Why Does Fundamental Freq Have Largest Amplitude?

AI Thread Summary
The fundamental frequency typically has the largest amplitude due to the shape of the vibrating medium, often resulting in a maximum at the fundamental mode in a Fourier Transform. However, it is possible for higher harmonics to dominate, especially with asymmetrical plucking or specific damping techniques. The amplitude of lower frequency harmonics is generally greater because of the relationship between stiffness and mass in vibrating objects, where lower stiffness allows for larger displacements. Standing waves are formed through the superposition of two waves traveling in opposite directions, with their relative phases varying along the medium, leading to points of constructive and destructive interference. This understanding clarifies the apparent contradiction between wave superposition and the existence of standing waves.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19
Please could somebody explain why the fundamental frequency always has the biggest amplitude in comparison to the rest of the harmonics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason that the fundamental usually dominates will be because of the shape of the string when plucked - the Fourier Transform of the initial shape will normally have a maximum at the fundamental mode. But it doesn't necessarily. You can excite a string with asymmetrical plucking at 1/4 and 3/4 along its length and get the first overtone dominating with no significant fundamental OR by placing a dampening finger, half way along a guitar string (or other places) you can get higher overtones (not exact harmonics unless the medium is ideal - but referred to by guitarists as harmonics - but they're not Physicists so it's OK for them)
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
The fundamental doesn't always have the biggest amplitude.

For example see Fig 2 (page 6 of the PDF) in http://www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/SR111/sr111_23.pdf

Several counter-examples of organ reed pipes here: http://www.pykett.org.uk/reedpipetones.htm - e.g Fig 9 the 5th harmonic is loudest, followed by the 3rd.

The reason why lower frequency harmonics usually have bigger amplitudes than higher, is because of the basic equation for the frequency of a vibrating object, ##f = (1/2\pi)\sqrt{K/M}## where K and M measure the stiffness and mass of whatever is vibrating. Often, the amount of vibrating mass is about the same for all the harmonics, and the stiffness increases as the frequency increases. For a fixed amount of forrce, you get a bigger amplitude of vibration from a low stiffness (because displacement = stiffness / force), and so the low frequency harmonics tend to have bigger amplitudes.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Don't they die out??

Two waves traveling in opposite direction should die out according to super position principle (Zero amplitude). Then how standing waves are produced? Is this not a contradiction? Please help. thank you.
 
pscience said:
Two waves traveling in opposite direction should die out according to super position principle (Zero amplitude). Then how standing waves are produced? Is this not a contradiction? Please help. thank you.

The anti- phase condition only occurs right at the termination. The relative phases of incident and reflected wave vary with distance and superposition produces the standing wave.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top