Surface area of a sphere with integration of disks
$begingroup$
Why it is not correct to say that the surface area of a sphere is:
$$
2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr
$$
In my mind we are summing up the perimeters of disks from $r=0$ to $r=R$, so by 1 integration, we would have $frac{1}{2}$ of the surface area of the sphere.
I know that it's not correct because that will give us $2pi R^2$ that it's different from $4pi R^2$, but why???
Thanks!
integration geometry definite-integrals spheres
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why it is not correct to say that the surface area of a sphere is:
$$
2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr
$$
In my mind we are summing up the perimeters of disks from $r=0$ to $r=R$, so by 1 integration, we would have $frac{1}{2}$ of the surface area of the sphere.
I know that it's not correct because that will give us $2pi R^2$ that it's different from $4pi R^2$, but why???
Thanks!
integration geometry definite-integrals spheres
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why it is not correct to say that the surface area of a sphere is:
$$
2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr
$$
In my mind we are summing up the perimeters of disks from $r=0$ to $r=R$, so by 1 integration, we would have $frac{1}{2}$ of the surface area of the sphere.
I know that it's not correct because that will give us $2pi R^2$ that it's different from $4pi R^2$, but why???
Thanks!
integration geometry definite-integrals spheres
$endgroup$
Why it is not correct to say that the surface area of a sphere is:
$$
2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr
$$
In my mind we are summing up the perimeters of disks from $r=0$ to $r=R$, so by 1 integration, we would have $frac{1}{2}$ of the surface area of the sphere.
I know that it's not correct because that will give us $2pi R^2$ that it's different from $4pi R^2$, but why???
Thanks!
integration geometry definite-integrals spheres
integration geometry definite-integrals spheres
edited Mar 27 '17 at 17:40
Bruno Reis
asked Mar 27 '17 at 17:31
Bruno ReisBruno Reis
1,002418
1,002418
1
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54
1
1
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In order to give a short explanation of the mistake :
In writing $quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr quad$ you sum elementary areas $quad dA=2pi:r:drquad$
that is to say, a strip length$=2pi r$ and width$=dr$.
The hitch is that the width is not $dr$ but is $ds$ (see the figure).
With a few calculus, you can find $quad ds=frac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr quadtoquad dA=2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr $
$$quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr =4pi R^2$$
This is a method to find the area of the sphere. Of course, a simpler method consists in doing the job in spherical coordinates instead of Cartesian coordinates.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you are doing is indeed integrating over rings, but then you get the area of a full circle, which was the result of your calculation up to the irrelevant factor of 2.
You can imagine that by adding more and more dense rings you fill a circle with radius $R$ (the upper limit of your integral).
But to get the area of a sphere, you need to parametrize all 3 dimensions.
What you can do is use spherical coordinates, where each point in space is described by a radius $r$, and two angles $theta,phi$ as in the link.
In fact, to get the area of the sphere you need to keep the radius constant, and integrate over the angles that parametrize the given sphere.
The result yields
$$S=int_0^{pi}int_0^{2pi}R^2sintheta dphi dtheta=R^22piint_0^{pi}sintheta dtheta=4pi R^2$$
as it should be.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A) when you pile up the disks you shall pay attention to law with which $r$ varies (with $h$, $x$, $alpha$ $cdots$) otherwise, as already told you do not make any distinction with a cone, a cylinder,..
B) adding disks to find volumes is ok, because the volume of the triangular cross-section ring that is left-out is a higher order infinitesimal vs. the volume of the disk; its surface instead is of the same order, and you must consider the hypothenuse instead of the cathetus.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$text{Area will be}~~: 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi x ~ ds$$
Where $ds$ is width of strip bounded by circles of radius $x$ and $x+dx$ situated at height $y$. Also $ds neq dr$ it's tilted in $y$ direction too. Only horizontal projection of $ds$ is $dr$.What you have done is valid for Disk See image below.
$$(ds)^2=(dx)^2+(dy)^2$$
Therefore :
$$ds = sqrt{1+Bigg( frac{dy}{dx}Bigg)^2}$$
Now,
$$x^2 + y^2 = R^2$$
$$y = sqrt{R^2 - x^2}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-2x}{2sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-x}{sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$left( dfrac{dy}{dx} right)^2 = dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}$$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{1 + dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{(R^2 - x^2) + x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
Let
$$x = R sin θ implies
dx = R cos θ dθ$$
When $x = 0, θ = 0$
When $x = R, θ = pi/2$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R sin theta sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - R^2 sin^2 theta}} , (R cos theta , dtheta)$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R^2 sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2(1 - sin^2 theta)}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{1}{cos^2 theta}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos theta left( dfrac{1}{cos theta} right) , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta , dtheta$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos theta bigg]_0^{pi/2}$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos frac{1}{2}pi + cos 0 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[ -0 + 1 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you consider a formula like
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dr$$
for a cylinder, it is zero and so fails.
If you consider a formula for a cylinder,
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dz$$
it seems to be correct.
However, for a cone $dz=0$ so even this formula fails.
Intuition says $dr,dz$ should both be involved.
In fact if you recall cone formula $ A = pi,r, s = 2 pi, bar {r} , s ,, dA= 2pi r ds $
slant generator is correct in principle.
We have cone differential area
$$ dA = 2 pi r ds = 2 pi r sqrt{dr^2+dz^2 } $$
and that should be considered in integration of all surfaces of revolution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two problems here.
First: Not only do your disks change radius from the apex to the base of the hemisphere, but they do so at a varying rate. Let's say (for concreteness) that the sphere is $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2$, and we're dividing the sphere into disks based on the $x$-coordinate. If you try to approximate the surface area of a hemisphere of radius $R=1$ by slicing it into disks of radius (say) $0.1, 0.2, ldots, 0.9, 1$, you'll find that the first few small-radius slices are very close together— to be precise, at $x = sqrt{1 - 0.1^2} = 0.994$, $sqrt{1-0.2^2} = 0.980$, $sqrt{1-0.3^2} = 0.954$, and so forth—but the larger slices are much farther apart. If you use the surface areas of these disks to calculate the surface area of the sphere, you have to take into account the fact that the disks have different widths.
Going from finite to infinitesimal width: The radius of a disk at $x$ is $r = sqrt{R^2-x^2}$ (the inverse of this formula is $x = sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$), so if you make cuts in the sphere each time the radius changes by $dr$, then the slices will have width $-dx = -dr dfrac{dx}{dr} = dfrac{r}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}, dr$ (the negative sign corrects for the fact that $x$ increases with decreasing $r$).
Second: The surfaces of the sphere slices that we discuss above have sloping cross-sections (in the $xy$ plane or any plane that includes the $x$-axis), whereas cylinders have flat surface cross-sections. You can ignore the difference this makes for calculating volume, but not for surface area; otherwise you can prove that $pi = 4$. So you need to make another correction: the width of the surface of a disk isn't $dx$ but rather $sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dr)^2} = sqrt{ dfrac{r^2}{R^2 - r^2} + 1}, dr = dfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr$. Putting this all together and integrating over $r$ (though $x$ would be nicer): The integral that you actually have to do is thus $$begin{align*} &int_0^R (2pi r) frac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr \
=& ;2pi R int_{r=0}^{r=R} frac{-du/2}{sqrt{u}} tag{$u = R^2 - r^2$; $du = -2r, dr$} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{u} right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{R^2 - r^2}right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=&;2pi R^2
end{align*}$$
and this is the result you want.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2205612%2fsurface-area-of-a-sphere-with-integration-of-disks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In order to give a short explanation of the mistake :
In writing $quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr quad$ you sum elementary areas $quad dA=2pi:r:drquad$
that is to say, a strip length$=2pi r$ and width$=dr$.
The hitch is that the width is not $dr$ but is $ds$ (see the figure).
With a few calculus, you can find $quad ds=frac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr quadtoquad dA=2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr $
$$quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr =4pi R^2$$
This is a method to find the area of the sphere. Of course, a simpler method consists in doing the job in spherical coordinates instead of Cartesian coordinates.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In order to give a short explanation of the mistake :
In writing $quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr quad$ you sum elementary areas $quad dA=2pi:r:drquad$
that is to say, a strip length$=2pi r$ and width$=dr$.
The hitch is that the width is not $dr$ but is $ds$ (see the figure).
With a few calculus, you can find $quad ds=frac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr quadtoquad dA=2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr $
$$quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr =4pi R^2$$
This is a method to find the area of the sphere. Of course, a simpler method consists in doing the job in spherical coordinates instead of Cartesian coordinates.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In order to give a short explanation of the mistake :
In writing $quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr quad$ you sum elementary areas $quad dA=2pi:r:drquad$
that is to say, a strip length$=2pi r$ and width$=dr$.
The hitch is that the width is not $dr$ but is $ds$ (see the figure).
With a few calculus, you can find $quad ds=frac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr quadtoquad dA=2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr $
$$quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr =4pi R^2$$
This is a method to find the area of the sphere. Of course, a simpler method consists in doing the job in spherical coordinates instead of Cartesian coordinates.
$endgroup$
In order to give a short explanation of the mistake :
In writing $quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi r text{ } dr quad$ you sum elementary areas $quad dA=2pi:r:drquad$
that is to say, a strip length$=2pi r$ and width$=dr$.
The hitch is that the width is not $dr$ but is $ds$ (see the figure).
With a few calculus, you can find $quad ds=frac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr quadtoquad dA=2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr $
$$quad 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi:rfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}dr =4pi R^2$$
This is a method to find the area of the sphere. Of course, a simpler method consists in doing the job in spherical coordinates instead of Cartesian coordinates.
answered Mar 27 '17 at 20:48
JJacquelinJJacquelin
44.3k21854
44.3k21854
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
$begingroup$
Perfect explanation! Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 23:22
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you are doing is indeed integrating over rings, but then you get the area of a full circle, which was the result of your calculation up to the irrelevant factor of 2.
You can imagine that by adding more and more dense rings you fill a circle with radius $R$ (the upper limit of your integral).
But to get the area of a sphere, you need to parametrize all 3 dimensions.
What you can do is use spherical coordinates, where each point in space is described by a radius $r$, and two angles $theta,phi$ as in the link.
In fact, to get the area of the sphere you need to keep the radius constant, and integrate over the angles that parametrize the given sphere.
The result yields
$$S=int_0^{pi}int_0^{2pi}R^2sintheta dphi dtheta=R^22piint_0^{pi}sintheta dtheta=4pi R^2$$
as it should be.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you are doing is indeed integrating over rings, but then you get the area of a full circle, which was the result of your calculation up to the irrelevant factor of 2.
You can imagine that by adding more and more dense rings you fill a circle with radius $R$ (the upper limit of your integral).
But to get the area of a sphere, you need to parametrize all 3 dimensions.
What you can do is use spherical coordinates, where each point in space is described by a radius $r$, and two angles $theta,phi$ as in the link.
In fact, to get the area of the sphere you need to keep the radius constant, and integrate over the angles that parametrize the given sphere.
The result yields
$$S=int_0^{pi}int_0^{2pi}R^2sintheta dphi dtheta=R^22piint_0^{pi}sintheta dtheta=4pi R^2$$
as it should be.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you are doing is indeed integrating over rings, but then you get the area of a full circle, which was the result of your calculation up to the irrelevant factor of 2.
You can imagine that by adding more and more dense rings you fill a circle with radius $R$ (the upper limit of your integral).
But to get the area of a sphere, you need to parametrize all 3 dimensions.
What you can do is use spherical coordinates, where each point in space is described by a radius $r$, and two angles $theta,phi$ as in the link.
In fact, to get the area of the sphere you need to keep the radius constant, and integrate over the angles that parametrize the given sphere.
The result yields
$$S=int_0^{pi}int_0^{2pi}R^2sintheta dphi dtheta=R^22piint_0^{pi}sintheta dtheta=4pi R^2$$
as it should be.
$endgroup$
What you are doing is indeed integrating over rings, but then you get the area of a full circle, which was the result of your calculation up to the irrelevant factor of 2.
You can imagine that by adding more and more dense rings you fill a circle with radius $R$ (the upper limit of your integral).
But to get the area of a sphere, you need to parametrize all 3 dimensions.
What you can do is use spherical coordinates, where each point in space is described by a radius $r$, and two angles $theta,phi$ as in the link.
In fact, to get the area of the sphere you need to keep the radius constant, and integrate over the angles that parametrize the given sphere.
The result yields
$$S=int_0^{pi}int_0^{2pi}R^2sintheta dphi dtheta=R^22piint_0^{pi}sintheta dtheta=4pi R^2$$
as it should be.
edited Mar 27 '17 at 18:01
answered Mar 27 '17 at 17:50
YoniYoni
358110
358110
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A) when you pile up the disks you shall pay attention to law with which $r$ varies (with $h$, $x$, $alpha$ $cdots$) otherwise, as already told you do not make any distinction with a cone, a cylinder,..
B) adding disks to find volumes is ok, because the volume of the triangular cross-section ring that is left-out is a higher order infinitesimal vs. the volume of the disk; its surface instead is of the same order, and you must consider the hypothenuse instead of the cathetus.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A) when you pile up the disks you shall pay attention to law with which $r$ varies (with $h$, $x$, $alpha$ $cdots$) otherwise, as already told you do not make any distinction with a cone, a cylinder,..
B) adding disks to find volumes is ok, because the volume of the triangular cross-section ring that is left-out is a higher order infinitesimal vs. the volume of the disk; its surface instead is of the same order, and you must consider the hypothenuse instead of the cathetus.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A) when you pile up the disks you shall pay attention to law with which $r$ varies (with $h$, $x$, $alpha$ $cdots$) otherwise, as already told you do not make any distinction with a cone, a cylinder,..
B) adding disks to find volumes is ok, because the volume of the triangular cross-section ring that is left-out is a higher order infinitesimal vs. the volume of the disk; its surface instead is of the same order, and you must consider the hypothenuse instead of the cathetus.
$endgroup$
A) when you pile up the disks you shall pay attention to law with which $r$ varies (with $h$, $x$, $alpha$ $cdots$) otherwise, as already told you do not make any distinction with a cone, a cylinder,..
B) adding disks to find volumes is ok, because the volume of the triangular cross-section ring that is left-out is a higher order infinitesimal vs. the volume of the disk; its surface instead is of the same order, and you must consider the hypothenuse instead of the cathetus.
answered Mar 27 '17 at 18:12
G CabG Cab
19.8k31340
19.8k31340
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$text{Area will be}~~: 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi x ~ ds$$
Where $ds$ is width of strip bounded by circles of radius $x$ and $x+dx$ situated at height $y$. Also $ds neq dr$ it's tilted in $y$ direction too. Only horizontal projection of $ds$ is $dr$.What you have done is valid for Disk See image below.
$$(ds)^2=(dx)^2+(dy)^2$$
Therefore :
$$ds = sqrt{1+Bigg( frac{dy}{dx}Bigg)^2}$$
Now,
$$x^2 + y^2 = R^2$$
$$y = sqrt{R^2 - x^2}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-2x}{2sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-x}{sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$left( dfrac{dy}{dx} right)^2 = dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}$$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{1 + dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{(R^2 - x^2) + x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
Let
$$x = R sin θ implies
dx = R cos θ dθ$$
When $x = 0, θ = 0$
When $x = R, θ = pi/2$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R sin theta sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - R^2 sin^2 theta}} , (R cos theta , dtheta)$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R^2 sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2(1 - sin^2 theta)}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{1}{cos^2 theta}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos theta left( dfrac{1}{cos theta} right) , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta , dtheta$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos theta bigg]_0^{pi/2}$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos frac{1}{2}pi + cos 0 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[ -0 + 1 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$text{Area will be}~~: 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi x ~ ds$$
Where $ds$ is width of strip bounded by circles of radius $x$ and $x+dx$ situated at height $y$. Also $ds neq dr$ it's tilted in $y$ direction too. Only horizontal projection of $ds$ is $dr$.What you have done is valid for Disk See image below.
$$(ds)^2=(dx)^2+(dy)^2$$
Therefore :
$$ds = sqrt{1+Bigg( frac{dy}{dx}Bigg)^2}$$
Now,
$$x^2 + y^2 = R^2$$
$$y = sqrt{R^2 - x^2}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-2x}{2sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-x}{sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$left( dfrac{dy}{dx} right)^2 = dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}$$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{1 + dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{(R^2 - x^2) + x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
Let
$$x = R sin θ implies
dx = R cos θ dθ$$
When $x = 0, θ = 0$
When $x = R, θ = pi/2$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R sin theta sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - R^2 sin^2 theta}} , (R cos theta , dtheta)$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R^2 sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2(1 - sin^2 theta)}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{1}{cos^2 theta}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos theta left( dfrac{1}{cos theta} right) , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta , dtheta$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos theta bigg]_0^{pi/2}$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos frac{1}{2}pi + cos 0 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[ -0 + 1 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$text{Area will be}~~: 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi x ~ ds$$
Where $ds$ is width of strip bounded by circles of radius $x$ and $x+dx$ situated at height $y$. Also $ds neq dr$ it's tilted in $y$ direction too. Only horizontal projection of $ds$ is $dr$.What you have done is valid for Disk See image below.
$$(ds)^2=(dx)^2+(dy)^2$$
Therefore :
$$ds = sqrt{1+Bigg( frac{dy}{dx}Bigg)^2}$$
Now,
$$x^2 + y^2 = R^2$$
$$y = sqrt{R^2 - x^2}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-2x}{2sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-x}{sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$left( dfrac{dy}{dx} right)^2 = dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}$$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{1 + dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{(R^2 - x^2) + x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
Let
$$x = R sin θ implies
dx = R cos θ dθ$$
When $x = 0, θ = 0$
When $x = R, θ = pi/2$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R sin theta sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - R^2 sin^2 theta}} , (R cos theta , dtheta)$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R^2 sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2(1 - sin^2 theta)}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{1}{cos^2 theta}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos theta left( dfrac{1}{cos theta} right) , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta , dtheta$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos theta bigg]_0^{pi/2}$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos frac{1}{2}pi + cos 0 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[ -0 + 1 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2$$
$endgroup$
$$text{Area will be}~~: 2 int_{0}^{R} 2pi x ~ ds$$
Where $ds$ is width of strip bounded by circles of radius $x$ and $x+dx$ situated at height $y$. Also $ds neq dr$ it's tilted in $y$ direction too. Only horizontal projection of $ds$ is $dr$.What you have done is valid for Disk See image below.
$$(ds)^2=(dx)^2+(dy)^2$$
Therefore :
$$ds = sqrt{1+Bigg( frac{dy}{dx}Bigg)^2}$$
Now,
$$x^2 + y^2 = R^2$$
$$y = sqrt{R^2 - x^2}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-2x}{2sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$dfrac{dy}{dx} = dfrac{-x}{sqrt{R^2 - x^2}}$$
$$left( dfrac{dy}{dx} right)^2 = dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}$$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{1 + dfrac{x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{(R^2 - x^2) + x^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^R x sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - x^2}} , dx$$
Let
$$x = R sin θ implies
dx = R cos θ dθ$$
When $x = 0, θ = 0$
When $x = R, θ = pi/2$
Thus,
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R sin theta sqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2 - R^2 sin^2 theta}} , (R cos theta , dtheta)$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi int_0^{pi/2} R^2 sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{R^2}{R^2(1 - sin^2 theta)}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos thetasqrt{dfrac{1}{cos^2 theta}} , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta cos theta left( dfrac{1}{cos theta} right) , dtheta$$
$$displaystyle A = 4pi R^2 int_0^{pi/2} sin theta , dtheta$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos theta bigg]_0^{pi/2}$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[-cos frac{1}{2}pi + cos 0 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2 bigg[ -0 + 1 bigg]$$
$$A = 4pi R^2$$
edited Mar 27 '17 at 18:13
answered Mar 27 '17 at 17:53
Jaideep KhareJaideep Khare
17.8k32669
17.8k32669
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you consider a formula like
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dr$$
for a cylinder, it is zero and so fails.
If you consider a formula for a cylinder,
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dz$$
it seems to be correct.
However, for a cone $dz=0$ so even this formula fails.
Intuition says $dr,dz$ should both be involved.
In fact if you recall cone formula $ A = pi,r, s = 2 pi, bar {r} , s ,, dA= 2pi r ds $
slant generator is correct in principle.
We have cone differential area
$$ dA = 2 pi r ds = 2 pi r sqrt{dr^2+dz^2 } $$
and that should be considered in integration of all surfaces of revolution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you consider a formula like
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dr$$
for a cylinder, it is zero and so fails.
If you consider a formula for a cylinder,
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dz$$
it seems to be correct.
However, for a cone $dz=0$ so even this formula fails.
Intuition says $dr,dz$ should both be involved.
In fact if you recall cone formula $ A = pi,r, s = 2 pi, bar {r} , s ,, dA= 2pi r ds $
slant generator is correct in principle.
We have cone differential area
$$ dA = 2 pi r ds = 2 pi r sqrt{dr^2+dz^2 } $$
and that should be considered in integration of all surfaces of revolution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you consider a formula like
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dr$$
for a cylinder, it is zero and so fails.
If you consider a formula for a cylinder,
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dz$$
it seems to be correct.
However, for a cone $dz=0$ so even this formula fails.
Intuition says $dr,dz$ should both be involved.
In fact if you recall cone formula $ A = pi,r, s = 2 pi, bar {r} , s ,, dA= 2pi r ds $
slant generator is correct in principle.
We have cone differential area
$$ dA = 2 pi r ds = 2 pi r sqrt{dr^2+dz^2 } $$
and that should be considered in integration of all surfaces of revolution.
$endgroup$
If you consider a formula like
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dr$$
for a cylinder, it is zero and so fails.
If you consider a formula for a cylinder,
$$ dA = 2 pi r , dz$$
it seems to be correct.
However, for a cone $dz=0$ so even this formula fails.
Intuition says $dr,dz$ should both be involved.
In fact if you recall cone formula $ A = pi,r, s = 2 pi, bar {r} , s ,, dA= 2pi r ds $
slant generator is correct in principle.
We have cone differential area
$$ dA = 2 pi r ds = 2 pi r sqrt{dr^2+dz^2 } $$
and that should be considered in integration of all surfaces of revolution.
answered Mar 27 '17 at 18:34
NarasimhamNarasimham
20.9k62158
20.9k62158
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two problems here.
First: Not only do your disks change radius from the apex to the base of the hemisphere, but they do so at a varying rate. Let's say (for concreteness) that the sphere is $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2$, and we're dividing the sphere into disks based on the $x$-coordinate. If you try to approximate the surface area of a hemisphere of radius $R=1$ by slicing it into disks of radius (say) $0.1, 0.2, ldots, 0.9, 1$, you'll find that the first few small-radius slices are very close together— to be precise, at $x = sqrt{1 - 0.1^2} = 0.994$, $sqrt{1-0.2^2} = 0.980$, $sqrt{1-0.3^2} = 0.954$, and so forth—but the larger slices are much farther apart. If you use the surface areas of these disks to calculate the surface area of the sphere, you have to take into account the fact that the disks have different widths.
Going from finite to infinitesimal width: The radius of a disk at $x$ is $r = sqrt{R^2-x^2}$ (the inverse of this formula is $x = sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$), so if you make cuts in the sphere each time the radius changes by $dr$, then the slices will have width $-dx = -dr dfrac{dx}{dr} = dfrac{r}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}, dr$ (the negative sign corrects for the fact that $x$ increases with decreasing $r$).
Second: The surfaces of the sphere slices that we discuss above have sloping cross-sections (in the $xy$ plane or any plane that includes the $x$-axis), whereas cylinders have flat surface cross-sections. You can ignore the difference this makes for calculating volume, but not for surface area; otherwise you can prove that $pi = 4$. So you need to make another correction: the width of the surface of a disk isn't $dx$ but rather $sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dr)^2} = sqrt{ dfrac{r^2}{R^2 - r^2} + 1}, dr = dfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr$. Putting this all together and integrating over $r$ (though $x$ would be nicer): The integral that you actually have to do is thus $$begin{align*} &int_0^R (2pi r) frac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr \
=& ;2pi R int_{r=0}^{r=R} frac{-du/2}{sqrt{u}} tag{$u = R^2 - r^2$; $du = -2r, dr$} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{u} right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{R^2 - r^2}right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=&;2pi R^2
end{align*}$$
and this is the result you want.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two problems here.
First: Not only do your disks change radius from the apex to the base of the hemisphere, but they do so at a varying rate. Let's say (for concreteness) that the sphere is $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2$, and we're dividing the sphere into disks based on the $x$-coordinate. If you try to approximate the surface area of a hemisphere of radius $R=1$ by slicing it into disks of radius (say) $0.1, 0.2, ldots, 0.9, 1$, you'll find that the first few small-radius slices are very close together— to be precise, at $x = sqrt{1 - 0.1^2} = 0.994$, $sqrt{1-0.2^2} = 0.980$, $sqrt{1-0.3^2} = 0.954$, and so forth—but the larger slices are much farther apart. If you use the surface areas of these disks to calculate the surface area of the sphere, you have to take into account the fact that the disks have different widths.
Going from finite to infinitesimal width: The radius of a disk at $x$ is $r = sqrt{R^2-x^2}$ (the inverse of this formula is $x = sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$), so if you make cuts in the sphere each time the radius changes by $dr$, then the slices will have width $-dx = -dr dfrac{dx}{dr} = dfrac{r}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}, dr$ (the negative sign corrects for the fact that $x$ increases with decreasing $r$).
Second: The surfaces of the sphere slices that we discuss above have sloping cross-sections (in the $xy$ plane or any plane that includes the $x$-axis), whereas cylinders have flat surface cross-sections. You can ignore the difference this makes for calculating volume, but not for surface area; otherwise you can prove that $pi = 4$. So you need to make another correction: the width of the surface of a disk isn't $dx$ but rather $sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dr)^2} = sqrt{ dfrac{r^2}{R^2 - r^2} + 1}, dr = dfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr$. Putting this all together and integrating over $r$ (though $x$ would be nicer): The integral that you actually have to do is thus $$begin{align*} &int_0^R (2pi r) frac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr \
=& ;2pi R int_{r=0}^{r=R} frac{-du/2}{sqrt{u}} tag{$u = R^2 - r^2$; $du = -2r, dr$} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{u} right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{R^2 - r^2}right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=&;2pi R^2
end{align*}$$
and this is the result you want.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two problems here.
First: Not only do your disks change radius from the apex to the base of the hemisphere, but they do so at a varying rate. Let's say (for concreteness) that the sphere is $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2$, and we're dividing the sphere into disks based on the $x$-coordinate. If you try to approximate the surface area of a hemisphere of radius $R=1$ by slicing it into disks of radius (say) $0.1, 0.2, ldots, 0.9, 1$, you'll find that the first few small-radius slices are very close together— to be precise, at $x = sqrt{1 - 0.1^2} = 0.994$, $sqrt{1-0.2^2} = 0.980$, $sqrt{1-0.3^2} = 0.954$, and so forth—but the larger slices are much farther apart. If you use the surface areas of these disks to calculate the surface area of the sphere, you have to take into account the fact that the disks have different widths.
Going from finite to infinitesimal width: The radius of a disk at $x$ is $r = sqrt{R^2-x^2}$ (the inverse of this formula is $x = sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$), so if you make cuts in the sphere each time the radius changes by $dr$, then the slices will have width $-dx = -dr dfrac{dx}{dr} = dfrac{r}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}, dr$ (the negative sign corrects for the fact that $x$ increases with decreasing $r$).
Second: The surfaces of the sphere slices that we discuss above have sloping cross-sections (in the $xy$ plane or any plane that includes the $x$-axis), whereas cylinders have flat surface cross-sections. You can ignore the difference this makes for calculating volume, but not for surface area; otherwise you can prove that $pi = 4$. So you need to make another correction: the width of the surface of a disk isn't $dx$ but rather $sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dr)^2} = sqrt{ dfrac{r^2}{R^2 - r^2} + 1}, dr = dfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr$. Putting this all together and integrating over $r$ (though $x$ would be nicer): The integral that you actually have to do is thus $$begin{align*} &int_0^R (2pi r) frac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr \
=& ;2pi R int_{r=0}^{r=R} frac{-du/2}{sqrt{u}} tag{$u = R^2 - r^2$; $du = -2r, dr$} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{u} right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{R^2 - r^2}right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=&;2pi R^2
end{align*}$$
and this is the result you want.
$endgroup$
There are two problems here.
First: Not only do your disks change radius from the apex to the base of the hemisphere, but they do so at a varying rate. Let's say (for concreteness) that the sphere is $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = R^2$, and we're dividing the sphere into disks based on the $x$-coordinate. If you try to approximate the surface area of a hemisphere of radius $R=1$ by slicing it into disks of radius (say) $0.1, 0.2, ldots, 0.9, 1$, you'll find that the first few small-radius slices are very close together— to be precise, at $x = sqrt{1 - 0.1^2} = 0.994$, $sqrt{1-0.2^2} = 0.980$, $sqrt{1-0.3^2} = 0.954$, and so forth—but the larger slices are much farther apart. If you use the surface areas of these disks to calculate the surface area of the sphere, you have to take into account the fact that the disks have different widths.
Going from finite to infinitesimal width: The radius of a disk at $x$ is $r = sqrt{R^2-x^2}$ (the inverse of this formula is $x = sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$), so if you make cuts in the sphere each time the radius changes by $dr$, then the slices will have width $-dx = -dr dfrac{dx}{dr} = dfrac{r}{sqrt{R^2-r^2}}, dr$ (the negative sign corrects for the fact that $x$ increases with decreasing $r$).
Second: The surfaces of the sphere slices that we discuss above have sloping cross-sections (in the $xy$ plane or any plane that includes the $x$-axis), whereas cylinders have flat surface cross-sections. You can ignore the difference this makes for calculating volume, but not for surface area; otherwise you can prove that $pi = 4$. So you need to make another correction: the width of the surface of a disk isn't $dx$ but rather $sqrt{(dx)^2 + (dr)^2} = sqrt{ dfrac{r^2}{R^2 - r^2} + 1}, dr = dfrac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr$. Putting this all together and integrating over $r$ (though $x$ would be nicer): The integral that you actually have to do is thus $$begin{align*} &int_0^R (2pi r) frac{R}{sqrt{R^2 - r^2}}, dr \
=& ;2pi R int_{r=0}^{r=R} frac{-du/2}{sqrt{u}} tag{$u = R^2 - r^2$; $du = -2r, dr$} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{u} right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=& -2pi R left. sqrt{R^2 - r^2}right|_{r=0}^{r=R} \
=&;2pi R^2
end{align*}$$
and this is the result you want.
edited Jan 2 at 12:06
TonyF
32
32
answered Mar 27 '17 at 18:42
Connor HarrisConnor Harris
4,430724
4,430724
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2205612%2fsurface-area-of-a-sphere-with-integration-of-disks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
It's bad form, and technically incorrect, to have one of the limits of integration depend on the variable of integration. What does it mean to say "to $r=r$"? Isn't $r=r$ always true since $r$ varies between $0$ and some fixed positive constant? It'd be better to call this constant $R$ to keep it separate from the variable $r$. This is more of a side note.
$endgroup$
– tilper
Mar 27 '17 at 17:37
$begingroup$
@tilper fixed It, thanks
$endgroup$
– Bruno Reis
Mar 27 '17 at 17:41
$begingroup$
If your method was correct, then you should get the same answer for a cone whose base radius and height are equal. But you don't, do you?
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Mar 27 '17 at 17:54