Gohlke-Henry 1

Reducing Sound Intensity in an Aerodynamic Vehicle

Ryan Gohlke and Alex Henry
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
AP Physics
Mr. McMillan, Mrs. Gravel, Mrs. Tallman
December 5, 2014

Gohlke-Henry 2
Reducing Sound Intensity in an Aerodynamic Vehicle
The purpose of the experiment was to decrease the sound pressure of the
resonance of a car driving with the windows down by changing the angle of the back of
the window, while also keeping the drag force of the car the same. The resonance of the
car causes an irritating noise, which is why the experiment involved decreasing the
resonant sound pressure. A round-bottom flask was used to simulate a car because it was
easier to experiment on and resonates more easily than a car. Three plastic models called
deresonators at thirty, forty-five, and sixty degrees that deflect air; they were created to
fit the round-bottom flask to alter the angle of the flask entrance. To find resonance, the
flask was secured and an air current was blown perpendicular to the top of the flask and
the sound pressure was recorded through a Vernier microphone.
For drag force, the flask was secured in a horizontal wind tunnel and attached to a
force sensor which recorded the change in drag force. Two Analysis of Variance,
ANOVA, tests were conducted to determine the significance of the experimental results.
The lowest average sound pressure was produced by 60 at 2.758 dB compared to the
sound pressure with no manipulation was 3.577 dB. The lowest drag force was produced
from no deresonator at 0.049N.
The overall conclusion is that sound pressure was significantly reduced, but drag
force significantly increased. Sound pressure decreased because the angle on the
deresonator decreased the amplitude of the wave, therefore, decreasing the sound
pressure. Also, the deresonator deflected the waves so a standing wave could not form.
Drag force increased because it is dependent on area, velocity, density, and coefficient of
drag. The surface area increased slightly, but was predicted to have little effect.

Gohlke-Henry 3
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Review of Literature............................................................................................................3
Problem Statement...............................................................................................................8
Experimental Design............................................................................................................9
Data and Observations.......................................................................................................12
Data Analysis and Interpretation........................................................................................15
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................26
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................30
Appendix A: Randomization .............................................................................................31
Appendix B: LoggerPro.....................................................................................................32
Appendix C: ANOVA Test.................................................................................................33
Appendix D: Two-Sample t-Test.......................................................................................36
Bibliography......................................................................................................................37

Gohlke-Henry 4
Introduction
The car is making that sound again; its so annoying. You just wanted to feel the
wind on your face while driving on the highway, and now that noise is disrupting the
pleasant atmosphere. Is it possible to stop this? The sound caused by driving at high
speeds with the window down can be reduced. The science behind that sound is an
important factor in reducing it. The sound of the wind when driving at high speeds is
caused from the aerodynamics of the car moving the wind as it hits the car. The wind,
when the window is closed, moves smoothly over the window. When the window is open,
the wind hits the back of the window and causes a resonance. Depending on the shape of
the window, uneven wave patterns form interference due to deflected waves in the back
of the vehicle. That resonance is the sound that so many people find a distraction while
driving, and the target of the experiment.
The purpose of the experiment was to decrease the sound intensity of the
resonance of a car driving with the windows down by changing the angle of the back of
the window, while also keeping the drag force constant or having it increase a miniscule
amount. To accomplish this, angular deresonators were constructed using a 3-D printer
and fitted to the opening of a round flask to simulate a change in the windows back
angle. Due to their angled nature, the deresonators interfere with the resonance by
deflecting a portion of the wind away from the back of the window. The round flask
simulates a car because resonates similarly to a car, but at slower speeds. The resonance
and drag force of the flask with and without deresonators was recorded and the data was
tested to see if the hypothesis was correct.
Currently, a full deresonator meant for cars is being developed. The experiment
applies to the automotive engineering industry, as automotive companies have been

Gohlke-Henry 5
riddled with complaints from consumers about eliminating the resonance of their
windows and it will generate more revenue for companies. It also applies to everyday
people because they have expressed their interest with an invention to decrease or
eliminate the resonance.

Gohlke-Henry 6
Review of Literature
Picture this: driving down the interstate highway, in the coolest car ever
(Hennessey Venom GT in Figure 1 below), with the clearest blue skies, and slight breeze
coming from the North. The windows are down and there is this awful pounding noise.
How can one dissipate the annoying sound? Well, the first thought is to close the
windows and turn the air conditioning on, but one loses out on the prospect of fresh air.
What if there was a way to keep the windows of a car down while not having that awful
noise? In order to eliminate the sound, also known as resonance, a simple understanding
of aerodynamics, waves, and manufacturing of cars is needed.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/109090321478/hennessey-venom-gt-shows-its-aerodynamics/lowphotos#0

Figure 1. Hennessey Venom GT

The forces and moments of aerodynamics depend on the shape of the body and its
orientation and its movement or rotation in relation to the air stream. The force parallel to
the stream is called drag or air resistance. Drag is positive when it pulls in the same
direction as the stream. If an object is to move against a stream then drag is a loss that
must be overcome with another force. Force perpendicular to the stream is called lift,
which helps planes take off and boats go forward. The force perpendicular to drag and lift
is the side force (forces can be seen in Figure 2). If symmetric objects like cars move
directly against the wind, there is no side force impact on their movement (Aerodynamic
Forces).

Gohlke-Henry 7

http://www.motiva.fi/myllarin_tuulivoima/windpower%20web/en/tour/wtrb/aeroforc.htm

Figure 2. Lift, Drag, and Side Force

Drag is found by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid.
Drag has a direct effect on acceleration because the acceleration (a) of an object is its
weight (W) minus drag (D) divided by its mass (m). Weight is the object's mass times the
force of gravity acting on it (Figure 3) (George).
a=(W D)/m
Figure 3. Acceleration
The drag coefficient (Cd) is equal to the drag (D), divided by the quantity of the
density (r), times half the velocity (V) squared times the area (A) (Figure 4) (George).
Cd=

D
( A.5rV 2)

Figure 4. Coefficient of Drag Force

Drag is a mechanical force produced by the interaction and contact of a solid body
with a fluid. If no fluid or motion occurs, then there is no drag. Relating to an object, drag
acts in a direction that is opposite to its motion; lift acts perpendicular to the motion.
Drag is aerodynamic friction, and one of the sources of drag is the skin friction between
the molecules of the air and the solid surface of the object. The source of drag depends on
the shape of the object. The magnitude of the force is found by integrating the local

Gohlke-Henry 8
intensity times the surface area around the entire body. Both the lift and drag force act
through the center of intensity of the object (Benson).
The resonance is caused by aerodynamics, by the shedding of vortices around the
window posts. As the car passes through the air it changes the pressure on the outside of
the car and because of the differences in pressure between the outside and the inside,
there is an unsteady vibration of flow that is set up. The same phenomenon occurs when
air blows across the top of an empty bottle. If done right, it produces an audible tone
which is caused by the periodic vibration of the air column. A vent was created in older
vehicle windows and it changed the aerodynamics around the bigger window opening
and would dampen the resonance inside. Today's cars normally don't have a vent window
but are equipped with air-conditioning and the user's manual will say not to have
windows down when driving at faster velocities. There is a big drag penalty for having
open windows, in addition to the resonance, drag penalty decreases gas mileage which
more gas money. To change the aerodynamics around the window some cars have
window "treatments" and currently there is no known research on the resonance of a car
(Benson). The creation of an angular deresonator could be an important design for the
aerodynamics and sound of a vehicle.
The basic resonance in a musical instrument, a hollow cylindrical tube, is partially
filled with water and forced into vibration by a tuning fork to create a sound.

Figure 5. Resonance

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/u11l4b4.gif

Gohlke-Henry 9
The tuning fork is the object that forced the air inside of the resonance tube to
resonate (Figure 5). As the tines of the tuning fork vibrate at their own natural frequency,
sound is created with waves that impinge upon the opening of the resonance tube. These
impinging sound waves produced by the tuning fork force air inside of the resonance tube
to vibrate at the same frequency. Resonance only occurs when the first object is vibrating
at the natural frequency of the second object. The waves produce nodes and antinodes
like Figure 6.

http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Image_library/Physics_2/Waves/Superposition/wav_26.gif

Figure 6. Node and Antinode

The natural frequency or fundamental tone can be found by using the equation:
(v) velocity of wind is equal to () frequency times () wavelength. Wavelength is equal
to four times length of pipe for closed end pipes and two times length of pipe for open
end pipes (Figure 7).
v =
Figure 7. Fundamental Tone
A vehicle is an example of a closed pipe resonance. The wavelength is the width of the
car and the speed of sound varies depending on the temperature and speed of the vehicle.
The frequency at which the tuning fork vibrates is not identical to one of the
natural frequencies of the air column inside the resonance tube. Resonance will not occur
and the two objects will not sound out together with constructive interference. The water

Gohlke-Henry 10
level can be altered by raising and lowering a reservoir of water, or decreasing or
increasing the length of the air column (Henderson). A closed cylindrical air column will
produce resonant standing waves at a fundamental frequency and at odd harmonics. The
closed end is constrained to be a node of the wave and the open end is an antinode. The
constraint of the closed end prevents the column from producing the even harmonics. A
car going a certain speed with one window down is compared to the velocity of wind
going over a closed end tube. The car will naturally resonate with the pounding. The
pounding noise from the car is compressed air caused by low frequency sound waves that
resonate in the car.

http://www.splung.com/kinematics/images/damped_oscillations/damped_oscillations.gif

Figure 8. Damping
Amplitude of vibrations becomes progressively smaller as energy is lost due to
friction between the oscillating body and the particles in the air because the amplitude of
oscillations decreases with time, or dampening (Figure 8). The higher the damping, the
faster the oscillations will reduce in size. Critical damping is the damping required to
make the oscillations stop in the quickest possible time without going past an amplitude
of zero. Here is a simple procedure to dampen the resonance: 1) record amplitude and
phase at the point with the largest amplitude, 2) record amplitude and phase at the
resonant section at the point of highest vibration level, 3) Detune the resonant part using
temporary means such as a "deresonator" and observe amplitude and phase of vibration

Gohlke-Henry 11
on the resonant part and at the same point of resonance, 4) if detuning does not
appreciably decrease the vibration at the maximum intensity, then vibration reduction will
be accomplished only by working on the source of resonance, 5) if detuning does
appreciably decrease the vibration at the bearing, it is best to detune the resonant part. If
after detuning there is still more vibration that should be eliminated, continue by working
on the source of resonance that creates the wave (Damping, Nature Frequency and
Resonance).When applied to a car, the detuning process used the deresonators to redirect
part of the air current, decreasing the number of air waves, or oscillations, which cause
resonance and was accomplished without decreasing the amplitude past zero. Thus,
critical dampening was reached.
Using the concepts of aerodynamics and resonance, it is hypothesized that the
resonance of cars when one window is down will reduce by increasing the aerodynamics
of the window. The aerodynamic window design will remove the resonance of the sound
waves, which will please the passengers by decreasing the sound generated from the
resonance, even though a car was not fully utilized during research. A round flask
simulates a car because it resonates similarly to and more easily than a car, and also
because it resonates at slower speeds, and has an opening that is affected by air currents
the same way.

Gohlke-Henry 12
Problem Statement
Problem:
Minimize sound intensity and maintain drag force with vehicle windows down by
manipulating the back angle of the window.
Hypothesis:
If the deresonator is manufactured at 45, then intensity will decrease and drag
force will remain the same as if the windows were not open.
Data Measured:
The two dependent variables of the operation are drag force, and sound intensity.
Drag force is measured in Newtons, N; and sound intensity is measured in Decibels, dB.
Independent factors are the velocity of the air flowing over the open end pipe and the
three angular deresonators at 30, 45, and 60.

The statistical analysis needed to

determine if sound intensity decreased and drag force remained constant are two ANOVA
tests to compare mean values of N and dB from the three angular deresonators. Any
overlap of data in the box-plots will result in two-sample t-tests to further analyze the
mean values.

Gohlke-Henry 13
Experimental Design
Materials:
Air Supply Model SF-9216
Plastic Hose with 3.5 cm Diameter
Blue Masking Tape
(2) Stands
Clamp
Large Clamp
Wind Tunnel
500 mL Round Bottom Flask
30 Deresonator
45 Deresonator
60 Deresonator
LoggerPro
Vernier Microphone
Vernier Dual Range Force Sensor
Frictionless Pulley
Light String
Procedure:
1. Randomize trials for each deresonator (See Appendix A), setup LoggerPro (See
Appendix B), and create the three angled deresonators (See Appendix E).
Intensity:
2. Set 500 mL round bottom flask taped down to stabilize.
3. Use the Air Supply Model SF-9216 to produce a constant velocity airstream. Set dial to
4. Attach the plastic hose with 3.5 cm diameter to the air supply and turn on machine.
Position hose at the horizontal level and secure the hose with a large clamp attached to a
stand. Position the round bottom flask to produce a resonance. It is at the maximum
resonance when it is at the loudest point. Use blue masking tape to mark the positions of
the equipment in case of jolt.
4. Use the Vernier Microphone secured by a small clamp attached to a stand. Position the
microphone where it will measure the pitch and not the sound of the machine (refer to
Figure 9. on the next page). Use the LoggerPro to measure maximum sound intensity, dB.
Set trials to collect five samples per second for five seconds. Preform the trial, tap
analyze statistics maximum. Record the maximum of the sinusoidal wave in data
table.
5. Secure chosen deresonator inside 500 mL round bottom flask with blue masking tape
and repeat step 4. See Diagram 1 for setup. Preform 30 trials for each deresonator.

Gohlke-Henry 14
Drag Force:
6. Place board inside wind tunnel and secure round bottom flask to the floor of the wind
tunnel using masking tape. Attach light string to the round bottom flask and thread over a
frictionless pulley down through the bottom hole where the force sensor will set.
7. Turn fan on high.
8. Measure the drag using Vernier Dual Range Force Sensor on the LoggerPro. Set trials
to collect five samples per second for five seconds. Perform the trial, tap analyze
statistics mean. Record the drag force by taking the mean of the sinusoidal wave in data
table.
Diagrams:

Air Supply Model SF-9216

Logger Pro
Vernier Microphone
Round Bottom Flask

Figure 9. Intensity
Figure 9 pictures the setup to measure the intensity with the deresonator. Again
the angular contraption should be inside the cylindrical part of the flask.

Gohlke-Henry 15

Round Bottom Flask

Light String

Frictionless Pulley

Vernier Dual Range Force Sensor

Figure 10. Drag Force
Figure10 demonstrates the setup to measure drag force. Board was pre-cut to fit
wind tunnel.

Figure 11. Measureing the Max and Mean

In Figure 11, to find sound intensity, use maximum; drag force, use mean.

Gohlke-Henry 16
Data and Observations
Data:
Table 1
Sound Intensity
Sound Intensity
Trials No Angle
30
1
3.563 2.807
2
3.596 2.795
3
3.618 2.846
4
3.606 2.797
5
3.581 2.803
6
3.586 2.821
7
3.505 2.785
8
3.535 2.818
9
3.517 2.781
10
3.586 2.812
11
3.607 2.845
12
3.642 2.817
13
3.547 2.785
14
3.534 2.793
15
3.557 2.804
16
3.573 2.852
17
3.597 2.834
18
3.558 2.804
19
3.580 2.821
20
3.540 2.840
21
3.543 2.831
22
3.597 2.812
23
3.583 2.837
24
3.617 2.780
25
3.614 2.810
26
3.579 2.803
27
3.579 2.797
28
3.549 2.802
29
3.590 2.801
30
3.623 2.818
Table 1 shows the values

45
60
2.890 2.761
2.787 2.783
2.799 2.756
2.800 2.767
2.779 2.767
2.865 2.762
2.787 2.757
2.792 2.744
2.840 2.753
2.829 2.734
2.785 2.767
2.812 2.769
2.843 2.744
2.818 2.752
2.807 2.745
2.841 2.773
2.863 2.773
2.831 2.738
2.840 2.762
2.846 2.773
2.811 2.757
2.830 2.746
2.835 2.762
2.857 2.742
2.846 2.766
2.820 2.752
2.804 2.743
2.807 2.759
2.809 2.781
2.843 2.756
of the sound intensity trials. The intensity was tested

with no de-resonator, then with de-resonators set to 30, 45, and 60. No possible
outliers have been identified.

Gohlke-Henry 17
Table 2
Drag Force
Drag Force (N)
Trials No Angle
30
45
60
1
0.045 0.054 0.052 0.048
2
0.048 0.053 0.049 0.048
3
0.051 0.056 0.049 0.052
4
0.047 0.055 0.053 0.045
5
0.049 0.057 0.054 0.051
6
0.048 0.054 0.054 0.050
7
0.050 0.054 0.050 0.055
8
0.050 0.055 0.047 0.052
9
0.048 0.055 0.048 0.053
10
0.049 0.056 0.051 0.053
11
0.049 0.056 0.048 0.052
12
0.046 0.053 0.051 0.055
13
0.050 0.058 0.052 0.053
14
0.050 0.055 0.050 0.056
15
0.049 0.059 0.051 0.053
16
0.047 0.059 0.052 0.054
17
0.046 0.055 0.051 0.055
18
0.050 0.059 0.051 0.053
19
0.052 0.056 0.052 0.058
20
0.049 0.057 0.051 0.057
21
0.048 0.057 0.049 0.054
22
0.049 0.057 0.052 0.056
23
0.049 0.056 0.051 0.054
24
0.051 0.060 0.051 0.056
25
0.050 0.061 0.051 0.056
26
0.048 0.059 0.052 0.057
27
0.050 0.058 0.050 0.055
28
0.051 0.055 0.050 0.057
29
0.050 0.061 0.051 0.055
30
0.040 0.059 0.053 0.056
Table 2 displays the drag force values exerted on the round flask in a wind tunnel.
The point of the experiment was to decrease the resonance of the round flask while
keeping the drag force the same.
Observations:

Gohlke-Henry 18
Table 3
Observations
Observations

Trial

Sound Intensity Observations:

Used duct tape to secure flask, will do so from now on

No Angle: Trial 7

De-resonator was not fully secured and fell into flask

30: Trial 15

De-resonator was not fully secured and fell into flask

30: Trial 22

De-resonator was not fully secured and fell into flask

60: Trial 3

Drag Force Observations:

Force Sensor was moved during trial, experiment was reset

45: Trial 22

LabQuest recorded inaccurate data, flask was re-positioned

30: Trial 9

LabQuest recorded inaccurate data, flask was re-positioned

No Angle: Trial 26

LabQuest recorded inaccurate data, flask was re-positioned

60: Trial 17

Table 3 shows observations of data trials during research. The main issue with the
intensity trials was the deresonator falling into the flask even after being duct-taped to the
edge of the flask. The main issue of the drag force trials was changing the position of the
flask in the wind tunnel when changing the deresonator. The movement of the flask
would change the force sensor readings, so the flask was positioned in its original place.

Gohlke-Henry 19

Figure 12. Deresonators

In Figure 12, all three deresonators are next to each other in the order of 45, 30,
and 60 respectively.

Figure 13. Deresonator Inside Bottle

In Figure 13, shows the 30 deresonator inside the bottle.

Gohlke-Henry 20
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data Analysis:
Two experiments were performed to determine if angular "deresonators" had an
effect on sound intensity, dB, and no effect on drag force, N. The type of data collected
for sound intensity was the maximum intensity and was collected from the LoggerPro
Vernier microphone. The maximum was measured as opposed to the amplitude because
the maximum would be the loudest point. The amplitude would require the maximum
plus the minimum divided by two. The type of data for drag force was the mean of each
sinusoidal wave and was collected from the LoggerPro Dual-Range Force Censor.
The data is valid because assumptions in the interpretation are met. There were 30
trials for each population and four populations for each experiment totaling 120 samples
for each experiment. To randomly sample the deresonators, they were randomly chosen
using the method in Appendix A.

Gohlke-Henry 21

Median: 2.8085

Median: 3.5808

Median: 2.8245

Median: 2.7580

Sound Intensity (dB)

Figure 14. Box Plot of Sample Populations for Intensity
Figure 14 shows the distribution of all the angles for sound intensity. The data is
plotted into a box plot because it shows the variation of sound intensity with all angles.
Notice the 60 deresonator has the smallest sound intensity and when there is no
deresonator, the sound intensity is greatest at an average of 3.577 dB. There is overlap
between the 30 deresonator and 45 deresonator which indicates they could have the
same effect as each other. All populations seem normally distributed and there are no
outliers. It seems the deresonators have a significant effect on sound intensity and the 60
deresonator works the best. A statistical test is still needed to officially determine the
results.

Gohlke-Henry 22
Median: 0.049

Median: 0.056

Median: 0.051

Median: 0.054

Drag Force (N)

Figure 15. Box Plot of Sample Populations for Drag Force
Figure 15 shows the distribution of all the angles for drag force. The data is
plotted into a box plot because it shows the variation of drag force with all angles. Notice
the 60 deresonator has the largest spread and when there is no deresonator it has the
smaller values. All populations seem normally distributed and there are few outliers
which will have no dramatic effect in the interpretation. There seems to be an increase in
drag force because of the increase in area with the deresonators. There is a possibility
with the flaw in experimental design, but the researchers will continue with interpretation
of data because a statistical test is still needed to officially determine the results.

Gohlke-Henry 23

Median:
2.8085

Median:
2.8245

Sound Intensity (dB)

Figure 16. Box Plot of Sample Populations for 30 and 45 Deresonator
Figure 16 shows the distribution of the 30 and 45 deresonators for sound
intensity. These two box plots are zoomed in because the comparison of the overlap is
necessary in order to have a definite answer on which deresonator produces the lowest
sound intensity. Both populations seem normally distributed and there are no outliers. A
two-sample T-test is needed to officially determine the results.

Gohlke-Henry 24
Median:
0.056

Median:
0.054

Drag Force (N)

Figure 17. Box Plot of Sample Populations 30 and 60 Deresonator
Figure 17 shows the distribution of the 30 and 60 deresonators for drag force.
These two box plots are zoomed in because the comparison of the overlap is necessary in
order to have a definite answer on which deresonator produces the lowest drag force.
Both populations seem normally distributed and one outlier for the 60 deresonator. The
outlier had no effect on the results. A two-sample T-test is needed to officially determine
the results.

Gohlke-Henry 25
Interpretation:
Using an ANOVA test (Analysis of Variance), it can be determined if the data is
statistically significant to each other. The reason why ANOVA test was used was because
there is a comparison of four means from four populations. Both experiments have a total
of 120 trials with 30 trials in each population. It can be inferred that the p-value
calculated shows if the four means from each experiment are similar or different. Sample
calculations for all values used to find the F-statistic can be found in Appendix B.
The null and alternative hypothesis is stated below for both sound intensity and
drag force.
H0: no angle = 30 =45 =60
Ha: Not all no angle, 30, 45, 60 are equal
Ho, or the null hypothesis, is that the mean sound intensity with no deresonator is
equal to the mean sound intensity with 30, 45, and 60 deresonators. H a, or the
alternative hypothesis, is that the mean sound intensity with no deresonator is not equal to
the mean sound intensity with 30, 45, and 60. The null hypothesis is the same for drag
force
Assumptions for an ANOVA test are to determine the reliability of results. Four
independent Simple Random Samples, one from each of four populations is needed. The
four independent populations are the three deresonators and the control, no deresonator.
Each sampling distribution is normal by Central Limit Theorem (n 30).All populations
have the same standard deviation. The rule of thumb for standard deviation is the largest
sample deviation is no more than twice the smallest sample deviation. This rule does not
hold true for sound intensity, because 2(0.01257) 0.03315. It is alright to proceed with

Gohlke-Henry 26
the test, but with caution of unreliable data. This rule of thumb holds true for drag force
because 2(0.00168) 0.00299.
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size
Sound Intensity (dB)

xxi

Sxi

ni

No Angle

3.577

0.03315

30

30

2.812

0.01986

30

45

2.823

0.02719

30

60

2.758

0.01257

30

Table 4 are values used to calculate xx, MSE, and MSG. Notice the sample sizes
for each population is kept constant. The smallest standard deviation when doubled is still
smaller than the largest standard deviation.

Figure 18. Stat Calculations of Sound Intensity

To find the F-statistic, the mean square group was divided by the mean square
error from Figure 18. For sound intensity, the F value is 7651.94 which resulted in a very
small p-value of 0.0000...% (sample calculation found in Appendix B).
Reject H0 because the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There
is significant evidence that the means are different and sound intensity has decreased.
There is a 0% chance of getting results this extreme based on chance alone assuming H 0is

Gohlke-Henry 27
true, no angle = 30 =45 =60.Keep in mind, the third assumption was not met, so the
statistic might not be conclusive.
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size
Drag Force (N)

xxi

Sxi

ni

No Angle

0.049

0.00230

30

30

0.057

0.00225

30

45

0.051

0.00168

30

60

0.054

0.00299

30

Table 5 are values used to calculate xx, MSE, and MSG. Notice the sample sizes
for each population is kept constant. The smallest standard deviation when doubled is
larger than the largest standard deviation making the third assumption true.

Figure 19. Stat Calculations of Drag Force

To find the F-statistic, divide the mean square group by the mean square error
from Figure 19. For drag force, the F value is 65.1658 which resulted in a very small pvalue of 0.0000...% (sample calculation found in Appendix B).
Reject H0 because the p-value of 0.0000 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There
is significant evidence that the means are different and drag force has varied in both
directions compared to staying the same for all four populations. There is a 0% chance of

Gohlke-Henry 28
getting results this extreme based on chance alone assuming H0 is true, no angle = 30 =45
=60.
Further analysis is necessary to rank the deresonators from best to worse for both
sound intensity and drag force. Two two-sample T-tests are executed to determine the
ranking.
The null and alternative hypothesis is stated below for sound intensity.
H0: 30 = 45
Ha: 30 45
Ho, or the null hypothesis, is that the values of thirty degree deresonator, 30, are
equal to the values of the forty-five degree deresonator, 45. Ha, or the alternative
hypothesis, is that the values of thirty degree deresonator, 30, are not equal to the values
of the forty-five degree deresonator, 45. Assumptions are the two sample distributions
are normal by Central Limit Theorem (n 30). The standard deviation of the populations
is unknown, but the sample deviation is known. Simple Random Sampling to eliminate
bias proves to hold true.

Figure 20. P-Value for 30 and 45 Deresonator (Sound Intensity)

Gohlke-Henry 29
Figure 20 shows the t-value of -1.9790 and the p-value of 0.0539 for the sound
intensity. The t-value of -1.9790 means that the 30 and 45 Deresonator sample
population data are over two standard deviations apart from each other (Sample
calculation found in Appendix D).
Fail to reject H0 because the p-value of 0.0539 is greater than the alpha level of
0.05. There is some significant evidence that the two deresonators could produce a sound
intensity at the same level. There is a 5.39% chance of getting results this extreme based
on chance alone assuming H0 is true, 30 = 45.
The null and alternative hypothesis is stated below for drag force.
H0: 30 = 60
Ha: 30 60
Ho, or the null hypothesis, is that the values of thirty degree deresonator, 30, are
equal to the values of the forty-five degree deresonator, 45. Ha, or the alternative
hypothesis, is that the values of thirty degree deresonator, 30, are not equal to the values
of the forty-five degree deresonator, 45. Assumptions are the two sample distributions
are normal by Central Limit Theorem (n 30). The standard deviation of the populations
is unknown, but the sample deviation is known. Simple Random Sampling to eliminate
bias proves to hold true.

Gohlke-Henry 30

Figure 21. P-Value for 30 and 60 Deresonator (Drag Force)

Figure 21 shows the t-value of 4.3919 and the p-value of 0.0001 for the drag
force. The t-value of 4.3919 means that the 30 and 60 Deresonator sample population
data are over eight standard deviations apart from each other (Sample calculation found
in Appendix D).
Reject H0 because the p-value of 0.0001 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There
is significant evidence that the two deresonators cannot have the same drag force. There
is a 0.01% chance of getting results this extreme based on chance alone assuming H 0 is
true, 30 = 60.
The overall conclusion of the statistical tests proved that sound intensity was
reduced at all angles. The best angle was 60 followed by 30, then 45. Drag force
showed signs of increase. The best angle was 45 followed by 60, then 30. The most
effective deresonator is the 60 angle.

Gohlke-Henry 31
Conclusion
The purpose of the experiment was to simulate a car producing a resonant tone,
dampen the tone, and keep drag force the same, which was achieved.
The sound intensity experiment was conducted in the Physics room and the drag
force experiment was conducted in the Workshop room of school. To prepare for both
experiments, three angled deresonators - built at 30, 45, and 60 - were fit to the round
bottom flask. The wind tunnel used to test drag force had to have a wooden board cut
and fit so there was no interference with the bottle. Testing was held over the course of
two days; one day for sound intensity and one day for drag force.
The original hypothesis that stated if the deresonator is manufactured at 45, then
intensity will decrease and drag force will remain the same as if the windows were not
open was rejected. Although the 45 deresonator proved to have a decrease in sound
intensity, it was not the greatest decrease compared to the 60 deresonator. The lowest
average sound intensity was produced by 60 at 2.758 dB compared to the sound
intensity with no manipulation was 3.577 dB. The 45 produced 2.8223 dB and the 30
produced 2.812 dB. Drag force on the other hand increased to an average of 0.051 N for
the 45. The lowest drag force was produced from no deresonator at 0.049N. The 30
produced a force of 0.057 N, and the 60 produced a force of 0.054N. The overall
conclusion of the statistical tests proved that sound intensity was reduced at all angles.
The best angle was 60 followed by 30, then 45. Drag force showed signs of increase,
but with a technological upgrade, the drag force should remain constant. The best angle
was 45 followed by 60, then 30.

Gohlke-Henry 32
Sound intensity decreased because the angle on the deresonator decreased the
maximum sound intensity in which was measured. The deresonator deflected the waves
so a standing wave could not form as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Beats

Overall observation of the decrease in sound intensity led to more beats, or destructive
and constructive interference, for all the angles except for when there was no deresonator
as proved in Figure 22. The beats varied among each angle, but steeper angles resulted in
more beats. The shape of the deresonator compared to a window is similar, but the
window is a quarter circle and the deresonator is a half circle. Shape of hole does matter
when producing waves. The more edges, the more different directions waves are
deflected, again causing beats.
It is important to know the speed of sound is equal to frequency times the
wavelength and the speed of sound, frequency, and wavelength remained constant. To
find the wavelength, multiply the length of closed cylinder times four (Nave). Knowing
this equation, the frequency can be found and can help future experiments. Since this
experiment was conducted in the Physics room, the presence of other people talking and
moving in and out of the room with door shutting, multiple trials were re-done due to the
inconsistent ambient sound intensity levels.
Drag force increased because it is dependent on area, velocity, density, and
coefficient of drag. The surface area increased slightly, but was predicted to have little
effect. The deresonator actually produced more down force resulting in drag. If the
deresonator were put on a vehicle, then there would be more side force (George). The
reason drag increased was because the perpendicular force on the surface moved as the

Gohlke-Henry 33
angle increased. The 60 and 30 angle had to do produce more force to push the waves
back to resting position. With these components perpendicular to each other, the drag is
destined to increase because the angle increased, the perpendicular force to the
deresonator increased.
The major flaw in the experimental design was the securing of the round bottom
flask. It was secured with blue masking tape and was wiggled around while putting in the
randomized deresonators. Also the string connected to the flask was connected on the
side of the column opposed to the center of the column. The consideration that the stand
alone flask had a miniscule drag force (no wind). The force sensor was zeroed every time
when there was no wind, so when the fan was turned on high, it was producing accurate
results. Since this experiment was conducted in the Physics room, the presence of other
people talking and moving in and out of the room with door shutting, multiple trials were
re-done due to the inconsistent ambient sound intensity levels.
The sound intensity experiment is related to musical instruments. The flute for
example, produces different pitches for different air columns. The round bottom flask has
a B-flat tone that is 75 cents below the intonation pitch at 440 Hz, so add about 20 mL to
get the perfect pitch and that should match the flute at the tone of B-flat ("Measuring the
Music of a Flute.").
To improve both experiments, the use of a box because it is more stable can
produce more consistent results. Sound intensity can be measured in a sound proof room
used at testing facilities for cars. Drag force can be measure with more precise force
sensor and improved string quality. A larger wind tunnel is advised.
Further research such as eliminating resonance completely is still achievable. A
way such as an air stream to intercept the waves like a force field could be a major idea.

Gohlke-Henry 34
This research can improve the vehicle to have better gas mileage, and with the windows
down because factory testing seems to only represent the ideal environment.

Gohlke-Henry 35
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Chris Oesterling for printing our deresonators. He took time out of his
busy patent making life to support our project. He also wishes best of luck to those who
go into an engineering field.
Thanks to Thomas J. Benson of an aero engineer at NASA Glenn who does a lot
of educational outreach and our group happened to have our questions answered by Mr.
Benson. He also agreed to be our professional contact.

Gohlke-Henry 36
Appendix A: Randomization of Trials
For any statistical test, randomization of trials is one step in reducing bias. The
trials, when having randomized treatments, decrease the possibility of having results of
the statistical test due to chance alone if the assumptions of the test are true. A calculator,
such as the Ti-NSpire, can be used to randomize data trials. To randomize on the NSpire:
first, go to a calculator page and press MENU, Probability, Random, and Seed to set the
seed for randomization.

Figure 23. Random Seed Menu Navigation

Now that the seed is set, the random integer program can be executed. The integer
program is required because the data trial numbers are being randomized. Go to MENU,
Probability, Random, and Integer for the random integer program to appear (Figure 23).

Figure 24. Random Integer Example

In Figure 24, the random seed was set to seven, and the random integer was set to
calculate a random integer between one and thirty, with one integer appearing at a time.

Gohlke-Henry 37
Appendix B: Setting up Logger Pro to Record Data
Procedure:
1.

Connect the microphone or force sensor to LabQuest.

2.

Press the power button on LabQuest to turn it on. Choose 'New from the File
menu. If you have an older sensor that does not auto-ID, manually set up the
sensor by choosing 'Sensor Setup' from the 'Sensors' menu.

3.

On the 'Meter Screen', tap 'Rate'. Change the data-collection rate to 5

samples/second for 5 seconds. Select OK (See Figure 25).

4.

Logger Pro is now ready to collect data.

Figure 25. Measuring Rate

Gohlke-Henry 38
Appendix C: ANOVA Test (xx, MSG, MSE, dF, F)
Like Weighted Means
In order to find Mean Square Group, xx must be found using the following
equation. xx is equal to the quantity sum of each sample size, n i, times each sample mean,
xxi, all divided by the total observations in all samples, N.
x=

n1 x 1+ n2 x 2 + n I x
N

Figure 26 is a sample calculation to find the Like Weighted Mean for sound intensity.
x=

n1 x 1+ n2 x 2 + n I x
N

(30)3.577+(30)2.812+(30)2.823+(30)2.758
120

359.1
120

x =2.9925
Figure 26. Sample Calculation of xx
Mean Square Error
In order to find the F-statistic, MSG must be found using the following equation.
MSG is equal to the quantity sum of each sample size, n i, times the quantity squared of
each sample mean, xxi, subtracted from like weighted mean, xx, all divided by the total
number of populations, I, subtracted by one.

Gohlke-Henry 39
x
x
x
( ix )2
I 1
2
( 1x ) +n2
n1
MSG=

( 2x )2 + ni

Figure 27 is a sample calculation to find the Mean Square Group for sound intensity.
x
x
x
( ix )2
I 1
2
( 1x ) +n2
n1
MSG=

( 2x )2 + ni

30 (3.5772.9925)2 +30(2.8122.9925)2 +30 ( 2.8232.9925 )2 +30( 2.7572.9925)2

41

10.2492+0.9774 +0.8619+1.64971
3

13.7382
3

MSG=4.57941
Figure 27. Sample Calculation of MSG
Mean Square Error
In order to find the F-statistic, MSE must be found using the following equation.
MSE is equal to the quantity sum of each sample size, n i, subtracted by one times the
standard deviation of each sample squared, si, all divided by the total number of samples,
N, subtracted by the number of populations, I.

Gohlke-Henry 40
n
n
n
2

( i1) s i
NI
2
( 11) s1 +

MSE=

( 21) s 22+

Figure 28 is a sample calculation to find the Mean Square Error for sound intensity.
n
n
n
( i1) s 2i
NI
2
( 11) s1 +

MSE=

( 21) s 22+

( 301 ) 0.033152+ (301 ) 0.019862 + ( 301 ) 0.027192 +(301)0.01257 2

1204

0.03187 +0.01144 +0.02144+0.00458

116

0.06933
116

MSE=5.97674 104
Figure 28. Sample Calculation of MSE

Degrees of Freedom

Gohlke-Henry 41
In order to find the F-statistic, dF must be found using the following equation. dF
is equal the number of populations, I, subtracted by one divided by the total number of
samples, N, subtracted by the number of populations, I.
dF=

I 1
NI

Figure 29 is a sample calculation to find the degrees of freedom for sound intensity.
dF=

I 1
NI

41
1204

dF=

3
116

Figure 29. Sample Calculation of Degrees of Freedom

F-Statistic
In order to find the F-statistic divide MSG by MSE.
F=

MSG
MSE

Figure 30 is a sample calculation to find the degrees of freedom for sound intensity.
F=

MSG
MSE

4.57941
5.97674 104

F=7651.94
p-value = 4.1276638857499 E-133
Figure 30. Sample Calculation of F-statistic

Gohlke-Henry 42

Gohlke-Henry 43
Appendix D: 2-Sample t-Test
The equation for the two-sample t-test, t, is the difference in means of the two
populations, x1 and x2, divided by the square root of the standard deviation of the first
population squared, s1, divided by the total number of samples in that population, n 1, plus
the standard deviation of the second population squared, s 2, divided by the total number
of samples in that population, n2.
t=

x 1 x 2

s 21 s 22
+
n1 n1

Shown below in Figure 31, is a sample calculation of a two-sample t-test.

t=

t=

x 1 x 2

s 21 s 22
+
n1 n1
56.684267.4

6.960622 9.013882
+
19
25

t=

10.7158
2.55001+3.25

t=

10.7158
2.40832

t=4.4495

P=0.0000000
Figure 31. Sample Calculation of T-test

Gohlke-Henry 44
Appendix E: Printing Deresonators
Procedure:
1. Design deresonators in SolidWorks.
2. Open 3D printing software.
3. Import deresonator file.
4. Print using connected 3D-printer.

Figure 32. 45 Deresonator Drawing

Figure 32 shows the drawing document in SolidWorks for a deresonator designed
to be fit to the round-flask at an angle of 45.

Figure 33. 30 Deresonator Drawing

Gohlke-Henry 45
Figure 33 shows the drawing document in SolidWorks for a deresonator designed
to be fit to the round-flask at an angle of 30.

Figure 34. 60 Deresonator Drawing

Figure 34 shows the drawing document in SolidWorks for a deresonator designed
to be fit to the round-flask at an angle of 60.

Gohlke-Henry 46
Works Cited
Aerodynamic Forces: Definitions of Lift and Drag. Digital image. n.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov.
2014. <http://www.motiva.fi/myllarin_tuulivoima/windpower
web/en/tour/wtrb/aeroforc.htm>.
Aerodynamic Forces: Definitions of Lift and Drag." WindPower. Danish Wind Industry
Association, 29 Sept. 2002. Web. 17 Sept. 2014. <http://www.motiva.fi/myllarin_
tuulivoima/windpower%20web/en/tour/wtrb/aeroforc.htm >.
Benson, Tom. "What Is Drag?" National Aeronautics and Space Administration.NASA.
gov., 16 July 2014. Web. 17 Sept. 2014. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k12/airplane/drag1.html>.
Buscarello, Ralph T. "Mechanical Resonance - Detuning Resonant Part versus Reducing
Vibration at the Source." Update International, 2013. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.
<http://www.update-intl.com/VibrationBook2i.htm>.
Closed-End Resonance. Digital image. Resonance. n.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.
<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/u11l4b4.gif>.
"Damped Oscillations." Physics Online, Physics Help, Physics Course. N.p., 07 June
2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.
"Damping, Natural Frequency and Resonance." Simple Harmonic Motion and Damping
Revision.S-cool, 7 May 2014.Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://www.s-cool.co.uk/alevel/physics/simple-harmonic-motion-and-damping/revise-it/damping-naturalfrequency-and-resonance>.
George, Patrick E. "How Aerodynamics Work" HowStuffWorks.InfoSpace LLC, 17 Mar.
2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. <http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fueleconomy/aerodynamics.htm>.

Gohlke-Henry 47
Henderson, Tom. "Closed-End Air Columns." Closed-End Air Columns. n.p., 22 Sept.
2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/
Lesson-5/Closed-End-Air-Columns>.
Hennessey Venom GT Shows Its Aerodynamics. Digital image. Worldcarfans. n.p., n.d.
Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://www.worldcarfans.com/109090321478/hennesseyvenom-gt-shows-its-aerodynamics/lowphotos#0>.
"Measuring the Music of a Flute." The Science Teacher 80.6 (2013): 70+. Academic
OneFile. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|
A342769038&v=2.1&u=lom_accessmich&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=a2c1dd
384a86431b807f51876a54e663 >.
Nave, Carl R. "Closed Cylinder Air Column." Hyper Physics. Canada, 2000. Web. 17
Sept. 2014. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/clocol.html>.
Node and Antinode. Digital image. n.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.antonineeducation.co.uk/Image_library/Physics_2/Waves/Superposition/wav_26.gif>.
Resonance and Singularity. Digital image. Science, Civilization and Society. n.p., 12 May
2008. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.
Torchinsky, Jason. "Why Do Slightly Opened Car Windows Make That Awful
Sound?"Jalopnik. Kinja, 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
<http://jalopnik.com/why-do-slightly-opened-car-windows-make-that-awfulsoun-1447498738>.