Closed ended tube resonance problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the resonance frequency of a 3 m long aluminum bar clamped at its center, producing a frequency of 1200 Hz. The initial calculation incorrectly used the formula for a closed tube, leading to a wavelength of 12 m and an unrealistic wave velocity of 14400 m/s. Upon reevaluation, it was determined that the bar behaves like an open-ended tube, requiring the use of the formula L = n/2λ, resulting in a corrected length of 6 m and a wave velocity of 7200 m/s. Although this value is still considered high for aluminum, it aligns with the given data. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the boundary conditions in resonance problems.
AbsoluteZer0
Messages
124
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



In class a 3 m long aluminum bar was made to resonate by clamping it at a node in the centre of the bar. The frequency heard was 1200Hz.


Homework Equations



L = \frac{n}{4}\lambda

v = f\lambda

The Attempt at a Solution



Knowing that L is 3, we can substitute this into the formula and solve accordingly in order to find wavelength:

3 = \frac{1}{4}\lambda
(4)(3) = \lambda

Which gives us 12m. We can then use the wave equation, substituting 12 and 1200

v = f\lambda
v =(1200)(12)

to arrive at 14400 m s^-1

However, I am lead to believe that I am possibly wrong due to the relatively high value of velocity that I found. Am I wrong? If so, where is my mistake?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What must be at each end of the rod - a node or an antinode? Rethink the expression for ##L## in terms of ##\lambda##.
 
TSny said:
What must be at each end of the rod - a node or an antinode? Rethink the expression for ##L## in terms of ##\lambda##.

I believe an antinode at each end, making it an open ended tube.

L = \frac{n}{2}\lambda

L is therefore 6 m, and velocity is therefore 7200 m s-1

Is this correct?

Thanks,
 
Yes, that looks right to me. (According to a quick check on the internet, 7200 m/s is somewhat high for aluminum. But that's what your data gives.)
 
Thanks
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top