Sound waves: How do we know it is the fundamental harmonic?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the assumptions made regarding sound waves in air columns, particularly the tendency to consider the fundamental harmonic as the default mode of vibration. Participants explore the rationale behind this assumption, the conditions under which it holds, and the challenges associated with identifying higher harmonics in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the fundamental harmonic is often assumed because it is the easiest to excite, and typically only a single resonance is observed in many practical situations.
  • Others question the certainty of identifying the fundamental harmonic, suggesting that it is possible for higher harmonics to be present, particularly in more complex resonators.
  • A participant mentions that the fundamental harmonic for a closed-end column is characterized by a length of λ/4, indicating a relationship between the physical dimensions of the column and the harmonic produced.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of measuring the dimensions of the resonator to ascertain the fundamental resonance, especially in cases where the dimensions are significantly less than a quarter wavelength.
  • Some contributions highlight that achieving higher harmonics requires more skill and effort, as they are generally harder to excite due to higher power dissipation.
  • A distinction is made between 'overtones' and 'harmonics', with a participant arguing that not all resonances in complex systems are exact multiples of a fundamental frequency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumption of the fundamental harmonic being the default mode. While some argue it is reasonable to assume the fundamental harmonic in many cases, others contend that higher harmonics may also be present and should not be dismissed without consideration.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the identification of harmonics can depend on the specific characteristics of the resonator, including its shape and dimensions, which may complicate the analysis of sound waves.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and practitioners in acoustics, physics, and engineering, particularly those exploring the behavior of sound waves in various resonant systems.

SweatingBear
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
I have done a handful of problems related to sound waves in air columns and one thing I have noticed is that, unless told otherwise in the problem formulation, one always assumes that sound wave that is formed is always the fundamental harmonic and thus the length of the air column comprises a half wavelength. What is the rationale behind this? I thought the shapes were somewhat arbitrary, depening on the context: How is one so sure that it most certainly is the fundamental harmonic? Why couldn't the sound wave have e.g. a 2nd harmonic or a 3rd harmonic shape?

Example:
If you blow into a bottle with length 17 cm a standing wave arises. What is the frequency of the soundwave (assume the speed of sound to be 340 m/s).
In this case, the sound wave is regarded as a fundamental harmonic (read: must be regarded as the fundamental or else the answer turns out to be wrong). What argues for doing that?

Example:
In a straight tunnel, similar to an air column with both ends open, resonance is achieved at e.g. the frequency 42 Hz. The next frequency which gives rise to resonance is 56 Hz. Calculate the length of the tunnel.
In this example, one cannot assume that the shape of the sound wave is the "fundamental" (i.e. anti-nodes at the ends and node in the middle of the tunnel). Instead, one has to be quite careful and consider the possible shapes.

Can somebody please help me see things clearly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first harmonic is by far the easiest to excite, and it is usually quite difficult to excite any other harmonic by itself.

So unless you have some good reason to suspect otherwise, when you only find a single resonance you can reasonably assume that it's the fundamental harmonic; and when you find multiple resonances you can work out the fundamental harmonic.

In practice, you might find it fairly difficult to create the situation described in your second example in which just 42 Hz and 56 Hz are present but the 14 Hz primary is not there and dominating them both.
 
Last edited:
Nugatory said:
The first harmonic is by far the easiest to excite, and it is usually quite difficult to excite any other harmonic by itself.

Ok, valid argument but how can really be sure that it really is the fundamental harmonic? Why couldn't one argue that it is the first harmonic?

Nugatory said:
In practice, you might find it fairly difficult to create the situation described in your second example in which just 42 Hz and 56 Hz are present but the 14 Hz primary is not there and dominating them both.

Hm, not sure whether I really understood the "14 Hz" bit. But, why can't I here assume it is the fundamental harmonic? Like you said, any higher harmonics are way harder to excite.
 
The fundamental may have length of column = λ/4 (when one end is closed and the other is open)
From the dimensions of the container you should have some idea.
Also, negatory is quite correct, the fundamental is the most likely oscillation to be excited
 
The best way to ascertain that you are near the fundamental resonance is by measuring the dimensions of the pipe. You will not get a resonance in a simple pipe or cavity if the dimension is much less than a quarter wavelength in air. If the resonator is loaded in some way, with a port (hole / tube) in it then it can behave as a Helmoltz resonator at a much lower frequency (like a sub-woofer loudspeaker).
For a 'black box' resonator (no data about its real dimensions), you would need actually to measure its response down to a ridiculously low frequency, to be really sure, I think.
 
You can get to the higher harmonics by blowing harder with many flutes, but it requires some skill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overblowing Large harmonics usually have higher power dissipation, so they are harder to excite, it is often a save bet to assume that you are in the fundamental resonance. If you have something else than simple pipes, the vibrational patterns get much more complicated, and the harmonics don't necessarily follow a simple pattern of multiples of a single base frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Chladni
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
You can get to the higher harmonics by blowing harder with many flutes, but it requires some skill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overblowing Large harmonics usually have higher power dissipation, so they are harder to excite, it is often a save bet to assume that you are in the fundamental resonance. If you have something else than simple pipes, the vibrational patterns get much more complicated, and the harmonics don't necessarily follow a simple pattern of multiples of a single base frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Chladni

That's because they are 'overtones' and not 'harmonics'. It's only a harmonic when it is an exact multiple of a fundamental and, for most resonators (real ones) this is not the case. I always think that the right terminology should be used where possible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K