Pipe and speed of sound question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving sound resonance in a closed pipe, specifically examining the relationship between the frequency of a tuning fork and the lengths of the pipe at which resonances occur. The original poster notes resonances at lengths of 55.5 cm and 92.5 cm for a tuning fork frequency of 325.6 Hz.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the consistency of calculated wave speeds based on different pipe lengths and question the assumptions regarding the fundamental frequency. There is discussion about the concept of end correction and its impact on the effective length of the pipe.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the calculations and assumptions made by the original poster. Some guidance regarding the concept of end correction has been provided, but there is no explicit consensus on the resolution of the inconsistencies noted.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the potential idealization of the experiment, suggesting that end correction may have been assumed to be zero, which could affect the results. There is also mention of the relationship between resonances and wavelengths in closed pipes.

xtheunknown0
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A student holds a 325.6 Hz tuning fork near the end of a pipe that is closed at one end. He notices that resonances can be heard for several different lengths, one of which is 55.5 cm. He gradually lengthens the pipe to 92.5 cm where he detects the next resonance.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Let lamda_1 = 0.555 * 4 = 2.22 m
f_1 = 325.6 Hz
v = 723 m/s

lamda_3 = 4/3 * 0.925
v = 402 m/s

Why aren't the two answers consistent?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums.

How do you know that 325.6 Hz is the fundamental mode?
 
xtheunknown0 said:
Why aren't the two answers consistent?
Because you've not figured out the right numbers, maybe...?

What is the Highest Common Factor of 55.5 and 92.5?
 
cmb said:
Because you've not figured out the right numbers, maybe...?

What is the Highest Common Factor of 55.5 and 92.5?
Or the GCD of 555 and 925, as 55.5 and 92.5 don't have a GCD.
 
xtheunknown0 said:

Homework Statement


A student holds a 325.6 Hz tuning fork near the end of a pipe that is closed at one end. He notices that resonances can be heard for several different lengths, one of which is 55.5 cm. He gradually lengthens the pipe to 92.5 cm where he detects the next resonance.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Let lamda_1 = 0.555 * 4 = 2.22 m
f_1 = 325.6 Hz
v = 723 m/s

lamda_3 = 4/3 * 0.925
v = 402 m/s

Why aren't the two answers consistent?

The reason we do the experiment like this is due to end correction. [look it up]

A pipe that is 55.5 cm long "behaves" as if it a little longer. The 92.5 cm pipe also behaves as if it also a little longer. Fortunately the extra length each time [the end correction] is the same [it is related to the cross-sectional area of the pipe - or in the case of a round pipe, a constant*radius.

The shortest stopped pipe that exhibits resonance behaves as if it is 1/4 wavelength long [it will physically be a little shorter]. The next length to exhibit resonance is behaving as 3/4 wavelength, then 1,25 , 1.75, 2.25 etc.

So the additional length each time is exactly half a wavelength.

That should see you right.

NOTE: had this been an open pipe, the pipe would exhibit resonance when behaving as if it was 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, etc wavelengths long. Same method of solution used.

That is why this sort of experiment is done by lengthening the pipe rather than increasing the frequency to get other resonances.

EDIT: There is always a chance that this "experiment" has been idealised and end correction was assumed to be zero.
 
Hootenanny said:
Or the GCD of 555 and 925, as 55.5 and 92.5 don't have a GCD.

OK, fair enough. I should've gone for suggesting a Lowest Common Multiple directly (2.775m) and worked back, or somehow worded it as 'a common lowest-integer multiplicand' (18.5).
 
cmb said:
OK, fair enough. I should've gone for suggesting a Lowest Common Multiple directly (2.775m) and worked back, or somehow worded it as 'a common lowest-integer multiplicand' (18.5).

As I explained earlier - the key to this experiment is that the additional length to get to the next resonance is half a wavelength. End of story.
 
PeterO said:
As I explained earlier - the key to this experiment is that the additional length to get to the next resonance is half a wavelength. End of story.
As I didn't directly explain earlier (folks can do their homework), get the factor of two resonances right and you've got the 1/4 wavelength (then, don't even need to know if they are 'immediate' resonances, or the 'next' one). End of Appendix.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
9K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
13K