$$\iint_{s} z dS $$ where S is the surface given by $$z^2=1+x^2+y^2$$ and $1 \leq(z)\leq\sqrt5$ (hyperbolic bowl)
-
3At first glance I read this as "hyperbolic owl", and I wondered what sort of creature that would be. – Asaf Karagila May 16 '13 at 10:31
-
3Pet peeve: One doesn't solve integrals. Integrals are computed/evaluated. – kahen May 17 '13 at 01:38
3 Answers
Use polar cylindrical coordinates. Here, the surface is given by $r(z) = \sqrt{z^2-1}$. The surface integral is then
$$2 \pi \int_1^{\sqrt{ 5}}dz \, z\, r(z) \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dr}{dz}\right)^2}$$
I leave it to the reader to derive the final form of the integral to be evaluated. I get
$$\pi \int_1^5 du \, \sqrt{2 u-1} = \frac{26 \pi}{3}$$
ADDENDUM
Note that this answer agrees with the parametrization approach:
$$z=1+x^2+y^2 \implies \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial y}\right)^2} = \sqrt{\frac{1+2 r^2}{1+r^2}}$$
so that the surface integral is
$$2 \pi \int_0^2 dr \, r z \sqrt{\frac{1+2 r^2}{1+r^2}} = 2 \pi \int_0^2 dr \, r\, \sqrt{1+r^2} \sqrt{\frac{1+2r^2}{1+r^2}}$$
Do a little algebra and see that the surface integral is
$$\pi \int_0^2 du \sqrt{2 u+1}$$
which agrees with the above result.

- 138,521
-
Hi Ron, i am actually unsure of how you came about your first step. It may seem obvious? but Maths is my weakest point and I am working on improving it. If it's not too much to ask, are you able to explain how you got your first step? – amanda May 16 '13 at 10:43
-
@amanda: this is a surface of revolution about the $z$ axis, so consider a surface element which is a ringlet of area $dS=2 \pi r ds$, where $ds$ is an element of arc length along an "edge" of the ringlet. The extra factor of $z$ comes from your integrand. I hope that helps. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 10:55
-
-
-
@RonGordon: It is me and I just wanted to remind you that I made the correction in the calculation. By the way, I could not lift the down vote unless you make an edit. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 17 '13 at 01:08
-
-
@MhenniBenghorbal: much appreciated. The universe reverts to its original, peaceful state. – Ron Gordon May 17 '13 at 02:05
A related problem. Note that,
$$ z=\sqrt{ 1+x^2+y^2 } \implies z_x=\frac{x}{\sqrt{ 1+x^2+y^2 }},\quad z_y=\frac{y}{\sqrt{ 1+x^2+y^2 }} $$
$$ \iint_{s} z dS = \iint_{D} z \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial y}\right)^2} dA $$
$$ = \iint_{D} \sqrt{1+(x^2+y^2)}\sqrt{{\frac {1+2\,{x}^{2}+2\,{y}^{2}}{1+{x}^{2}+{y}^{2}}}}\,dxdy $$
$$ =\iint_{D} \sqrt{{{1+2\,{x}^{2}+2\,{y}^{2}}{}}}\,dx dy $$
Now, $D\equiv \left\{ x^2+y^2 \leq 4 \right\}$. To see this notice that
$$ 1 \leq z\leq\sqrt5 \implies 1 \leq \sqrt{1+x^2+y^2} \leq\sqrt5 \implies x^2+y^2\leq 4. $$
So, we can use polar coordinates as
$$ = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2} \sqrt{1+2 r^2}\,r\, dr d\theta = \frac{26\pi}{3} . $$
Added: if you want to parametrize the surface, you go this way,
$$ x=r\cos(\phi),\quad y = r\sin(\phi), \quad z^2 = 1+x^2+y^2= 1+r^2 \implies z=\sqrt{1+r^2}. $$
You can write it in a vector form as
$$ \textbf{T}(r,\phi)= r\cos(\phi)\textbf{i}+ r\sin(\phi)\text{j}+ \sqrt{1+r^2}\, \text{k} $$
$$ \implies T_r = \cos(\phi)\textbf{i}+ \sin(\phi)\text{j} + \frac{r}{\sqrt{1+r^2}} \text{k}, $$
$$ T_\phi = -r\sin(\phi)\textbf{i} + r\cos(\phi)\text{j}+ 0 \,\text{k}.$$

- 47,431
-
1That's so clear, thankyou so much Mhenni :). This is second time you have saved me :)). If I was to parametrise for S, how would I go about that? Would it just be x=2cos(theta), y=2sin(theta) and z=(unsure) ? – amanda May 16 '13 at 11:20
-
-
@RonGordon I used wolfram to find it gives a different answer to yours? – amanda May 16 '13 at 11:33
-
i put Mhenni's last expression in WA. I'm sorry, you never asked me a question? @RonGordon – amanda May 16 '13 at 11:56
-
@RonGordon Perhaps you can answer this for me please since Mhenni is away? How would I parametise S? – amanda May 16 '13 at 11:57
-
@amanda: apologies, I thought it was Mhenni who wrote. Unfortunately, I asked Mhenni that question because what he posted is incorrect. He is going to have to correct his mistakes. Note that, if you carry out his integral, you obtain a complex number for a result. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 12:08
-
Thats's ok and you are right, I was getting an imaginary part. Since you are here, would you please be able to tell me what the parametisation of S is? Is it right to say x=2cos(theta), y=2sin(theta) and z=(I am unsure) ? @RonGordon – amanda May 16 '13 at 12:13
-
@amanda: I suppose the parametrization would be $x=r \cos{t}$, $y=r \sin{t}$, $z=1+r^2$. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 12:33
-
@amanda: for surfaces for revolution like this, all the complications of surface parametrization, while correct, is unnecessary. My approach is taken from a Calculus II course. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 12:35
-
-
-
@RonGordon: It is a sign issue. It is corrected. Thanks for the comment. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 13:07
-
@MhenniBenghorbal: are you sure? I did this out 2 different ways, and neither agree with what you have. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 13:09
-
@RonGordon: I just do things in rush without concentration. The technique is correct. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 13:13
-
-
1Mhenni: (-1) I downvoted you because the "technique," whatever it is, has somehow been misapplied. Doing things in a rush without concentration does nobody on this site any good. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 13:17
-
-
@RonGordon: It is a calculation issue. And it happens some times that you lose your conecentration. I do not think it is a big deal. The most importanr thing is the method and the OP can verify the answer as long as we put him on the right track. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 13:29
-
that's ok guys, it didn't effect me at all, as long as we corrected it. – amanda May 16 '13 at 13:58
-
Lastly, if i was to take the parametization approach which normal vector would i take? – amanda May 16 '13 at 13:59
-
-
@MhenniBenghorbal I am aware but what would it be in this case after parameterizing? Is it $n=T_\phi \times T_r$ or $n=T_\phi \times T_z$ or $n=T_z \times T_r$ how can I tell? This will be my last query, sorry for hassling you. – amanda May 16 '13 at 14:22
-
@amanda: Note that, you are going to take the absolute value of the cross product when you calculate the integral, so $|r_u\times r_v|= |r_v\times r_u|$ . – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 14:39
-
@MhenniBenghorbal I understand but i am confused as to which two vectors I will be taking? They all give a different magnitude. In my case, which is u and which is v? Is u=$\phi$ or $r$ or $z$ and what is v equal to? – amanda May 16 '13 at 14:55
-
Put $u=r$ and $v=\phi$. See the edit. Now, you consider $T_r \times T_{\phi}.$ Note this, when we parametrize a surface, we use two variables only. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 15:01
-
@MhenniBenghorbal Now when I do it this way I get a different answer.
$\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2}(\frac{4r^2}{1+r^2} - 2)\cdot\sqrt{1+r^2} drd\phi$ = 22.13 where as your answer gives 27.2? – amanda May 16 '13 at 15:14 -
@amanda: Make sure of your calculations. I added mare material. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 15:17
-
@MhenniBenghorbal i am certain. $ x=2cos(\phi), y=2\sin\phi,z=\sqrt{1+r^2} $. Taking the derivative with respect to $r$ and then with respect to $\phi$ and finding the jacobian and then the magnitude gives $(\frac{4r^2}{1+r^2}-2)$ Then multiplying by z$=\sqrt{1+r^2} drd\phi$ and taking the double integral with respect to r and $\phi$ gives 22.135 – amanda May 16 '13 at 15:26
-
@amanda : $x= r\cos(\phi) $ not $x= 2\cos(\phi) $ and the same for y. This is your mistake. I already parametrized the curve for you. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 15:35
-
@MhenniBenghorbal I made a mistake when taking the magnitude, gosh I am so sorry about that. I will recalculate now. – amanda May 16 '13 at 15:37
-
1@MhenniBenghorbal owwwww i see. Thankyou so, so, so much, honestly words can't even explain how thankful I am. I must say, I am very intrigued by your passion for teaching and maths even when you are not getting paid. – amanda May 16 '13 at 15:40
-
@amanda: You are very welcome. I am happy that you understood it. Keep the hard work. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 16 '13 at 15:42
-
@MhenniBenghorbal: I reversed my downvote, for two reasons: 1) it made no sense to have a correct result downvoters, and 2) the post has converted to a Community Wiki. That said, while what you did here is by no means unusual, I do not condone it. In the past, when I posted an incorrect result which was downvoters, and someone else then posted the correct result before I could correct mine, I felt the right thing to do was to delete my answer. I still feel that way. Anyway, I have spoken my mind on this. – Ron Gordon May 16 '13 at 22:47
-
@RonGordon: The reason for the down vote is I wanted to remind you that I made the correction and you could lift your down vote. I already put a comment telling you this. However, I was puuting a sign that I was working on correcting my answer. Thank you for your comment and pointing out the error. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 17 '13 at 01:04
-
@MhenniBenghorbal: a downvote is not an appropriate way to communicate that to me. A downvote is used for stating that an answer is not useful; my answer, while not the one accepted by the OP, was correct and illustrated two ways of doing the problem, each reinforcing the other. To be frank, I posted the second solution because it seemed to me that you weren't understanding why your solution was wrong. I downvoted you because the OP was misled into thinking that your solution was correct. I do not downvote often, I do not make it personal - I have no animus to you...(cont'd) – Ron Gordon May 17 '13 at 01:17
-
...and have even expressed my admiration for your ability in certain areas here. But from what I see, you seem to take downvoting too personally. When I downvoted you, I owned up to it and explained to you why I did it, with good reason. You, on the other hand, downvoted me...why? To get my attention? Because I didn't remove my downvote quickly enough for your liking? Because I angered you in downvoting your poorly-thought-out solution? You should expect a downvote in this situation. Downvotes also make this site great, when used appropriately. You chose to use it poorly. – Ron Gordon May 17 '13 at 01:21
-
You used the downvote as a weapon, as a reflection of the mistaken way in which you view this tool. In the future, if I discover any more such misuse of downvotes, I will refer the incidents to a moderator. In any case, I am ready to move on and work with you here, but please understand what the downvote is for - and feel free to downvote my poorly-thought-out answers. – Ron Gordon May 17 '13 at 01:28
-
@RonGordon: It is only a sign. So do not take it with a wrong meaning. Because sometimes, when you down vote an answer you forget about. So, you need to be reminded about it. In my opinion, we can use the down vote to remind the known down voters about the correction, so they lift their down vote. – Mhenni Benghorbal May 17 '13 at 01:59
The shape of your bowl $S$ is given by $$z(r)=\sqrt{1+r^2}\quad (0\leq r\leq2)\ ,\tag{1}$$ where $r:=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$. The bowl can be considered as a union of "infinitesimal lampshades" of area $$dS=2\pi r\>ds\ ,$$ where $ds$ denotes arclength along the shape curve $(1)$. Therefore $$ds=\sqrt{1+z'^2(r)}={1\over z(r)}\>\sqrt{1+2r^2}\ dr\ .$$ In this way your integral ($=: J)$ becomes $$J=2\pi\int_0^2 z(r)\> r\ ds=2\pi\int_0^2 r\>\sqrt{1+2r^2}\ dr={\pi\over3}\bigl(1+2r^2\bigr)^{3/2}\biggr|_0^2={26\pi\over3}\ .$$

- 226,825