Is there a place to buy physical models to demonstrate the Calculus shell, disk, and washer methods?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












14














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.










share|improve this question


























    14














    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.










    share|improve this question
























      14












      14








      14


      3





      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.










      share|improve this question













      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Dec 23 '18 at 20:46









      Eugene

      1713




      1713




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          14














          3D printing is an attractive avenue.
          I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.




                   


                   

          Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.


          See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:


                   


                   

          Student volume models based on cross-sections.





          share|improve this answer






























            9














            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.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 1




              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?
              – J W
              Dec 24 '18 at 14:59










            • @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.
              – Dan Fox
              Dec 24 '18 at 17:15


















            3














            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.






            share|improve this answer






























              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 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
                – alephzero
                Dec 24 '18 at 16:09










              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "548"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              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

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              14














              3D printing is an attractive avenue.
              I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.




                       


                       

              Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.


              See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:


                       


                       

              Student volume models based on cross-sections.





              share|improve this answer



























                14














                3D printing is an attractive avenue.
                I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.




                         


                         

                Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.


                See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:


                         


                         

                Student volume models based on cross-sections.





                share|improve this answer

























                  14












                  14








                  14






                  3D printing is an attractive avenue.
                  I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.




                           


                           

                  Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.


                  See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:


                           


                           

                  Student volume models based on cross-sections.





                  share|improve this answer














                  3D printing is an attractive avenue.
                  I think there is something to be gained by actual physical models.




                           


                           

                  Image from Elizabeth Denne's webpages.


                  See also Rebecka Peterson's Epsilon-Delta blog for low-tech alternatives:


                           


                           

                  Student volume models based on cross-sections.






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 25 '18 at 2:04

























                  answered Dec 24 '18 at 2:43









                  Joseph O'Rourke

                  14.8k33280




                  14.8k33280





















                      9














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 1




                        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?
                        – J W
                        Dec 24 '18 at 14:59










                      • @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.
                        – Dan Fox
                        Dec 24 '18 at 17:15















                      9














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 1




                        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?
                        – J W
                        Dec 24 '18 at 14:59










                      • @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.
                        – Dan Fox
                        Dec 24 '18 at 17:15













                      9












                      9








                      9






                      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.






                      share|improve this answer














                      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.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 24 '18 at 17:13

























                      answered Dec 23 '18 at 21:10









                      Dan Fox

                      2,177515




                      2,177515







                      • 1




                        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?
                        – J W
                        Dec 24 '18 at 14:59










                      • @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.
                        – Dan Fox
                        Dec 24 '18 at 17:15












                      • 1




                        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?
                        – J W
                        Dec 24 '18 at 14:59










                      • @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.
                        – Dan Fox
                        Dec 24 '18 at 17:15







                      1




                      1




                      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?
                      – J W
                      Dec 24 '18 at 14:59




                      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?
                      – J W
                      Dec 24 '18 at 14:59












                      @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.
                      – Dan Fox
                      Dec 24 '18 at 17:15




                      @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.
                      – Dan Fox
                      Dec 24 '18 at 17:15











                      3














                      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.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        3














                        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.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          3












                          3








                          3






                          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.






                          share|improve this answer














                          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.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Dec 24 '18 at 13:14

























                          answered Dec 24 '18 at 13:02









                          Gerald Edgar

                          3,23611014




                          3,23611014





















                              2














                              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.






                              share|improve this answer


















                              • 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
                                – alephzero
                                Dec 24 '18 at 16:09















                              2














                              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.






                              share|improve this answer


















                              • 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
                                – alephzero
                                Dec 24 '18 at 16:09













                              2












                              2








                              2






                              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.






                              share|improve this answer














                              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.







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited Dec 24 '18 at 23:58

























                              answered Dec 24 '18 at 3:04









                              James S. Cook

                              5,80311442




                              5,80311442







                              • 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
                                – alephzero
                                Dec 24 '18 at 16:09












                              • 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
                                – alephzero
                                Dec 24 '18 at 16:09







                              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
                              – alephzero
                              Dec 24 '18 at 16:09




                              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
                              – alephzero
                              Dec 24 '18 at 16:09

















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              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


                              • 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


                              • 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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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






                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Peggy Mitchell

                              Palaiologos

                              The Forum (Inglewood, California)