How to Calculate Wave Velocity in a Tuned Violin String

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the wave velocity in a tuned violin string, specifically one measuring 31.6 cm in length. The string vibrates at frequencies of 880 Hz and 1320 Hz, indicating that the fundamental frequency (f_0) is 440 Hz. Using the formula v = fλ, the calculated wave velocity is approximately 278.08 m/s, which differs slightly from the key's answer of 275 m/s, likely due to rounding discrepancies.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wave equations, specifically v = fλ
  • Knowledge of fundamental frequency and overtones
  • Familiarity with string length and its impact on wave velocity
  • Basic skills in rounding and significant figures in calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the relationship between frequency and wavelength in string instruments
  • Explore the concept of harmonics and overtones in musical acoustics
  • Learn about the effects of string tension and length on wave velocity
  • Investigate rounding techniques and their implications in scientific calculations
USEFUL FOR

Musicians, physics students, and educators interested in the acoustics of string instruments and wave mechanics.

Daltohn
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A tuned violin, with strings of 31.6 cm each, is placed in front of a speaker. When varying the speakers frequency between 500 and 1500 Hz, it was discovered that a certain string only vibrated at 880 Hz and 1320 Hz. Determine the velocity of the wave in this string.


Homework Equations


v=fλ


The Attempt at a Solution


The frequencies has to be overtones or the fundamental tone f_0. That gives nf_0=880 Hz and (n+1)f_0=1320 Hz, so n=2 and f_0=440 Hz. When f=f_0 the string has two nodes so v=f_0*2l (l=0.316m). v=278.08. But the key says 275 m/s, did I do something wrong or have they rounded it weirdly? Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see anything wrong in your solution. It most probably is a case of rounding off weirdly.
 
Last edited:
Adithyan said:
I don't see anything wrong in your solution. It most probably is a case of rounding off weirdly.
Yes, has to be so. Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K