Reassurance for Physics Coursework (Sound)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationships between sound intensity, distance, and speaker enclosures. It clarifies that sound power decreases with distance according to the inverse square law, meaning intensity diminishes significantly as distance increases. The user initially confused intensity with amplitude but later clarified their question about speaker enclosures. It was concluded that a simple frame around an open-frame speaker would not significantly affect volume, while a proper enclosure could enhance sound output. The importance of accurate terminology and diagrams in physics discussions is emphasized.
Life|Time
Hello :rolleyes:

I just wanted to make sure I have these ideas right before I right them up in my physics coursework! I recently did some tests and got these relationships out, but didn't really have enough time to double-check them.

Ok. I took a simple test involving sound and distance. Is the distance proportional to the inverse square of sound intensity? So, as the distance increases a bit the intensity decreases by a lot?

Also, if I had a case around a speaker (say made from cardboard), but it still had the speaker exposed, would it increase the volume as opposed to no case? (I got this shown in my results - I think the case was called a "baffle" by my teacher)

I'm not too good around this area of physics as you may be able to tell!

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Is the distance proportional to the inverse square of sound intensity? So, as the distance increases a bit the intensity decreases by a lot?"

You mixed up your words a bit in there. The sound power is proportional the the inverse square of the distance. Basically think of concentric spheres centered on an isotropic sound source (like a firecracker). As the sound waves radiate out from the source at the center, the same power is going to go through each concentric sphere. But the surface area of each sphere is bigger and bigger, going as r^2, right? So the same sound power is going through a bigger surface area, so the sound intensity (something like power/area ?) will fall off as 1/r^2.

Your second question is not worded well enough to answer, IMO. You would need an accurate diagram of what you are trying to ask. If the "speaker" is already enclosed and you put a 5-sided box around the back of it, nothing will happen. If by "speaker" you mean an open-frame speaker cone assembly, then putting an enclosure behind it can definitely increase the volume that you get out in front of the speaker.
 
berkeman said:
"Is the distance proportional to the inverse square of sound intensity? So, as the distance increases a bit the intensity decreases by a lot?"

You mixed up your words a bit in there. The sound power is proportional the the inverse square of the distance. Basically think of concentric spheres centered on an isotropic sound source (like a firecracker). As the sound waves radiate out from the source at the center, the same power is going to go through each concentric sphere. But the surface area of each sphere is bigger and bigger, going as r^2, right? So the same sound power is going through a bigger surface area, so the sound intensity (something like power/area ?) will fall off as 1/r^2.

Your second question is not worded well enough to answer, IMO. You would need an accurate diagram of what you are trying to ask. If the "speaker" is already enclosed and you put a 5-sided box around the back of it, nothing will happen. If by "speaker" you mean an open-frame speaker cone assembly, then putting an enclosure behind it can definitely increase the volume that you get out in front of the speaker.


Thanks for the reply! When I just re-read what I wrote I noticed I was using the wrong word, I meant amplitude rather than intensity. I think :smile:

Ok. I did word the second question completely uselessly and I didn't even mean a box. lol. I'm in a bit of a rush you see! :rolleyes:

I mean like a speaker with a card square around it, with no depth (except for the thickness of the cardboard). Like a fram with a picture, except a large piece of card then a cut out piece for the speaker to fit in.

Thanks!
 
So if the 2nd question is really whether adding a wall where the cone frame mounting points are changes the volume in front of the speaker cone, then I would guess the answer is no. If you have an open-frame speaker, with the metal frame around it and the magnet and coil to the rear, the putting a wall or frame on it shouldn't do much of anything. The sound waves being pushed out the front still go out the front, and the sound waves being pushed out the back (through the big openings in the metal frame) still go out the back.

The main change happens if you put an enclosure of some kind in the back. That can change the amount and character of sound that you get out the front.
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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...
Back
Top