Interpreting the Wording of a Wave Problem: Understanding Speed and Period

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a physics problem regarding wave speed and period, specifically interpreting the statement that "two crests pass a pole each second." One participant calculates the wave speed as 3 m/s and the period as 0.5 s, suggesting a frequency of 2 Hz. However, the solution manual provides different values of 1.5 m/s for speed and 1 s for period, indicating a frequency of 1 Hz. Participants debate the clarity of the problem's wording, with some arguing it implies one wavelength passes per second, while others contend it supports two periods per second. The conversation highlights the potential for multiple interpretations of the problem based on its phrasing.
DarthVader
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hello. A problem I have given my physics class states, "The distance between two crests in a wave is 1.5 m, and two crests pass a pole each second. What is the speed and period of the wave?" I believe the proper solution should be v = 3 m/s, and T = 0.5 s. In order for two crests to pass a given point each second (regardless of initial conditions), it seems that the frequency has to be 2 Hz. However, the solution manual has an answer of v = 1.5 m/s, and T = 1 s (so a frequency of 1 Hz). Could both answers be considered correct due to the wording of the problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DarthVader said:
Hello. A problem I have given my physics class states, "The distance between two crests in a wave is 1.5 m, and two crests pass a pole each second. What is the speed and period of the wave?" I believe the proper solution should be v = 3 m/s, and T = 0.5 s. In order for two crests to pass a given point each second (regardless of initial conditions), it seems that the frequency has to be 2 Hz. However, the solution manual has an answer of v = 1.5 m/s, and T = 1 s (so a frequency of 1 Hz). Could both answers be considered correct due to the wording of the problem?
The wording is a bit wonky, but because of the solution, the wording can be interpreted as: One wavelength of a wave goes by a point every second (because one wavelength is the distance between two crests). Thus, the period is one second and the speed can be determined by dividing the wavelength by the period.
 
Tom MS said:
The wording is a bit wonky, but because of the solution, the wording can be interpreted as: One wavelength of a wave goes by a point every second (because one wavelength is the distance between two crests). Thus, the period is one second and the speed can be determined by dividing the wavelength by the period.
I would say that the wording is wrong rather than just wonky.

It says two crests in each second. That says that if I choose to start counting a second at the bottom of a trough that there will still be two crests before that second ends. That is compatible with two periods per second. It is not compatible with one period per second.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top