Physics 4BL LAB 4: Speed of Sound and Light

Partners:


Enrique A. Segura
Venudhar Ravinshankar.






Date: May 11
th
, 2014







Introduction
In this laboratory, through experimentation and data analysis, we tested the concepts of
encountered waves, both sound and EM waves. A speaker will be used to detect sound waves,
and the Yagi antenna, to detect EM waves in the microwaves regime. In doing this we will
show the phase velocity, speed of light from measurements, and the relationships between
waves, sound, frequency, angular frequency, and wave number, in situations in and out of phase.
Experimental Results
We collected data by means of the antenna, myDAQ, and oscilloscope, and recorded this
in Excel. And for the first experiment, we obtained data, at different frequencies, and have seen
the period.
For the experimental setup, we used speaker and microphone and a ruler to move the
microphone at different distance to see the interference effect. As we move in and out of phase
we can see obtain the wavelength. Then, if you want to see the standing sound wave experiment,
you a moving wall on a cart to show the same relations. In this particular case there is a need to
push fast as to keep up with the wave velocity to obtain the best data.
Graph 1: Dispersion Relation Wavevector and Angular Frequency at Different Ranges.


As you can see above, the graph has different wave vectors for each angular frequency,
which increases, the wave vector value, as the angular frequency increases.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
W
a
v
e
v
e
c
t
o
r

Anglular Frequency
Data Points at Different Frequencies
Series1
And when taking the data points and computing with the wave equation relation
wavelength and frequency.

Table 1: Frequency and Distance to show Velocity of Sound
f (kHz) f(Hz) distance (cm) distance (m) velocity (m/s)
6.57 6570 5.4 35478 354.78
10.1 10100 3.8 38380 383.8
12.58 12580 3 37740 377.4
14.8 14800 2.5 37000 370
15.87 15870 1.7 26979 269.79

It is important to notice that the value for the velocity of the wave is acceptable with the
known value, 343 meters per second. The discrepancy can be asses with the standard error,
which is about 5%, see below, which can be asses with noise captured by the sensors,
resonance from the circuit, and of course, human error.
And using statistical utilities in Excel, we have obtained this linear regression.

SUMMARY
OUTPUT


Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.136176814

R Square 0.018544125
Adjusted R
Square 0.013210125

Standard Error 0.058403519

Observations 186


ANOVA

df SS
Regression 1 0.011858545
Residual 184 0.627618677
Total 185 0.639477222

Coefficients
Standard
Error
Intercept 0.429821877 0.231371405
X Variable 1 68.1369042 36.54312685
Analysis:
We have seen through the data above that there is a high error, about 5% percent
involved, as well as a 23% of standard error in the intercept value, which is indicate of the
relationship between wave velocity, angular frequency, and wavelength. However, if taken the
value for each frequency, and its wave vector, and compute the value of the phase velocity, the
value of sound is within range, as seen above.
And here below is the regression data for the standing wave, as well as the computation
of the speed of light.
And here is the graph showing that data.
Graph 2: Wavelength of EM Waves as Standing Waves.

SUMMARY
OUTPUT



Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.606251911

R Square 0.36754138

Adjusted R Square 0.364281284

Standard Error 0.001290101

Observations 196


ANOVA


df SS
Regression 1 0.000187639
Residual 194 0.000322886
Total 195 0.000510525
0.00E+00
2.00E-03
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
8.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.20E-02
-8.00E-03-7.00E-03-6.00E-03-5.00E-03-4.00E-03-3.00E-03-2.00E-03-1.00E-030.00E+00
M
i
c
r
o
p
h
o
n
e

S
i
g
n
a
l

(
V
)

Distance (m)
Wavelength of EM waves
Series1


Coefficients Standard Error
Intercept 0.016738747 0.00098515
X Variable 1 1.653062364 0.155686627

When computed the frequency, 2.4 GHz, and the error, the result is in 3.8exp(7). While
that value is not exactly the speed of light, it is acceptable considering that coefficient of
correlation is around 36%. However, granted, it is not around our uncertainty, as the standard
deviation is around 1.6%.
I feel the first method was better and more reliable because of the nature of our
measurements. That is, it was easier, and therefore better, to obtain the value of the speed of
sound through the in and out of phase measurements. In the second method, because of the
equipment, our own lack of touch, and the complexity of the measurement, it is hard to obtain
the same relation.
Conclusion:
I cannot assess effectiveness of this experiment work because of the data we obtained.
That is, our data is not the best, and yet it is the data most of the class is using to obtain their
results. However, on the reliable data, we did show the velocity of a group wave within range of
the speed of sound under room temperature, so we tested that physical concept.
As for the rest, the data obtained is not reliable so I have to say that we failed to assess
whether the theory agrees or not with our measurements because of the difficulty to obtain
reliable data.