Jet Engine Sound Intensity Calculation with Absorption Effects

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating sound intensity from a jet engine at different distances, considering absorption effects. The initial intensity at 120 m is given as 130 dB, and participants are tasked with finding the intensity at 2.6 km both with and without absorption. One participant successfully calculates part (a) as 103 dB but struggles with part (b), questioning how the 8 dB/km absorption rate affects the overall intensity. The conversation highlights the confusion around the calculations and the importance of correctly applying the formulas for sound intensity. The need for clarification on the impact of absorption on sound intensity is emphasized.
JazzCarrot
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I=\frac{p_{ave}}{4\pi r^{2}} is derived on the assumption that the transmitting medium does not absorb energy. It is known that the absorption of sound in dry results in a decrease in energy of about 8 dB/km. The intensity of sound at a distance of 120 m from a jet engine is 130 dB. You should take the hearing threshold: I0 to be 10-12 W/m2

(a) Find the intensity in dB of the sound at a distance of 2.6 km from the engine assuming that there is no absorption of sound by the air.

(b)Find the intensity in dB of the sound at a distance of 2.6 km from the engine assuming that the sound diminishes at a rate of 8 dB/km.

Homework Equations

I=\frac{p_{ave}}{4\pi r^{2}}

\beta =10log\frac{I}{I_{0}}

The Attempt at a Solution



I think I've got part (a) correct, which is 103db, from converting 130db to an Intensity, and then finding the Power, and then recalulating the Intensity at the new distance. It's just part (b) I'm struggling with, I'm not sure how to tackle it, 8db is a tiny fraction of Intensity compared to the 103db, so my answer, hardly changes... in fact, it's still 103db. :frown:

Any pointers would be welcomed!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry but isn't I= pave/(4*pi*r^2) ?
 
Oops! Yeah should be the other way round. I'll correct that.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top