Problem - need help for part (ii)

Let $\vec{F} = y \vec{i} -x \vec{j} + z \vec{k}$ and let the surface $S$ be the part of the paraboloid $ z = 4 - x^2 - y^2$ with $z \geq 0 $, oriented with $\vec{n}$ upwards. Calculate the flux integral $\int_S \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{S}$ using

i) Cartesian coordinates

ii) cylindrical coordinates

My attempt for (i)

We parameterize the surface $S$ using Cartesian coordinates, $$\vec{r}(u,v) = (u,v, 4 - u^2 - v^2), $$ and let $f(x,y,z) = x^2 + y^2 + z$. The normal to the surface $S$, $\vec{n}$, is found by computing grad(f), i.e. $$\vec{n} = \nabla f(x,y,z) = (2x,2y,1) = (2u,2v,1). $$ Time to evaluate the integral, \begin{align*} \int_S \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{S} & = \int_S \vec{F}(\vec{r}(u,v)) \cdot \vec{n} dS \\ & =\int_S (v,-u,4-u^2-v^2) \cdot (2u,2v,1) dS \\ & = \int_S (4 - u^2 - v^2) dS. \tag{1} \end{align*} Since the surface is defined as a paraboloid, we will use cylindrical coordinates to find out the limits of integration, \begin{align} u &= r\cos(\theta), \\ v &= r\sin(\theta), \\ z &= z. \end{align} As $z \geq 0$, then we have $u^2 +v^2 \leq 4$ which implies that the $ 0 \leq r \leq 2$.

Now the integral becomes, $$\int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^2 (4-r^2)r dr d\theta = \dots = 8\pi. $$

A predicament - SOLVED - See first comment below.

Let's come back to $(1)$. To find the limits, I originally did this:

As $z \geq 0$, we have $u^2 + v^2 \leq 4$ which implies that $$-\sqrt{4-u^2} \leq v \leq \sqrt{4-u^2} \\ 0 \leq u \leq 2.$$ Putting this into the integral gives an answer of $4\pi$. What was wrong with this reasoning for finding the limits of integration?

For part (ii)

I'm going to skip the detail but using polar coordinates gives, $$ \vec{n} = (2rcos(\theta), 2rsin(\theta),r) \\ \vec{F}(\vec{x}(r,\theta)) = (rsin(\theta), -rcos(\theta), 4-r^2). $$

Substitute the findings into the integral, \begin{align*} \int_S \vec{F} \cdot \vec{n} dS & = \int_S (4-r^2) dS \end{align*}

Here is the problem, what is $dS$? If I understand correctly, it was $dxdy$ but after the cylindrical coordinates parameterization, it changes to $drd\theta$. Then does that mean I'm missing the Jacobian,$\left| \dfrac{\partial (x,y)}{\partial (r,\theta)}\right| = r$ since I changed the variables?

If so, if gives the answers. I feel that I have reasoned correctly. Could anyone please point out any errors in my reasoning or confirm if I'm correct?

Many thanks

  • $\begingroup$ For your predicament, notice that your bound on $u$ is incorrect; there's no reason why $u$ cannot take negative values. The correct bound is $|u|\leq 2$ i.e. $-2\leq u \leq 2$. $\endgroup$ – FH93 Jun 7 '15 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ @FH93 Wow, what a miss! Thanks for solving a logical error. $\endgroup$ – Jester Tran Jun 7 '15 at 11:05
  • $\begingroup$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/1312241/… $\endgroup$ – Mann Jun 7 '15 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Mann Thanks, that really helps. $\endgroup$ – Jester Tran Jun 7 '15 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ No problem, ^^. $\endgroup$ – Mann Jun 7 '15 at 12:07

I'm not sure why you switched from x,y to u,v but it doesn't really matter. The surface is "the part of the paraboloid z=4−x^2 −y^2 with z≥0" so its boundary is the circle x^2+ y^2= 4 in the xy-plane. In Cartesian Coordinates, you can take x going from -2 to 2 and, for each x, y from -sqrt{4- x^2} to sqrt{4- x^2}. In polar coordinates r goes from 0 to 2 and $\theta$ from 0 to $2\pi$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but I've already established the bounds of integration. I switched to u and v because I'm used to u and v being my parameters. My question now is part ii. $\endgroup$ – Jester Tran Jun 8 '15 at 1:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.