Hello everyone,
I have come across this following question which has bothered me
for a whole day!
Two circular cylinders each have a radius r. The cylinders
intersect so that their axes of symmetry intersect at right angles.
Find, in terms of r, the volume common to both cylinders.
I cannot seem to be able to imagine the common volume!
[Picture here -
you can even rotate it! - The Editor]
I hope you can help me!
Thank you
I'm afraid I can't visualise this either, so I'm going to have
to resort to brute force.
If we're measuring in (x,y,z) co-ordinates then let the axis of one
cyclinder be given by x = y = 0 and the other by x = z = 0.
Now I think that points inside the first cylinder satisfy:
x2 + y2 < r2
And the second:
x2 + z2 < r2
So we want to find the volume enclosed by these equations.
Now consider a slice given by:
a < x < a+da
We find that:
-sqrt(r2 - a2) < y < sqrt(r2
– a2)
-sqrt(r2 - a2) < z < sqrt(r2
– a2)
In other words we are considering a rectangular slice. The volume
of it is:
da × 2sqrt(r2 -
a2) × 2sqrt(r2 –
a2)
= 4(r2 – a2)da
Now integrate this from a = -r to a = r (to cover the entire range
of x values):
Integral[4(r2 – a2) da ] from –r
to r
= 4r2a – 4/3a3
= 8r3 – 8/3r3 =
16r3/3.
Hope this is right,
Michael
Michael; you are correct. However, Archimedes provided a more
elegant method of solution. In the volume common to both cylinders
place a sphere of radius r having its centre at the intersection of
the two axes of the cylinders.
Now take any plane section through the cylinders. This will give
you a square cross section of the area common to both cylinders
which circumscribes a circle as the cross section of the sphere.
Now, clearly the volume of the sphere is the sum of all circular
cross sections and the volume of the solid common to both cylinders
is the sum of all square cross sections. The ratio of the volume of
the sphere to the volume of the solid is therefore the same as the
ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a circumscribed
square. So
(4(p)r3/3)/x = p/4
x = 16r3/3
Tom
An Egyptian method using no calculus is described in this article. In this case, you don't even need to know the volume of a sphere before you start, and so you can then derive the volume of the sphere using Tom's method.
What about the case when you have three cylinders intersecting
orthogonally? I think that the common volume is
8(2-sqrt(2))r3, but my derivation of this is really
nasty and involves setting up integrals for the areas of slices
which are themselves the intersections of circles and squares. Did
Archimedes have a clever trick for this one too?
David
Thanks Tom, that's very nice. I had to spend about 15 minutes
trying to visualise where the rectangle came from (of course I
could calculate its existence - but I don't have very good visual
intuition). Actually the two methods are more similar than you
would think. Both ways are considering a horizontal slice, and if
you look at my formula, 4(r2-a2)da... this is proportional to the area of the
circle you were talking about. So actually pretty similar.
But how would Archemedies have known the volume of a sphere,
without knowing integration?
I agree with David's answer for the extension question, but cannot
see an elegant method of approach. I thought I had a good way using
a higher-dimensional generalisation, but it didn't work.
Yours,
Michael
As to how Archimedes would have known the volume of a sphere, he
could have possibly found it by displacement of water. I think this
is how the volume of a cone was known a long time ago. And, who
knows, he could have estimated a formula using a bunch of pyramids
put together, although this would be a good deal of work.
Brad
Thanks Brad. Of course you are correct - but I would be suprised
if Archimedes knew that the constant of proportionality between
Vsphere and r3 was 4p/3. Perhaps he had a good numerical estimate. The
volume of a cone is a good deal easier - you can prove it without
calculus.
Hi, everyone!
Did Archimedes know about the formula:
inverted right circular cone + hemisphere of same radius =
cylinder?
If so, then he could have derived the constant in a (very) simple
manner.
Er... he might have done but I certainly didn't know that till
now! Thank you for informing me.
Michael