MHB Find the Volume of Mt. Vesuvius After 79AD in Terms of pi

  • Thread starter Thread starter ruu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi Terms Volume
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the volume of Mt. Vesuvius after its 79 AD eruption, using its dimensions before and after the event. The initial volume is calculated using the formula for a cone, yielding approximately 1.4019 x 10^10 π cubic feet. The volume of the material erupted is determined, leading to a final volume of about 8951318293 π cubic feet post-eruption. Participants highlight an error in the calculation of the erupted volume, emphasizing the need to correctly account for height changes. The conversation concludes with a suggestion to verify calculations for accuracy and consistency.
ruu
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii was a conic volcano with a height from its base 7950 feet and a base radius of 2300 feet. In 79 AD, the volcano erupted, reducing its height to 4200 feet . Find the volume of the volcano after 79 AD in terms of pi.


WORK:
Volume of Volcano(Before 79AD)= \pi *r^2*h/3
=\pi *(2300)^2 * 7950/3
=5290000\pi * 2650
= 1.4019 * 10^10 * \pi

Volume of Volcano part erupted off:
Height: 7950 ft - 2300 ft = 5650 ft
Radius= 5650 * (2300/7950) = 1634.5912 ft
Volume= \pi *r^2*h/3
= \pi *(1634.5912)^2*5650/3
=2671888.375 \pi * 1896.6667
=5067681707* \pi

Volume of Volcano(After 79AD)= (Volume of Volcano(Before 79AD)) - (Volume of Volcano part erupted off)
=(1.4019 * 10^10 * \pi) - (5067681707* \pi)
= 8951318293* \pi

Note to reader: Please check my work. I'm not sure if my solutions are correct or if i did the problem correctly.
Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
We know the radius $r$ of the cone decreases linearly as a function of height $h$, and this linear function contains the two points:

$$(r,h)=(2300,0),\,(0,7950)$$

Thus, using the point-slope formula, we obtain:

$$r(h)=-\frac{2300}{7950}h+2300=2300\left(1-\frac{h}{7950}\right)=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-h)$$

Now, the volume $V$ of the frustum of a cone is given as:

$$V=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_1+A_2+\sqrt{A_1A_2}\right)$$

where $$A_i=\pi R_i^2$$

Frustum_750.gif


Hence:

$$V=\frac{\pi h}{3}\left(R_1^2+R_2^2+R_1R_2\right)$$

With $h=4200\text{ ft}$, we obtain:

$$R_1=2300\text{ ft}$$

$$R_2=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-4200)\text{ ft}=\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}$$

And so, we have:

$$V=\frac{\left(4200\text{ ft}\right)\pi}{3}\left(\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)^2+\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)^2+\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)\right)$$

$$V=\frac{35245154000000}{2809}\pi\text{ ft}^3\approx1.2547224635101458\times10^{10}\text{ ft}^3$$

This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)
 
MarkFL said:
We know the radius $r$ of the cone decreases linearly as a function of height $h$, and this linear function contains the two points:

$$(r,h)=(2300,0),\,(0,7950)$$

Thus, using the point-slope formula, we obtain:

$$r(h)=-\frac{2300}{7950}h+2300=2300\left(1-\frac{h}{7950}\right)=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-h)$$

Now, the volume $V$ of the frustum of a cone is given as:

$$V=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_1+A_2+\sqrt{A_1A_2}\right)$$

where $$A_i=\pi R_i^2$$
Hence:

$$V=\frac{\pi h}{3}\left(R_1^2+R_2^2+R_1R_2\right)$$

With $h=4200\text{ ft}$, we obtain:

$$R_1=2300\text{ ft}$$

$$R_2=\frac{2300}{7950}(7950-4200)\text{ ft}=\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}$$

And so, we have:

$$V=\frac{\left(4200\text{ ft}\right)\pi}{3}\left(\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)^2+\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)^2+\left(2300\text{ ft}\right)\left(\frac{57500}{53}\,\text{ft}\right)\right)$$

$$V=\frac{35245154000000}{2809}\pi\text{ ft}^3\approx1.2547224635101458\times10^{10}\text{ ft}^3$$

This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)
Hello, thank you for your help so far.However, how can I find the final volume of the volcano after 79 AD without the knowledge of the volume of a frostum.
For example, can you solve this problem by subtracting the total volume of the volcano before 79AD minus the volume of the part of the volcano that blew off? And how?
 
ruu said:
Hello, thank you for your help so far.However, how can I find the final volume of the volcano after 79 AD without the knowledge of the volume of a frostum.
For example, can you solve this problem by subtracting the total volume of the volcano before 79AD minus the volume of the part of the volcano that blew off? And how?

I used the formula for the volume of a conical frustum as a means of checking your work, as you requested. Once I found that gave a result different from what you posted, I looked through your work and found the error:

MarkFL said:
...This is different than your result. I see the reason is that when you computed the volume of the part blown off, you computed the height of the part blown off by taking the initial height and subtracting the base radius, when you should have subtracted the final height instead. :)

Make that correction and see if your result then agrees with the result I posted. :D
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top