Hi. My pupils have been set a project to design a new smarties
packet.
Some of them have got hooked up on finding the volume of a smartie.
They are GCSE students and have never come across calculus and I
have suggested they consider using the volume of either a cylinder
or a cuboid as a starting point for them to estimate the
volume.
Can anyone think of a way of improving the `model' without getting
into the realms of calculus?
Many thanks in anticipation
Jacky C
Dear Jacky,
One way would be to think of the smartie as a squashed
sphere.
It probably isn't really (I think it is too sharply curved at the
edge), but this would give a reasonable approximation to the effect
of the curved surface. Using the formula for the volume of a
sphere, you should just be able to scale this by the ratio of (the
radius of the 'sphere') to (the height of the smartie).
The radius of the sphere here will just be the radius of the
smartie.
To find the radius and height of the smartie, it would probably be
a good idea to cut the smartie, since then there is a flat face to
measure. If your school has a sixth form, the physics department
may have a micrometer, which can measure small distances very
accurately, but an accurate ruler will probably suffice, since
we're already making quite a big approximation.
Alternatively, this might be quite a good way of introducing some
of the ideas of calculus. Cut the smartie in half
horizontally.
The total volume (V, say) is then twice the volume of each half
(V1). But this is just 2×p×radius×(1/2 × area of
cross-section). The cross-section is now just a graph of y against
x, so would be amenable to say the trapezium rule, which would be
accessible (although lots of messy calculations) to GCSE students
(I think?) Maybe you could use a computer? To find the shape of the
cross-section, you could cut the smartie in half, VERTICALLY this
time, and trace round the outline onto a piece of paper, then maybe
enlarge the resulting shape using a photocopier. You could then
introduce the idea of taking more and more trapezia, and limits
etc. Or just counting squares would give quite a good answer.
I hope this has been helpful,
Yours,
David.