Are there theories for the different sound in different volume of beaker?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter s0610038
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sound Theories Volume
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the volume of liquid in a beaker and the sound produced when the beaker is struck. Participants explore various aspects of sound production, including the effects of water volume on frequency and the underlying physics principles involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that frequency tends to lower as more water is added to the beaker, with one group suggesting a correlation between frequency and the square of the volume.
  • There is uncertainty regarding whether a clear physics theory exists that directly connects water volume to sound production, with some participants expressing a desire for a definitive physics law on the topic.
  • One participant suggests modeling the beaker as a cavity, where the distance between the water surface and the opening affects the wavelength and frequency of the sound produced.
  • Others argue that the shape of the glass and the method of striking it also influence the sound, indicating that the relationship is not straightforward.
  • Some participants propose that the properties of the glass and water, as well as the mass and elasticity of the materials, play significant roles in determining the sound frequency.
  • There is a suggestion that the resonance may involve the mass of water and the flexing of the glass rather than just the air column above the water.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the relationship between water volume and sound frequency is complex and influenced by multiple factors. However, there is no consensus on a specific theory or equation that clearly defines this relationship.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of a universally accepted equation for the specific scenario discussed, as well as the dependence on the properties of the materials involved and the shape of the beaker.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in physics, particularly those exploring sound waves, resonance, and experimental physics related to acoustics.

  • #31
so, apart from doing experiment with the frequency topic, what topic will you guys advice me to do?

My assessment is to develop an experiment to prove a physics theory, but the main thing is the experimental way must be designed and not used before.

Thanks for all your advices! really! thanks so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
s0610038 said:
so, apart from doing experiment with the frequency topic, what topic will you guys advice me to do?

My assessment is to develop an experiment to prove a physics theory, but the main thing is the experimental way must be designed and not used before.

Would this work? Pick one of the ideas or claims you've seen in this discussion, explain the reasoning and do an experiment to see if it your experimental results agree with the explanation.

Does that sound like it will work for you? While we should not lay out the entire project for you, we can help you further along a path you choose.

You said you had equipment to measure sound. Does it tell you the frequency of the sound? Will it tell you all the frequencies in complicated sound?
 
  • #33
If you want a more simple experiment /investigation around this topic, why not investigate resonance in a long vertical tube (a resonating air column) where you adjust the length of the column by varying the level of water in it? You could use a loudspeaker, driven from a signal generator and your ear as a detector - looking for peaks in resonance (frequency against apparent loudness). You could then determine the wavelength of the sound in the air column and also the speed of the sound in the tube. The theory is much more straightforward and more appropriate to your level of understanding.
You don't have to worry about it having been done before. ALL this stuff has been done already, many times! No one would seriously expect you to be doing 'cutting edge' Science.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K