Integral (area) of a revolved parabola

In summary, the volume under the revolving parabola y=ax2 with R as xmax is given by the integral of pi times x times y, which is equal to pi times A times R to the power of 4 divided by 4. The volume is relative to R3 and if y=Ax3, then the calculation would result in a volume relative to R7. However, the issue lies in the interpretation of the constant A, which must have a dimension of m-1 in order for the units to be correct.
  • #1
Karol
1,380
22
Whats's the volume under the revolving parabola y=ax2. R is xmax.
Snap1.jpg

$$V=\int_0^R\pi xdx\cdot y=\pi\int_o^R x\cdot Ax^2dx=\pi A\frac{R^4}{4}$$
Volume should be relative to R3. and if i had, for example, y=Ax3 then, according to my calculation i would get relative to R7 and so on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Karol said:
Volume should be relative to R3.
Indeed (proportional would probably be a better term).
Karol said:
and if i had, for example, y=Ax3 then, according to my calculation i would get relative to R7 and so on.
So clearly something is wrong here.

What formula are you using to find the volume of a solid of revolution?
 
  • #3
Why there is ##x\cdot y## in your formula, this must be ##V=\int_{0}^{R}\pi f^{2}(x)\,d\,x##...
 
  • #4
The volume is the sum of the vertical tubes of changing height y and infinitesimally small thickness dx. the perimeter of the tubes is πr.
$$V=\int dv=\int (\pi x)y\cdot dx$$
y, in turn, equals Ax2. but according to this approach i would get a bigger error if i had, for example, y=Bx3
 
  • #5
Karol said:
Volume should be relative to R3
There is no reason for the volume to be proportional to ##R^3##. In fact you will discover that it isn't!
Karol said:
The volume is the sum of the vertical tubes of changing height y and infinitesimally small thickness dx. the perimeter of the tubes is πr.
$$V=\int dv=\int (\pi x)y\cdot dx$$
y, in turn, equals Ax2. but according to this approach i would get a bigger error if i had, for example, y=Bx3
I'm not sure why you are considering the perimeter of the disks centred about the x-axis. Would you not want to be using the area of the disks and then integrating over x? If you revolve your parabola about the x-axis, you get lots of solid disks centred about the x-axis which grow in radius as you move further along in x, right? What is the radius of a given disk as a function of x? Once you have this, you then know the area of each disk as a function of x. Once you have an expression for the disk area as a function of x, you can integrate over x, effectively summing up the infinitesimal cylinders centred about the x-axis. Does this make sense?
 
  • #6
muscaria said:
Would you not want to be using the area of the disks
$$V=\int_0^{y=AR^2}\pi(R^2-x^2)dy=\pi\int_0^{AR^2}R^2-\frac{y}{A}dy=\pi\left[ R^2y-\frac{y^2}{2A} \right]_0^{AR^2}=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
Also with my previous method of tubes:
$$V=\int_0^R2\pi xdx\cdot y=2\pi\int_o^R x\cdot Ax^2dx=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
I found in a site the volume under a paraboloid, an inverse of mine, is ##V=\frac{\pi}{2}hr^2##, and according to that my volume is:
$$V=\pi R^2h-\frac{\pi}{2}hR^2=...=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
In all 3 methods i get the same.
But the units are ##R^4[m^4]## while volume is [m3]
 
  • #7
Karol said:
$$V=\int_0^{y=AR^2}\pi(R^2-x^2)dy=\pi\int_0^{AR^2}R^2-\frac{y}{A}dy=\pi\left[ R^2y-\frac{y^2}{2A} \right]_0^{AR^2}=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
Also with my previous method of tubes:
$$V=\int_0^R2\pi xdx\cdot y=2\pi\int_o^R x\cdot Ax^2dx=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
I found in a site the volume under a paraboloid, an inverse of mine, is ##V=\frac{\pi}{2}hr^2##, and according to that my volume is:
$$V=\pi R^2h-\frac{\pi}{2}hR^2=...=\frac{\pi A}{2}R^4$$
In all 3 methods i get the same.
But the units are ##R^4[m^4]## while volume is [m3]
I made the same mistake as you. In what units is A?
 
  • #8
Karol said:
Whats's the volume under the revolving parabola y=ax2. R is xmax.
View attachment 92398
$$V=\int_0^R\pi xdx\cdot y=\pi\int_o^R x\cdot Ax^2dx=\pi A\frac{R^4}{4}$$
Volume should be relative to R3. and if i had, for example, y=Ax3 then, according to my calculation i would get relative to R7 and so on.
Yes. Your trouble lies with the interpretation of the constant A. Since you are trying to find a volume, you are assigning a "length dimension" to x. Assume that x has the dimension m (meter). Then y also needs to have the dimension m. Using the formula y = Ax2 means that A must have the dimension m-1. With that in mind the dimension of your volume becomes m-1⋅m4 = m3.
 
  • #9
I understood, thanks
 

Related to Integral (area) of a revolved parabola

1. What is the formula for finding the integral (area) of a revolved parabola?

The formula for finding the integral (area) of a revolved parabola is π∫ab (f(x))2 dx, where a and b are the bounds of integration and f(x) is the equation of the parabola.

2. How do you determine the bounds of integration for a revolved parabola?

The bounds of integration for a revolved parabola can be determined by finding the points of intersection between the parabola and the axis of rotation. These points will be the lower and upper limits of the integral.

3. Can the integral (area) of a revolved parabola be negative?

No, the integral (area) of a revolved parabola cannot be negative. The integral represents the area under the curve, and since area cannot be negative, the integral must be positive or zero.

4. How does the radius of rotation affect the integral (area) of a revolved parabola?

The radius of rotation does not directly affect the integral (area) of a revolved parabola. However, a larger radius will result in a larger area of revolution due to the increased distance from the axis of rotation.

5. Can the integral (area) of a revolved parabola be approximated using numerical methods?

Yes, the integral (area) of a revolved parabola can be approximated using numerical methods such as the trapezoidal rule or Simpson's rule. These methods divide the area under the curve into smaller sections and use calculations to estimate the total area. The more sections that are used, the more accurate the approximation will be.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
444
  • Calculus
Replies
16
Views
547
Replies
2
Views
351
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
712
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
392
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top