Beat frequency heard from two tuning forks

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of beat frequency from two tuning forks, where the user derived a frequency of 258Hz and a beat frequency of 4Hz. The response indicates that there are no apparent errors in the user's calculations, but emphasizes the importance of using the correct speed of sound, which is given as 330 m/s in the formula booklet. Participants highlight that simply asking for confirmation of answers is discouraged; instead, users should demonstrate their effort and understanding of the problem. The conversation encourages self-confidence in problem-solving and suggests that users should independently verify their work before seeking assistance. Ultimately, the focus is on fostering a deeper understanding of the concepts involved.
Andrew Tom
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Beat frequency
Relevant Equations
Beat frequency
1665136479203.png

Is my solution correct?

I used v=lambda*f, i.e. f=v/lambda to get the frequency for each wave. Then I calculated the average of the frequencies to get 258Hz and found the beat frequency by doing f1-f2 to get 4Hz. I then said that this means the observer will hear a tone of frequency 258Hz which rises and falls in intensity 4 times per second.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

No Joy with ##\LaTeX## :wink: ?

PF isn't for stamp-approving homework answers.
On the other hand, I find no obvious errors in your calculation.
Are you allowed to use 332 m/s as speed of sound ?

##\ ##
 
BvU said:
Hi,

No Joy with ##\LaTeX## :wink: ?

PF isn't for stamp-approving homework answers.
On the other hand, I find no obvious errors in your calculation.
Are you allowed to use 332 m/s as speed of sound ?

##\ ##
Thank you I will use LaTeX next time.

It is given as 330 in the formula booklet so I don't think so.

Would it be ok to just post the question rather than asking for confirmation of my answer? Or is there some other way it should be done?
 
  • Like
Likes Andrew Tom and kuruman
Andrew Tom said:
Would it be ok to just post the question rather than asking for confirmation of my answer? Or is there some other way it should be done?
At some point you should reach a stage where you have acquired enough confidence in yourself to troubleshoot your own work. Asking people to check your work is analogous to riding a bike with training wheels. You will never start doing it without the wheels until you remove them. Avoid asking for help unless you are stumped and don't know how to proceed, not if you have reached an answer and you feel OK about it.

When I troubleshoot my work, I try as hard as I can to produce arguments, calculations, limiting cases, etc. that might prove me wrong. If I can't find any, chances are that I'm right. To reinforce this opinion I might do web research and see what others have said or done on the subject. This particular Wikipedia article has everything you need to convince yourself that you did it right.
 
  • Like
Likes Andrew Tom and BvU
Thread 'Chain falling out of a horizontal tube onto a table'
My attempt: Initial total M.E = PE of hanging part + PE of part of chain in the tube. I've considered the table as to be at zero of PE. PE of hanging part = ##\frac{1}{2} \frac{m}{l}gh^{2}##. PE of part in the tube = ##\frac{m}{l}(l - h)gh##. Final ME = ##\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{l}gh^{2}## + ##\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{l}hv^{2}##. Since Initial ME = Final ME. Therefore, ##\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{l}hv^{2}## = ##\frac{m}{l}(l-h)gh##. Solving this gives: ## v = \sqrt{2g(l-h)}##. But the answer in the book...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K