Resonant frequency calculations for 'solid object' systems

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the resonant frequency of solid objects, particularly those not under tension, such as a ruler. The fundamental frequency equation for strings is noted, but the challenge lies in applying similar principles to solid objects without tension. Suggestions include comparing the object to a spring and using stiffness (Young's modulus) in the frequency formula, though complications arise regarding the definitions of stiffness and mass. The conversation highlights that while formulas exist for simple shapes, more complex objects may require computer simulations for accurate frequency determination. Understanding inharmonicity in strings can involve considering tension as a form of "stiffness" when the string is displaced.
HalcyonicBlues
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi, thanks for stopping by :) This is for a big assignment (Yr 12). I asked my physics teacher this, but she couldn't give me a definite answer, and neither could my music teacher who previously studied physics, and then he messaged an engineer he knew, who hasn't replied yet...

~

Given that the equation for estimating the fundamental frequency of a string (like for a guitar or piano) is along the lines of:

f= [√(T/[m/L])]/2L

So it involves tension, mass and length.

But how about the resonant frequency calculation for a solid that isn't stretched over anything and so...has 'no' tension? (In this instance, an object like a ruler 'twanged' on the edge of a desk).

The Attempt at a Solution


I thought of comparing it to a spring, because although the wave motion is often demonstrated as longitudinal and not transverse, a spring doesn't necessarily have any initial tension applied. Then that would involve spring constants and angular frequency... Is such a comparison appropriate at all?

Some other places I read suggested using stiffness (ie. Young's modulus):

f = √([stiffness/m]/2∏)

The problem I have with this is when I have other equations I want to use (to calculate inharmonicty - but that's a different story) that include both stiffness and tension as variables. And I don't think that just sticking '0' into the tension field would really work...?


Hannah x
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is no accident that musical instruments tend to be long and narrow - this makes for a single dominant resonance so you can get a note. However, the other dimensions contribute, and so does the material, so different instruments sound different even when playing the same note.

You probably want to look at a rectangular plate, like a Xylophone key.
It will have vibration modes, usually different, along each axis.
It can also vibrate logitudinally (strike on the end instead of a face).

It can get quite complicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_of_plates
 
HalcyonicBlues said:
Some other places I read suggested using stiffness (ie. Young's modulus):

f = √([stiffness/m]/2∏)
That is the right idea, but it leaves the qiestion of what exactly you mean by "stiffness" and "mass" in the formula.

There is nothing really special about the vibration of "solid musical instruments", compared with solid objects in general.

You didn't say what level of knowledge you have. If you haven't done calculus, you won't be able to understand how the formulas are derived. In any case, there are only "formulas" for objects with simple shapes. Try a google search for vibrations of a cantilever beam, for example.

For objects with more complcated shapes, you would need to do computer simulation to find the frequencies.

To calculate inharmonicity of a string, you can use the idea of the f = √([stiffness/m]/2∏) formula. You can think of the tension in the string as generating a "stiffness" when the string moves laterally. You can feel the force created by that "stiffness" as you displace the string sideways when you pluck it. In mechanical analysis this effect is called the "load stiffness" or "stress stiffness" because it is proportional to the forces or stresses acting on the material, not in the properties of the material itself. You can add together the load stiffness and the "elastic stiffness" created by Young's modulus for the material.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
3K