High School Log relationship between thickness of material and sound absorbed?

Click For Summary
An experiment on PVC foam revealed a logarithmic relationship between material thickness and sound absorption. The researcher applied the frequency-dependent acoustic attenuation power law, suggesting that sound waves encounter more particles in thinner materials, leading to higher energy conversion. As thickness increases, the likelihood of energy conversion decreases, resulting in reduced sound absorption. The discussion also touches on the exponential reduction of energy as sound propagates through materials. Understanding these principles can enhance acoustic material design and applications.
Marcogoodie
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I did an experiement, and found a logarithmic relationship between sound energy absorbed and the amount of mateiral it propagates through. Why is there a logarithmic relationship between the thickness of material and sound absorbed by it?
So I have done an experiment on the amount of sound energy absorbed based on thickness of pvc foam, and found a logarithmic relationship between the two. I've used the frequency-dependent acoustic attenuation power law, which is derived from stokes' law.

Frequency-dependent acoustic attenuation power law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_attenuation#Power-law frequency-dependent_acoustic_attenuation

My hypothesis is that as sound waves propagate through material, initially, it can bump into more particles and sound waves can be converted into other forms of energy easily, but as the amount of waves decrease when it propagates through thicker material, the chances of it being converted into other forms of energy decrease. Is that correct?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The energy loss, per unit length, is proportional to the energy propagating.
So the energy is reducing exponentially as it propagates.
What is the inverse of exponentiation?
 
  • Like
Likes Marcogoodie and SammyS
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
11K