Hey, so I guess my question is as follows. I've got a problem picturing a pyramid only being Bh/3 and not Bh/2. I've looked at the proof why it is so, and it seems reasonable when looking at it, BUT if I imagine a cone vs. a cylinder sliced with vertical rather than horizontal cuts I'm lost. See, you get a cylinder if you rotate a rectangle, but you get a cone with the same height if you rotate a triangle whose area is half of that of a rectangle. And if I then imagine the cone and cylinder sliced vertically to slices of virtually zero width (z component, as opposed to height and radius of the underlying circle) I get an indefinite number of them shaped as either rectangles with area x or triangles with an area of x/2.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So I guess what I wanted to ask is what am I missing. Because if my thinking as presented above was true, the volume of the cone vs. the cylinder would have a ratio of a half and not a third. Where is the rest of the cylinder and why is it not covered in the said image of an indefinite number of rectangles vs. triangles?

Thanks in advance.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Why isn't the volume of a pyramid Bh/2?

Loading...

Similar Threads for isn't volume pyramid | Date |
---|---|

A Volume form on unit sphere | Nov 28, 2016 |

I Bounding the volume distortion of a manifold | Jun 19, 2016 |

Arbitrary volume | Nov 21, 2015 |

Area and volume integral of vector field | Jun 13, 2014 |

Isn't the circle connected? | Jul 30, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**