What Factors Affect the Speed of Sound in Water During Hydrophone Experiments?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factors affecting the speed of sound in water during hydrophone experiments. Participants are exploring the observed discrepancies in waveform timing and phase relationships between transmitted and received signals, particularly at high frequencies. The conversation includes technical aspects of experimental setup and potential sources of error.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their setup with two hydrophones and expresses confusion over the phase relationship of the observed waveforms, particularly noting that at high frequencies, the received signal appears to lead the input signal.
  • Another participant questions the dimensions of the water bath, the material of the container, and the proximity of the hydrophones, suggesting that these factors could influence the results.
  • Concerns are raised about potential resonance in the container and reflections from its sides, which could affect the measurements.
  • A participant suggests that the observed phase difference might be greater than initially considered, proposing to measure the time delay with a focus on a potential phase difference of 355 degrees or more.
  • One participant notes that the wave period at ~100 kHz is short, implying that an 80 μs delay would manifest over many cycles, complicating the interpretation of results.
  • Suggestions are made to adjust the hydrophone positions slightly or to use lower frequencies to better observe the expected delays.
  • A historical reference is made to a Time Domain Reflectometer experiment, proposing that a similar setup might help visualize the delay and reflections in the current experiment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various hypotheses and concerns regarding the experimental setup and results, indicating that multiple competing views remain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the causes of the observed phenomena.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in their experimental design, including the influence of the water bath's material and dimensions, as well as the effects of reflections and resonance, which remain unresolved.

cork-spotters
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I hope this is applicable to this section.

Basically I have two hydrophones immersed in a water bath, approximately 12cm apart. One is connected to a function generator, the other to an oscilloscope.

I'm comparing both the transmitted and received waveforms on the scope, but I'm finding it difficult to explain my results. Basically my observed waveform is at best in phase with the input, and at high freq (~100kHz) actually leads the input signal on the scope!

Doing a basic v = s/t, and taking the accepted value of v=1482m/s, I reckon I should be getting a Δt of 80μs between the waveforms.

Have I broken physics??
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I doubt it.
How big is your water bath?
What material is used to construct the water bath container?
Why are your two hydrophones so close together?
Any possibility of the HF sound setting up resonance in the container itself?
Are the sound waves reflecting of the sides of the water bath?
 
cork-spotters said:
I hope this is applicable to this section.

Basically I have two hydrophones immersed in a water bath, approximately 12cm apart. One is connected to a function generator, the other to an oscilloscope.

I'm comparing both the transmitted and received waveforms on the scope, but I'm finding it difficult to explain my results. Basically my observed waveform is at best in phase with the input, and at high freq (~100kHz) actually leads the input signal on the scope!

Doing a basic v = s/t, and taking the accepted value of v=1482m/s, I reckon I should be getting a Δt of 80μs between the waveforms.

Have I broken physics??

When sinusoidal waves are displayed on a dual-trace o'scope and they appear to be "in phase" that would mean within a few degrees of one another. Have you considered that the received waveform may be say, 355 degrees later?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: scottdave
The bath is approximately 30*16*20cm in dimension internally.

The water bath is of metal (stainless steel I think) construction, but I have wrapped the walls in bubblewrap, placed pebbles in the bottom and various bits of foam floating on top to try and minimise reflections from the container.

The hydrophones are close together due to the small size of the bath.

I'd hope with the padding being used that reflections wouldn't be a problem, but it is a possibility.

I'm going to measure the time delay between the two waves assuming 355* or greater phase difference to see if that explains things, but I think I tried this last week and it didn't really explain it. I'll post back with results though.

Thanks guys.
 
cork-spotters said:
I hope this is applicable to this section.

Basically I have two hydrophones immersed in a water bath, approximately 12cm apart. One is connected to a function generator, the other to an oscilloscope.

I'm comparing both the transmitted and received waveforms on the scope, but I'm finding it difficult to explain my results. Basically my observed waveform is at best in phase with the input, and at high freq (~100kHz) actually leads the input signal on the scope!

Doing a basic v = s/t, and taking the accepted value of v=1482m/s, I reckon I should be getting a Δt of 80μs between the waveforms.

Have I broken physics??

Welcome to Physics Forums.

The wave period for ~100 kHz is only ~10 μs. A delay of 80 μs (that you calculated correctly, btw) will show up many periods later, and so be indistinguishable from a delay that is less than 1 period. Bobbywhy was pretty much on the right track, but the problem is a lot worse than being ~360°, it's more like ~8*360°.

The easy thing to try is to move the hydrophones slightly closer or farther, by a few mm, and see if the waveform delay changes by the appropriate amount. Best if you can observe the waveforms while moving the hydrophones.

Another thing to try is a much lower frequency, with a period considerably longer than 80 μs. This would mean considerably lower than 10 kHz.

If possible, try a signal burst that lasts only several periods @ ~100 kHz and then turns off, and look for when the receiver picks up the burst. May or may not be possible with the generator you have. The off time should be considerably longer than 80 μs before sending the next burst.
 
Last edited:
Years ago, I had the telecom students build a simple TDR, Time Domain Reflectometer.
I had them create the pulse with a d flip-flop, D tied high, and -Q tied to clr.
clk is tied to a 1 khz clock. The output of Q will be about a 100 ns pulse occurring at 1 khz.
You can make the pulse longer by adding a resistor and capacitor.
Something like this should let you see your exact delay, as the pulse rep rate is much slower
than travel time.
I expect you will be able to see the secondary reflections from the sides of the tank,
but they may get lost in the general pulse dispersion.
You can increase the clock input rate to more closely match the scope scan.
have fun, sounds like an interesting experiment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K