Is there a place to buy physical models to demonstrate the Calculus shell, disk, and washer methods?
I know a math teacher who is going to teach a calculus class that will include the shell, disk, and washer methods for calculating volumes. My question is, is there some 3D kit she could use to demonstrate these methods physically?
Ideally for example, the washer method could be demonstrated with a cylinder that has an inner cylinder that could be removed.
calculus
New contributor
add a comment |Â
I know a math teacher who is going to teach a calculus class that will include the shell, disk, and washer methods for calculating volumes. My question is, is there some 3D kit she could use to demonstrate these methods physically?
Ideally for example, the washer method could be demonstrated with a cylinder that has an inner cylinder that could be removed.
calculus
New contributor
add a comment |Â
I know a math teacher who is going to teach a calculus class that will include the shell, disk, and washer methods for calculating volumes. My question is, is there some 3D kit she could use to demonstrate these methods physically?
Ideally for example, the washer method could be demonstrated with a cylinder that has an inner cylinder that could be removed.
calculus
New contributor
I know a math teacher who is going to teach a calculus class that will include the shell, disk, and washer methods for calculating volumes. My question is, is there some 3D kit she could use to demonstrate these methods physically?
Ideally for example, the washer method could be demonstrated with a cylinder that has an inner cylinder that could be removed.
calculus
calculus
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Eugene
1662
1662
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
3D printing is an attractive avenue.
I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.
    Â
    Â
Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.
See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:
    Â
    Â
Student volume models based on cross-sections.
add a comment |Â
It is probably easier to make 3D computer images of such methods, using even something simple like geogebra (or using CAD software if you know how to use it), that can be projected during class, than to obtain functional physical models. The latter can be machined or made using a 3D printer, but my impression is that computer visualizations are more adaptable and adjustable, and it's not clear to me that much is gained by using an actual physical model. In most any university physics or engineering department there is someone who knows how to make such physical models, but probably it is a better use of one's time to learn to use software designed for creating visualizations. (It is also cheaper - 3D printers and 3D printing is expensive - there is free software that can be used). Moreover, computer models can be interactive in ways that physical models simply cannot. The student can see a surface of revolution as it is generated, and so forth, and can tune parameters. Physical models will be made for a (usually fairly small) finite set of surfaces of revolution; with a computer model one can visualize the surface generated by any admissible curve.
On the other hand, some students probably benefit from touching an object. The intersection of two cylinders is good example of a surface for which a computer vizualization is probably less communicative than a physical model, simply because the surface is somehow quite hard to see.
One recommendation would be to look into using something like geogebra. The sorts of models you describe (appropriate for a multivariable calculus class) are not hard to realize in such software and there are already many examples available online. Making quality, usable physical models requires skills and access to facilities not all of us have, and in this sense computer visualizations are more easily prepared/generated.
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Another substitute available nowadays: computer-animated videos. They should be just as convincing as physical models.
Search "shell integration animated" on YouTube to start. You may have to search many of the results to find one that you want to use.
add a comment |Â
I suppose, if you wish to illustrate the washer method then perhaps slicing a pear (see here for a picture into 10 or so horizontal slices would give you bunch of near washers with which you could estimate the volume of a pear. Then, you could even estimate the error in the calculation by the water displaced by the uncut pear. Ideally, you'd like a near circular pear, but you could estimate a mean radius if it was lumpy.
For cylindrical shells, I have a less fruity idea involving foam sheets held together by large rubber bands around some center cylinder. But, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself yet. Onions are almost good, but the layers are too curved. If you could find some cylindrical onions. See, someone needs to grow cylindrical onions. Perhaps there is some other easily obtained food which illustrates the shell method.
EDIT: Actually, the foam sheets I had in mind were way to slim to make this plausible. Perhaps Bologna would work for the right shape. It has a regular thickness and it easy to cut. I'm not sure how to arrange it to stay together.
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
3D printing is an attractive avenue.
I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.
    Â
    Â
Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.
See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:
    Â
    Â
Student volume models based on cross-sections.
add a comment |Â
3D printing is an attractive avenue.
I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.
    Â
    Â
Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.
See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:
    Â
    Â
Student volume models based on cross-sections.
add a comment |Â
3D printing is an attractive avenue.
I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.
    Â
    Â
Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.
See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:
    Â
    Â
Student volume models based on cross-sections.
3D printing is an attractive avenue.
I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.
    Â
    Â
Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.
See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:
    Â
    Â
Student volume models based on cross-sections.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Joseph O'Rourke
14.7k33280
14.7k33280
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
It is probably easier to make 3D computer images of such methods, using even something simple like geogebra (or using CAD software if you know how to use it), that can be projected during class, than to obtain functional physical models. The latter can be machined or made using a 3D printer, but my impression is that computer visualizations are more adaptable and adjustable, and it's not clear to me that much is gained by using an actual physical model. In most any university physics or engineering department there is someone who knows how to make such physical models, but probably it is a better use of one's time to learn to use software designed for creating visualizations. (It is also cheaper - 3D printers and 3D printing is expensive - there is free software that can be used). Moreover, computer models can be interactive in ways that physical models simply cannot. The student can see a surface of revolution as it is generated, and so forth, and can tune parameters. Physical models will be made for a (usually fairly small) finite set of surfaces of revolution; with a computer model one can visualize the surface generated by any admissible curve.
On the other hand, some students probably benefit from touching an object. The intersection of two cylinders is good example of a surface for which a computer vizualization is probably less communicative than a physical model, simply because the surface is somehow quite hard to see.
One recommendation would be to look into using something like geogebra. The sorts of models you describe (appropriate for a multivariable calculus class) are not hard to realize in such software and there are already many examples available online. Making quality, usable physical models requires skills and access to facilities not all of us have, and in this sense computer visualizations are more easily prepared/generated.
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
add a comment |Â
It is probably easier to make 3D computer images of such methods, using even something simple like geogebra (or using CAD software if you know how to use it), that can be projected during class, than to obtain functional physical models. The latter can be machined or made using a 3D printer, but my impression is that computer visualizations are more adaptable and adjustable, and it's not clear to me that much is gained by using an actual physical model. In most any university physics or engineering department there is someone who knows how to make such physical models, but probably it is a better use of one's time to learn to use software designed for creating visualizations. (It is also cheaper - 3D printers and 3D printing is expensive - there is free software that can be used). Moreover, computer models can be interactive in ways that physical models simply cannot. The student can see a surface of revolution as it is generated, and so forth, and can tune parameters. Physical models will be made for a (usually fairly small) finite set of surfaces of revolution; with a computer model one can visualize the surface generated by any admissible curve.
On the other hand, some students probably benefit from touching an object. The intersection of two cylinders is good example of a surface for which a computer vizualization is probably less communicative than a physical model, simply because the surface is somehow quite hard to see.
One recommendation would be to look into using something like geogebra. The sorts of models you describe (appropriate for a multivariable calculus class) are not hard to realize in such software and there are already many examples available online. Making quality, usable physical models requires skills and access to facilities not all of us have, and in this sense computer visualizations are more easily prepared/generated.
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
add a comment |Â
It is probably easier to make 3D computer images of such methods, using even something simple like geogebra (or using CAD software if you know how to use it), that can be projected during class, than to obtain functional physical models. The latter can be machined or made using a 3D printer, but my impression is that computer visualizations are more adaptable and adjustable, and it's not clear to me that much is gained by using an actual physical model. In most any university physics or engineering department there is someone who knows how to make such physical models, but probably it is a better use of one's time to learn to use software designed for creating visualizations. (It is also cheaper - 3D printers and 3D printing is expensive - there is free software that can be used). Moreover, computer models can be interactive in ways that physical models simply cannot. The student can see a surface of revolution as it is generated, and so forth, and can tune parameters. Physical models will be made for a (usually fairly small) finite set of surfaces of revolution; with a computer model one can visualize the surface generated by any admissible curve.
On the other hand, some students probably benefit from touching an object. The intersection of two cylinders is good example of a surface for which a computer vizualization is probably less communicative than a physical model, simply because the surface is somehow quite hard to see.
One recommendation would be to look into using something like geogebra. The sorts of models you describe (appropriate for a multivariable calculus class) are not hard to realize in such software and there are already many examples available online. Making quality, usable physical models requires skills and access to facilities not all of us have, and in this sense computer visualizations are more easily prepared/generated.
It is probably easier to make 3D computer images of such methods, using even something simple like geogebra (or using CAD software if you know how to use it), that can be projected during class, than to obtain functional physical models. The latter can be machined or made using a 3D printer, but my impression is that computer visualizations are more adaptable and adjustable, and it's not clear to me that much is gained by using an actual physical model. In most any university physics or engineering department there is someone who knows how to make such physical models, but probably it is a better use of one's time to learn to use software designed for creating visualizations. (It is also cheaper - 3D printers and 3D printing is expensive - there is free software that can be used). Moreover, computer models can be interactive in ways that physical models simply cannot. The student can see a surface of revolution as it is generated, and so forth, and can tune parameters. Physical models will be made for a (usually fairly small) finite set of surfaces of revolution; with a computer model one can visualize the surface generated by any admissible curve.
On the other hand, some students probably benefit from touching an object. The intersection of two cylinders is good example of a surface for which a computer vizualization is probably less communicative than a physical model, simply because the surface is somehow quite hard to see.
One recommendation would be to look into using something like geogebra. The sorts of models you describe (appropriate for a multivariable calculus class) are not hard to realize in such software and there are already many examples available online. Making quality, usable physical models requires skills and access to facilities not all of us have, and in this sense computer visualizations are more easily prepared/generated.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Dan Fox
1,989515
1,989515
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
add a comment |Â
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
This has led me to wonder if research has been done on the advantages and disadvantages of physical models over 3D computer models. A quick search turned up a paper in the context of learning imaging anatomy, but what about the mathematics classroom?
â J W
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
@JW: It seems to me an interesting question, but I don't know any relevant literature. However, if someone like Joseph O'Rourke thinks that something is gained by using physical models (as his answer suggests he does), I take that seriously, because, judging from all that he has written and taught, he has lots of relevant experience and good judgment.
â Dan Fox
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Another substitute available nowadays: computer-animated videos. They should be just as convincing as physical models.
Search "shell integration animated" on YouTube to start. You may have to search many of the results to find one that you want to use.
add a comment |Â
Another substitute available nowadays: computer-animated videos. They should be just as convincing as physical models.
Search "shell integration animated" on YouTube to start. You may have to search many of the results to find one that you want to use.
add a comment |Â
Another substitute available nowadays: computer-animated videos. They should be just as convincing as physical models.
Search "shell integration animated" on YouTube to start. You may have to search many of the results to find one that you want to use.
Another substitute available nowadays: computer-animated videos. They should be just as convincing as physical models.
Search "shell integration animated" on YouTube to start. You may have to search many of the results to find one that you want to use.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Gerald Edgar
3,23611014
3,23611014
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
I suppose, if you wish to illustrate the washer method then perhaps slicing a pear (see here for a picture into 10 or so horizontal slices would give you bunch of near washers with which you could estimate the volume of a pear. Then, you could even estimate the error in the calculation by the water displaced by the uncut pear. Ideally, you'd like a near circular pear, but you could estimate a mean radius if it was lumpy.
For cylindrical shells, I have a less fruity idea involving foam sheets held together by large rubber bands around some center cylinder. But, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself yet. Onions are almost good, but the layers are too curved. If you could find some cylindrical onions. See, someone needs to grow cylindrical onions. Perhaps there is some other easily obtained food which illustrates the shell method.
EDIT: Actually, the foam sheets I had in mind were way to slim to make this plausible. Perhaps Bologna would work for the right shape. It has a regular thickness and it easy to cut. I'm not sure how to arrange it to stay together.
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
add a comment |Â
I suppose, if you wish to illustrate the washer method then perhaps slicing a pear (see here for a picture into 10 or so horizontal slices would give you bunch of near washers with which you could estimate the volume of a pear. Then, you could even estimate the error in the calculation by the water displaced by the uncut pear. Ideally, you'd like a near circular pear, but you could estimate a mean radius if it was lumpy.
For cylindrical shells, I have a less fruity idea involving foam sheets held together by large rubber bands around some center cylinder. But, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself yet. Onions are almost good, but the layers are too curved. If you could find some cylindrical onions. See, someone needs to grow cylindrical onions. Perhaps there is some other easily obtained food which illustrates the shell method.
EDIT: Actually, the foam sheets I had in mind were way to slim to make this plausible. Perhaps Bologna would work for the right shape. It has a regular thickness and it easy to cut. I'm not sure how to arrange it to stay together.
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
add a comment |Â
I suppose, if you wish to illustrate the washer method then perhaps slicing a pear (see here for a picture into 10 or so horizontal slices would give you bunch of near washers with which you could estimate the volume of a pear. Then, you could even estimate the error in the calculation by the water displaced by the uncut pear. Ideally, you'd like a near circular pear, but you could estimate a mean radius if it was lumpy.
For cylindrical shells, I have a less fruity idea involving foam sheets held together by large rubber bands around some center cylinder. But, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself yet. Onions are almost good, but the layers are too curved. If you could find some cylindrical onions. See, someone needs to grow cylindrical onions. Perhaps there is some other easily obtained food which illustrates the shell method.
EDIT: Actually, the foam sheets I had in mind were way to slim to make this plausible. Perhaps Bologna would work for the right shape. It has a regular thickness and it easy to cut. I'm not sure how to arrange it to stay together.
I suppose, if you wish to illustrate the washer method then perhaps slicing a pear (see here for a picture into 10 or so horizontal slices would give you bunch of near washers with which you could estimate the volume of a pear. Then, you could even estimate the error in the calculation by the water displaced by the uncut pear. Ideally, you'd like a near circular pear, but you could estimate a mean radius if it was lumpy.
For cylindrical shells, I have a less fruity idea involving foam sheets held together by large rubber bands around some center cylinder. But, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself yet. Onions are almost good, but the layers are too curved. If you could find some cylindrical onions. See, someone needs to grow cylindrical onions. Perhaps there is some other easily obtained food which illustrates the shell method.
EDIT: Actually, the foam sheets I had in mind were way to slim to make this plausible. Perhaps Bologna would work for the right shape. It has a regular thickness and it easy to cut. I'm not sure how to arrange it to stay together.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
James S. Cook
5,77311442
5,77311442
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
add a comment |Â
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
1
1
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
For "cylindrical onions," use carrots. There are varieties which are more cylindrical than conical - e.g. thompson-morgan.com/p/carrot-resistafly-f1-hybrid/684TM
â alephzero
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Eugene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eugene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eugene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eugene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Educators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid â¦
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid â¦
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmatheducators.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f14976%2fis-there-a-place-to-buy-physical-models-to-demonstrate-the-calculus-shell-disk%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown