Water interference physics help

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving wave interference and the calculation of wavelength based on observations made at a beachfront. The scenario includes two gaps in a breakwater, the distance between them, and measurements related to wave crests and destructive interference.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the formula for path difference in wave interference and the significance of frequency in relation to wavelength. There is uncertainty about the correctness of calculated values and the implications of given data.

Discussion Status

Some participants express confusion regarding the calculations and the relevance of frequency, while others question the assumptions made about wave behavior and the setup of the problem. There is an ongoing exploration of interpretations and potential discrepancies in the provided information.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may lack sufficient information to address all aspects of wave behavior, particularly regarding changes in wavelength as waves approach the shore.

jkom329
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
While walking along the shore at your beachfront home, you notice that there are two narrow gaps in the breakwater, the wall that protects the shore from the waves. These gaps are 9.0 m apart and the breakwater is 12.0 m from the shore and parallel to it. You go to the shore directly opposite the midpoint between these gaps. As you walk along the shore, the first point where no waves reach you is 1.7 m from your starting point. Out beyond the breakwater you observe that there are ten wave crests in 18 s.

To me, this seems to be a straightforward application of the formula r2-r1 = (m+1/2)lambda. I found the path difference (r2-r1) by simple geometry (1.19m), then I set m=0 since 1.7m is the first point of destructive interference. The answer I have is lambda = 2.38m, and it is wrong for some reason. I also do not understand the significance of the given frequency, and I have not used it in my calculations. I would love to know what I'm missing here. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jkom329 said:
While walking along the shore at your beachfront home, you notice that there are two narrow gaps in the breakwater, the wall that protects the shore from the waves. These gaps are 9.0 m apart and the breakwater is 12.0 m from the shore and parallel to it. You go to the shore directly opposite the midpoint between these gaps. As you walk along the shore, the first point where no waves reach you is 1.7 m from your starting point. Out beyond the breakwater you observe that there are ten wave crests in 18 s.

To me, this seems to be a straightforward application of the formula r2-r1 = (m+1/2)lambda. I found the path difference (r2-r1) by simple geometry (1.19m), then I set m=0 since 1.7m is the first point of destructive interference. The answer I have is lambda = 2.38m, and it is wrong for some reason. I also do not understand the significance of the given frequency, and I have not used it in my calculations. I would love to know what I'm missing here. Thanks!

What are you being asked to find?
 
How far apart are the wave crests?

Forgot to paste it in. Thanks for your help.
 
jkom329 said:
How far apart are the wave crests?

Forgot to paste it in. Thanks for your help.

Something here does not compute. You calculated lambda and said you got the wrong answer. Lambda is the distance between wave crests, and your result looked OK to me. The only reason to give the frequency would be to then ask you to find velocity. I am assuming the waves are arriving with crests parallel to the breakwater and that the midpoint between the gaps is a wave maximum, but when you said you had the wrong lambda it made me wonder.
 
bump... I still do not see what I'm missing.
 
Conclusion: I am not missing anything. I found out today that the online answer is incorrect, and my answer is correct :biggrin:
 
jkom329 said:
Conclusion: I am not missing anything. I found out today that the online answer is incorrect, and my answer is correct :biggrin:

That will do it. I was imagining various possibilities, like the slowing if the waves as they approach the shore reducing the wavelength, but clearly the problem did not give enough information to treat that complication, and the fact that they were asking for the wavelength dismissed that possibility.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K