Time between sound wave displacements

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving equations related to sound wave displacements, specifically focusing on the relationship between time, phase constant (phi), and wave properties. The user simplifies the equations by removing phi, leading to confusion about how to handle the three unknowns with only two equations. They explore setting initial conditions to zero but struggle with the implications of omitting phi. The conversation emphasizes the importance of specifying the starting phase to achieve the required displacement and how it relates to the wave's properties. Ultimately, understanding the role of phi is crucial for accurately solving the problem.
PhizKid
Messages
477
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


tI2yrCp.png


Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


So I set up:

2.0 nm = (6.0 nm)cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t1 + phi)
-2.0 nm = (6.0 nm)cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t2 + phi)

My professor said if there's a phi you can usually ignore it so I'm just going to remove them:

2.0 nm = (6.0 nm) * cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t1)
-2.0 nm = (6.0 nm) * cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t2)

Simplify them:

1/3 nm = cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t1)
-1/3 nm = cos(kx + (3000 rad/s)t2)

I need to solve for each time, but we have 3 unknowns and only two equations so I'm not sure what else to do from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One thing you can do is set t_0 to zero. Then you can set x to zero, too.
 
tms said:
One thing you can do is set t_0 to zero. Then you can set x to zero, too.

But then we get

s = (6.0 nm) * cos(k*0 + (3000 rad/s)*0)
s = 6.0 nm * 1
s = 6.0 nm

I'm not sure how this helps
 
PhizKid said:
But then we get

s = (6.0 nm) * cos(k*0 + (3000 rad/s)*0)
You left out the phase constant.
 
Oh...I'm not sure when to include the phase constant or not because sometimes it seems negligible and when we are doing problems the professor just leaves it out. But doesn't that add another variable anyway?

s = (6.0 nm) * cos(phi)
 
Well, if you want to omit \phi, then stick x back in. But then you'll have to worry about k, too.
 
tms said:
Well, if you want to omit \phi, then stick x back in. But then you'll have to worry about k, too.

I don't understand this relationship. Why does x and k re-appear if phi disappears?
 
If you set your frame of reference so that x = 0 and t1 = 0, then you have to specify the starting phase through phi in order to get the required initial displacement 2.0 nm.
 
tms said:
One thing you can do is set t_0 to zero. Then you can set x to zero, too.
I meant t_1.
 
  • #10
how can I calculate the value of phi to accommodate for the different starting point?
 
  • #11
The starting phase must be such that the 6.0 sin (phase) = 2.0. This follows directly form the description of the problem.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top