Why is sqrt(Tension/(mass/lenght)) = f*lambda - Standing Waves

In summary: The wave on top is moving faster because it is amplitude (height) dominant.The wave on the bottom is moving slower because it is frequency dominant. In summary, the equations give the same result theoretically, but the speed is determined by the mass per unit length, tension, and frequency.
  • #1
Bastian
3
0

Homework Statement


So in our report we have to explain why these formulas give the same answer theoretically.
We have for an example measured these numbers:

Freq.: 16,37 Hz
L: 1m
m: 0.007 kg
T ≈ 1 N
λ=1/1=1

Homework Equations


v=ƒ*λ=√T/(m/L)

The Attempt at a Solution


The problem is that I don't get why some constants in √T/(m/L) would give you the same answer as: ƒ*λ, because you don't have the freq. nor the wavelength in √T/(m/L)

If any further questions need to be asked feel free - I would really like to understand this :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bastian said:

Homework Statement


So in our report we have to explain why these formulas give the same answer theoretically.
We have for an example measured these numbers:

Freq.: 16,37 Hz
L: 1m
m: 0.007 kg
T ≈ 1 N
λ=1/1=1

Homework Equations


v=ƒ*λ=√T/(m/L)

The Attempt at a Solution


The problem is that I don't get why some constants in √T/(m/L) would give you the same answer as: ƒ*λ, because you don't have the freq. nor the wavelength in √T/(m/L)

If any further questions need to be asked feel free - I would really like to understand this :)
Equations mean nothing without context. Please specify the physical set-up. (You should normally specify what each variable means in the context, but it should be clear in this case.)
I did not understand the reference to constants. Did you mean variables?
There are two levels of explanation that may be available, depending on what exactly you are being asked. At one level, it might be easy to show that the two formulae lead to the same, up to a possible constant ratio. Dimensional analysis is often capable of that. To show that they are exactly the same, i.e. a ratio of 1:1, will take a more detailed analysis of the physical system.
 
  • #3
All right, so:
This was our setup:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/00piqo83iv5tbve/Billede 11-10-2016 13.27.36.jpg?dl=0

We had an oscillator at one end, and then the string kept at 1 meter all the time. That's why I wrote constant. Because the length of the string is constant the mass of the string is also constant.
Over the tip off the table there were some strings with some weight .1kg of mass hanging in it to create tension.

So what I'm wondering is why the formula including tension, mass and length can give me the speed of the string. For all it matters the string could be doing nothing.

I know why the numeric values is equal to each other (as the frequency goes up the lambda values go down. Equaling the same speed). But why can, in my case, some constants equal a speed regardless of what the frequency or wavelength is?
Makes sense? I hope so. And excuse me for my bad English...
 
  • #4
Bastian said:
why can, in my case, some constants equal a speed regardless of what the frequency or wavelength is?
I will reword that as "why can some parameters determine the speed, independently of frequency and wavelength?"
If we suppose the speed is a function of mass per unit length, ρ, tension, T, and frequency, f, and wavelength, λ, then we can use dimensional analysis to show that specifically it depends on the combinations √(T/ρ) and fλ.
If we use our general knowledge of waves, we can say that the velocity must equal fλ.
We know that the wavelength is constrained by the length of the string, so we can take v=fλ as determining f from v and λ. It folows that v is a property of the T and ρ combination.
This gets us as far as saying v=fλ=k√(T/ρ) for some constant k. To find k we need to examine the forces and accelerations in detail.
 
  • #5
I don't know that truly answers my question:
'cause what I'm really wondering is why (im my case) the constants (T,L,m) can describe the speed of the wave... For all I could think the speed could be 0 aka the "standing wave" would just be a laying string. Makes sense?
 
  • #6
Bastian said:
I don't know that truly answers my question:
'cause what I'm really wondering is why (im my case) the constants (T,L,m) can describe the speed of the wave... For all I could think the speed could be 0 aka the "standing wave" would just be a laying string. Makes sense?
A standing wave occurs when two equal waves travel in opposite directions. In terms of theory, you should think of the speed of each of those superimposed waves.
 

FAQ: Why is sqrt(Tension/(mass/lenght)) = f*lambda - Standing Waves

1. How does tension affect the frequency of standing waves?

As the tension in a string increases, the frequency of standing waves also increases. This is because tension creates a restoring force that is proportional to the displacement of the string. Therefore, a higher tension results in a higher frequency of oscillation.

2. Why is the mass per length term included in the equation for standing wave frequency?

The mass per length term represents the linear density of the string. This factor accounts for the fact that a thicker or heavier string will vibrate at a lower frequency compared to a thinner or lighter string, even if the tension is the same.

3. How does the length of the string affect the frequency of standing waves?

The length of the string has a direct relationship with the frequency of standing waves. As the length of the string increases, the frequency decreases and vice versa. This is because the wavelength of the standing wave is directly proportional to the length of the string.

4. What is the significance of the square root in the equation for standing wave frequency?

The square root in the equation is necessary because it accounts for the fact that standing waves are formed by the combination of two waves traveling in opposite directions. This results in a doubling of the wavelength and halving of the frequency compared to a single traveling wave.

5. How does the frequency of standing waves relate to the fundamental frequency of a string?

The fundamental frequency, or the lowest frequency at which a string can vibrate, is equal to the frequency of the first harmonic of a standing wave. This is when the wavelength of the standing wave is equal to twice the length of the string. As the frequency of the standing wave increases, so does the number of harmonic frequencies that can be produced on the string.

Back
Top