Increased Density Results in Decreased speed of sound?

AI Thread Summary
The speed of sound is described by the equation c=√(C/ρ), indicating that as density (ρ) increases, the speed of sound (c) decreases if the coefficient of stiffness (C) remains constant. This counterintuitive relationship arises because the stiffness of a medium, such as water, significantly affects sound transmission, as it resists compression more than air does. The bulk modulus, related to stiffness, explains why sound travels faster in water despite its higher density compared to air. The discussion highlights that the speed of sound is more influenced by the medium's ability to compress than by the number of particles present. Understanding these principles is essential for grasping acoustic wave propagation in various materials.
Da Apprentice
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
According to the equation c=√(C/ρ) where c is the speed of sound, C is the coefficient of stiffness and ρ is the density of the medium throughout which a sound is played the speed of sound should acctually decrease with an increase in density. Why is this so? I would've thought that increasing the amount of particles within a given area that sound can be transmitted along would result in the increased speed of the sound. I thought it was exactly due to the increased density of water in relation to ait that it transmitted sound faster. Is this formula wrong or am I reading it wrong? Also could someone please explain the coefficient of stiffness part of the equation and where this relates to the physical properties of a medium?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not the best to explain this, I work in applied work. The wave equation for acoustic wave propagation is derived from our understandings of stress and F=ma. What we are really talking about is very small disturbances in matter, as such the mass is an important factor but in the derivation of the wave propagation equation the volume cancels out leaving only the density.

The coefficient of stiffness is what would be called in seismic work the bulk modulus which is the resistance of a material to compression, at least in the acoustic case but not in the elastic case where it would be multiple moduli. Pretty much any book on geophysics should give you a good explanation of elastic wave propagation, sorry mine are all in storage.
 
Think of a simple harmonic oscillator (e.g., weight m dangling from a spring with constant k). Intuitively, what do you expect to happen to the oscillations if you increase the mass m (or more to the point, the ratio m/k)?
 
The formula is exactly right. The stiffness portion of the equation is the reason why water has a much higher speed of sound than air, not the density. The relevant stiffness for sound is compression, since sound is a compression wave. Think of how hard water is to compress compared to air. That is the reason why water has a very high sound speed. As oliver said, a good way to think about it is a simple mass spring system - if the mass is increased, and the spring is kept the same, the oscillations slow down.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top