Velocity & Frequency Wave on String

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and wave velocity on a string under different conditions. It clarifies that frequency is determined by the oscillator, while wave velocity depends on the tension and linear mass density of the string. Increasing tension raises the wave's velocity and wavelength, but the frequency remains constant if the oscillator's frequency is unchanged. The conversation also addresses how standing waves behave, noting that the frequency can only change if the oscillator's frequency changes. Overall, the key point is that in a linear system, frequency is dictated by the oscillator, and any changes in wave properties are contingent upon the oscillator's settings.
escalade17
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Please help me, I'm so bewildered it's not even funny.

Does the frequency only depend on the source? This all seems so paradoxical to me...for example:

An 100 Hz oscillator produces a wave on a rope with a wavelength of .1 meters. If I increase the tension of the rope by sticking a weight at the end of it, the velocity increases. So does the wavelength, but the frequency stays he same.

But...if I have a standing wave on a string and I increase the tension of the string, the frequency of the wave definitely increases. This frequency given as f=nv/2L (because the velocity increased the frequency does too).

Is this all because in the first example the oscillator produces a constant frequency? If the oscillator had not been there, wouldn't the frequency increase?

Also, if I take the first example and turn the oscillator to 200 Hz, wouldn't the wavelength drop correspondingly but the velocity of the wave would stay constant (velocity only determined by (Tension/linear mass density)^1/2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you do not have reflections at the other end, you get an oscillation with a frequency equal to the oscillator frequency. With reflections, it can get tricky to define "frequency" at all. You can always write the whole system as superposition of resonance frequencies, but then you do not have "one frequency", but many.

Is this all because in the first example the oscillator produces a constant frequency? If the oscillator had not been there, wouldn't the frequency increase?
I do not understand which setup you have in mind here.

Also, if I take the first example and turn the oscillator to 200 Hz, wouldn't the wavelength drop correspondingly but the velocity of the wave would stay constant
Correct.
 
Thank you mfb.

I guess I'm talking about something similar to what they have set up here:

http://www.niiler.com/phy130/lab11waves.pdf

Now, the only way to increase the speed of that wave would be to put a bigger mass on the other end, right? But what happens to the frequency of the wave if I do that. Wouldn't it stay the same because the oscillator is directing the frequency? Normally as the velocity of the wave increases the frequency does too (freq: nv/2L), but does the oscillator take prescience?
So the only things that should happen would be the freq of that wave increases and correspondingly the wavelength (but the frequency remains at the frequency set by the oscillator).
 
We just had a long thread about this same basic thing. (Here)
Ignoring the transitory effect on an oscillating system when an excitation is initially switched on (in which some of the natural modes can be excited briefly by a step function, but then die out), the only vibrations that can exist can be at the excitation frequency. Depending upon how close the exciting frequency is to a natural mode of vibration and the Q factor of the oscillator, the standing wave will be at a high or low level.
There is no way that such a linear system can produce a change of frequency because you need to have phase continuity with the energy supply and a change in frequency would violate this.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top