MHB Frank Rodgriguez's question at Yahoo Answers regarding a solid of revolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkFL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Revolution Solid
AI Thread Summary
To find the volume of the solid obtained by revolving the region enclosed by y = xe^x, y = 0, and x = 1 about the x-axis, the disk method is utilized. The volume is expressed as V = π∫(0 to 1) x^2e^(2x) dx. By applying integration by parts twice, the final volume is calculated as V = (π/4)(e^2 - 1). The discussion also notes that using the shell method is complicated due to the need for the Lambert-W function. This solution provides a clear approach to solving the problem effectively.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

Find the volume of the solid obtained by revolving the region enclosed by y = xe^x , y = 0 and x = 1?

About the x-axis. I am having a hard time with this problem. My professor says the answer should be pi/2 (e^2 - 1). He also mentions that he could be wrong. Can someone please show me HOW to solve this problem?

Here is a link to the question:

Find the volume of the solid obtained by revolving the region enclosed by y = xe^x , y = 0 and x = 1? - Yahoo! Answers

I have posted a link there to this topic so the OP can find my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Frank Rodriguez,

The first thing I like to do is plot the region to be revolved:

Let's use the disk method. The volume of an arbitrary disk is:

$$dV=\pi r^2\,dx$$

where:

$$r=y=xe^x$$

and so we have:

$$dV=\pi x^2e^{2x}\,dx$$

Summing the disks by integration, we then have:

$$V=\pi\int_0^1 x^2e^{2x}\,dx$$

To evaluate this definite integral, let's try integration by parts:

$$u=x^2\,\therefore\,du=2x\,dx$$

$$dv=e^{2x}\,dx\,\therefore\,v=\frac{1}{2}e^{2x}$$

and so we have:

$$\frac{V}{\pi}=\left[\frac{1}{2}x^2e^{2x} \right]_0^1-\int_0^1 xe^{2x}\,dx$$

$$\frac{V}{\pi}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2}-\int_0^1 xe^{2x}\,dx$$

Now, using integration by parts again:

$$u=x\,\therefore\,du=dx$$

$$dv=e^{2x}\,dx\,\therefore\,v=\frac{1}{2}e^{2x}$$

and we have:

$$\frac{V}{\pi}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2}-\left(\left[\frac{1}{2}xe^{2x} \right]_0^1-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 e^{2x}\,dx \right)$$

$$\frac{V}{\pi}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2}-\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\left[e^{2x} \right]_0^1 \right)$$

$$V=\frac{\pi}{4}\left(e^{2}-1 \right)$$

Normally, if practical, I like to also use the shell method to check my work, however solving $y=xe^x$ for $x$ requires the use of the Lambert-W function, and so we shall leave it at that.

To Frank Rodgriguez and any other guests viewing this topic, I invite and encourage you to post other calculus problems in our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f10/ forum.

Best Regards,

Mark.
 
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 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top