- #1
HalcyonicBlues
- 7
- 0
Hi, thanks for stopping by :) This is for a big assignment (Yr 12). I asked my physics teacher this, but she couldn't give me a definite answer, and neither could my music teacher who previously studied physics, and then he messaged an engineer he knew, who hasn't replied yet...
~
Given that the equation for estimating the fundamental frequency of a string (like for a guitar or piano) is along the lines of:
f= [√(T/[m/L])]/2L
So it involves tension, mass and length.
But how about the resonant frequency calculation for a solid that isn't stretched over anything and so...has 'no' tension? (In this instance, an object like a ruler 'twanged' on the edge of a desk).
I thought of comparing it to a spring, because although the wave motion is often demonstrated as longitudinal and not transverse, a spring doesn't necessarily have any initial tension applied. Then that would involve spring constants and angular frequency... Is such a comparison appropriate at all?
Some other places I read suggested using stiffness (ie. Young's modulus):
f = √([stiffness/m]/2∏)
The problem I have with this is when I have other equations I want to use (to calculate inharmonicty - but that's a different story) that include both stiffness and tension as variables. And I don't think that just sticking '0' into the tension field would really work...?
Hannah x
~
Given that the equation for estimating the fundamental frequency of a string (like for a guitar or piano) is along the lines of:
f= [√(T/[m/L])]/2L
So it involves tension, mass and length.
But how about the resonant frequency calculation for a solid that isn't stretched over anything and so...has 'no' tension? (In this instance, an object like a ruler 'twanged' on the edge of a desk).
The Attempt at a Solution
I thought of comparing it to a spring, because although the wave motion is often demonstrated as longitudinal and not transverse, a spring doesn't necessarily have any initial tension applied. Then that would involve spring constants and angular frequency... Is such a comparison appropriate at all?
Some other places I read suggested using stiffness (ie. Young's modulus):
f = √([stiffness/m]/2∏)
The problem I have with this is when I have other equations I want to use (to calculate inharmonicty - but that's a different story) that include both stiffness and tension as variables. And I don't think that just sticking '0' into the tension field would really work...?
Hannah x