Evaluate the surface integral ∫F.dS where F = xi - yj + zk and where the surface S is of the cylinder defined by x^2+y^2≤4, and 0≤z≤1" isn't complete. You need to specify the orientation of the surface as well. Here, as for general closed surfaces, you can specify either "oriented by outward pointing normals" or "oriented by inward pointing normals".

Changing the order of a cross product only changes the direction of the normal vector. In your example, you get <2cos(\theta), 2sin(\theta), z> If you check different values of \theta, for example, for \theta= 0 so that is <2, 0, z>or \theta= \pi/2 so that is <0, 2, z> you can see that the vector is pointing <b>away<b> from the the z-axis, which is the axis of the cylinder, and so is "outward pointing". If you did the cross product in the other order, you would get <-2cos(\theta) -2sin(\theta), -z> so that every vector is pointing <b>toward</b> the axis. That normal is "inward pointing" and integrating with that would give the negative of the integral using the "outward pointing" normal.<br /> <br /> That also, by the way, means that when you integrate over the two ends of the cylinder, you must make the same "outward" or "inward" choice. If you used outward pointing normals for the cylinder, then on the plane z= 1, you must use dS= <0, 0, 1> dxdy so it is pointing upward (out of the cylinder) and on the plane z= 0 you must use dX= <0, 0, -1>dxdy pointing downward (but still out of the cylinder).</b></b>
 
Thanks so much; this makes perfect sense now. :-)
 

Similar threads

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