See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358246932

Measuring the Speed of Sound Using a Resonance Tube

Experiment Findings · January 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11946.49606

CITATIONS READS
0 8,581

1 author:

Hafiza Asifa Naseer

Government College University Faisalabad
3 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hafiza Asifa Naseer on 31 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Phys212L-02 Fall 2021
Experiment 128: Measuring the Speed of Sound Using a
Resonance Tube
Author: Hafiza Asifa Naseer
9/8/2021
Purpose: Measure the speed of sound through air using a tuning fork and a
resonance tube. Compare with a theoretical measurement based on room
temperature.

Apparatus: A long resonance tube was mounted in an upright position, as seen in

Figure 1. Surgical tubing was attached to an opening on the bottom of the tube
that would allow for controlled draining of water. A bucket was placed
underneath the tube in order to contain the drained water.

Resonance
Tube
Mounting Stand

Surgical
Tubing

Bucket

Figure 1: Diagram of Apparatus

1
Theory:
According the known characteristics of standing waves, there will be evenly
spaced nodes and anti-nodes along the length of the wave. The separation
λ
between adjacent nodes is known to be approximately , where λ is the
2
wavelength of the wave. In a pipe that is open on one end but closed on another,
at the open end there will be an antinode, and at the closed end there will be a
node. These same principles apply to a resonance tube, with the water level
acting as the closed end.
In addition, the speed of a wave can be represented as 𝑣 = λf , where v is the
velocity, λ is the wavelength, and f is the frequency. In other words, if wavelength
and frequency are known, then the speed of the wave can be calculated by simple
multiplication.
The speed of sound can also be measured using the formula
𝑚 𝑇
𝑣 = 331 ∗ √ , where v is speed, T is the room temperature (in Kelvin), and
𝑠 𝑇0

T0 is equal to 273 degrees Kelvin.

Procedure:
A tuning fork was selected for sound emission, and the factory-printed frequency
was recorded. With the resonance tube apparatus properly set up, water could be
poured into the resonance tube so that it filled all the way to the top. The
temperature of the room was measured using a thermometer, and this data was
recorded in units of Kelvin.
One lab partner then held the fork directly above the opening of the resonance
tube and hit it with a striker. Immediately after this, the second partner began
draining the water as the sound wave moved through the tube. As the water
drained, the partner holding the fork listened for a resonance that matched the
frequency of the fork. When the resonance was heard, the partners worked
together to pinpoint the water level at which it occurred, with a small region of
the tube being marked off to ensure accuracy. This process repeated until all of
the water had drained from the tube. The room temperature was then measured
2
and recorded again. The resonance tube was removed from the mount, and the
distance from the open end of the tube to each marked area was measured and
recorded. After all markings had been measured, the tube was re-mounted.
This entire process was ultimately repeated again for the first fork, and was
repeated twice for a second fork.

Data Analysis:
The raw data for the trials are shown in Table 1 (data is also shown in Appendices
A and B). Due to the inevitable inaccuracies associated with equipment, the fork
frequency, which is represented by f, was given error bounds of ± 1.5 %. Likewise,
the measured temperature was given error bounds of ± 1%. The pre-trial and
post-trial temperature measurements are denoted by Ti and Tf respectively. The
range of the node location is denoted by Xn, with n being the order in which it was
discovered in relation to measurement from the open end of the tube.
Fork 1 - Trial 1 Fork 1 -Trial 2 Fork 2 - Trial 1 Fork 2 - Trial 2
f (Hz) 480 ± 7.2 480 ± 7.2 384 ± 5.76 384 ± 5.76
X1 (cm) 17 - 16 17.5 – 16.8 21 – 20.5 22.5 – 21
X2 (cm) 52 – 51.5 53.5 – 52.5 66 – 65 67 – 66
X3 (cm) 89 - 88 89 - 88 111 – 109 111.5 – 110.5
Ti (C) 22.1 ± .22 22.1 ± .22 22.9 ± .23 23.1 ± .23
Tf (C) 22.1 ± .22 22.3 ± .22 23.1 ± .23 23.2 ± .23

Table 1: Raw Data

The error bounds for the node positioning were determined based off of the
measurement of the areal boundaries of the estimated node position, with the
average of these bounds being the estimated placement of the node (denoted by
xn), and the distance from each bound being the error (∆𝑥𝑛 ). These calculations
can be seen in Table 2.
For Fork 1 – Trial 1:
16 𝑐𝑚+17 𝑐𝑚
x1 = Average of 16 cm, 17 cm = = 16.5 cm
2

∆𝑥1 = ± (16.5 cm – 16 cm) = .5 cm

3
The temperature data had to be converted from Celsius to Kelvin in order for the
theoretical speed calculation to occur. The error bounds had to be scaled
accordingly. These calculations can be seen in Table 2.
For Fork 1 -Trial 1:
Ti (K) = Ti (C) + 273 = 22.1 + 273 = 295.1 K
∆𝑇𝑖 (𝐾) = ∆𝑇𝑖 (𝐶) = .22 𝐶 → ∆𝑇𝑖 (𝐾) = .22 𝐾
Fork 1 - Trial 1 Fork 1 -Trial 2 Fork 2 - Trial 1 Fork 2 - Trial 2
16.5 ± .5 17.15 ± .35 20.75 ± .25 21.75 ± .75
x1 (cm)
51.75 ± .25 53 ± .5 65.5 ± .5 66.5 ± .5
x2 (cm)
88.5 ± .5 88.5 ± .5 110 ± 1 111 ± .5
x3 (cm)
295.1 ± .22 295.1 ± .22 295.9 ± .23 296.1 ± .23
Ti (K)
295.1 ± .22 295.3 ± .22 296.1 ± .23 296.2 ± .23
Tf (K).

Table 2: Distance Calculations and Temperature Adjustments

The distance from node to node would be used to determine wavelength, so this
was calculated using the formula 𝑥𝑗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖 , and the error was adjusted
accordingly according to the formula ∆𝑥𝑗𝑖 = ∆𝑥𝑗 + ∆𝑥𝑖 , where xji is the distance
between nodes.
For Fork 1 – Trial 1:
𝑥21 = 𝑥2 − 𝑥1 = 51.75 𝑐𝑚 − 16.5 𝑐𝑚 = 35.25 𝑐𝑚
∆𝑥21 = ∆𝑥2 + ∆𝑥1 = .25 𝑐𝑚 + .5 𝑐𝑚 = .75 𝑐𝑚

Once the distances were calculated, both they and their respective error bounds
were averaged, denoted by x̄ and ∆x̄ .
For Fork 1 – Trial 1
35.25 𝑐𝑚+36.75 𝑐𝑚
x̄ = average of x21 and x32 = = 36 𝑐𝑚
2
0.75 𝑐𝑚 + 0.75 𝑐𝑚
∆𝑥̄ = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ∆𝑥21 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∆𝑥32 = = 0.75 𝑐𝑚
2

4
 λ
Using the knowledge that the distance between nodes is , the average distance
2
value was multiplied by 2 to determine the wavelength (λ), and the distance error
bounds were multiplied by 2 as well (yielding ∆λ).
For Fork 1 –Trial 1
𝜆
= 𝑥̄ = 36 𝑐𝑚 → 𝜆 = 36 𝑐𝑚 ∗ 2 = 72 𝑐𝑚
2
𝜆
∆ = ∆𝑥̄ = .75 𝑐𝑚 → ∆𝜆 = .75 𝑐𝑚 ∗ 2 = 1.5 𝑐𝑚
2

Since the wavelength and frequency were both determined, the speed formula
𝑣 = λf could be utilized. The error bounds were adjusted according to the error
∆𝑣 ∆λ ∆𝑓
propagation formula = + .
𝑣 λ 𝑓

For Fork 1 –Trial 1

𝑣 = 𝜆𝑓 = 72 cm * 480 hz = 34560 cm/s
∆𝑣 ∆𝜆 ∆𝑓 ∆𝑣 1.5 𝑐𝑚 7.2 𝑐𝑚
= + → = + = 3.583% → ∆𝑣 = 1238 𝑐𝑚/𝑠
𝑣 𝜆 𝑓 34560 𝑐𝑚/𝑠 72 𝑐𝑚 480 𝑐𝑚

The speed, while calculated, had units of cm/s, which is different from the desired
units of m/s. Therefore, both the speed value and the error bounds were divided
by 100 in order to properly convert cm to m.
For Fork 1 – Trial 1
𝑚 𝑣 (𝑐𝑚/𝑠) 34560 𝑐𝑚/𝑠
𝑣 (𝑠) = = = 345.6 𝑚/𝑠
100 100

𝑐𝑚
𝑚 ∆𝑣 ( 𝑠 ) 1238 𝑐𝑚/𝑠
∆𝑣 ( ) = = = 12.38 𝑚/𝑠
𝑠 100 100
In order to calculate the theoretical speed, the pre/post-trial temperature
measurements had to be averaged, along with their error bounds. The results are
represented as T̅ and ∆T̅ .
For Fork 1 – Trial 1
295.1 𝐾 + 295.1 𝐾
𝑇̅ = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑓 = = 295.1 𝐾
2
. 22 𝐾 + .22 𝐾
∆𝑇̅ = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ∆𝑇𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∆𝑇𝑓 = = .22 𝐾
2
5
 𝑚 𝑇̅
Lastly, the theoretical speed was calculated using the formula 𝑣 = 331 ∗ √ ,
𝑠 𝑇 0
∆𝑣𝑡 ∆𝑇̅
and the error bounds were calculated using the relation 𝑣𝑡 = 𝑎𝑇̅ 𝑛 → = 𝑛 ̅ ,
𝑣𝑡 𝑇
where vt is the speed, 𝑇̅ is the average room temperature, T0 is a constant of 273
K, and n is equal to ½ (the root of the equation). All resulting calculations can be
seen in Table 3.
For Fork 1 – Trial 1

𝑚 𝑇̅ 𝑚 295.1 𝑚
𝑣𝑡 = 331 ∗ √ = 331 ∗ √ = 344.14
𝑠 𝑇0 𝑠 273 𝑠
∆𝑣𝑡 ∆𝑇̅ .22 𝐾 ∆𝑣𝑡
= 𝑛 = ½( )= → ∆𝑣𝑡 = .13 𝑚/𝑠
𝑣𝑡 𝑇̅ 295.1 𝐾 344.14 𝑚/𝑠

Fork 1 - Trial 1 Fork 1 -Trial 2 Fork 2-Trial 1 Fork 2-Trial 2

x21 (cm) 35.25 ± 0.75 35.85 ± 0.85 44.75 ± 0.75 44.75 ± 1.25

x32 (cm) 36.75 ± 0.75 35.5 ± 1 44.5 ± 1.5 44.5 ± 1

𝑥̅ (cm) 36 ± 0.75 35.675 ± 0.925 44.625 ± 1.125 44.625 ± 1.125

𝜆 (cm) 72 ± 1.5 71.35 ± 1.85 89.25 ± 2.25 89.25 ± 2.25

v (cm/s) 34560 ± 1238 34248 ± 1402 34272 ± 1378 34272 ± 1378

v (m/s) 345.6 ± 12.38 342.48 ± 14.02 342.72 ± 13.78 342.72 ± 13.78

𝑇̅ (𝐾) 295.1 ± .22 295.2 ± .22 296 ± .23 296.15 ± .23

Vt (m/s) 344.14 ± .13 344.20 ± .13 344.66 ± .13 344.75 ± .13

Table 3: Final Calculations

6
With the speed of sound now calculated, the measured speed was compared to
𝑣− 𝑣𝑡
the theoretical speed using the percent-difference formula | | ∗ 100.
𝑣𝑡

For Fork 1 – Trial 1

𝑚 𝑚
𝑣− 𝑣𝑡 345.6 𝑠 − 344.14 𝑠
% difference = | | ∗ 100 = | 𝑚 | ∗ 100 = .42%
𝑣𝑡 344.14
𝑠

Fork 1 - Trial 1 Fork 1 -Trial 2 Fork 2-Trial 1 Fork 2-Trial 2

v (m/s) 345.6 ± 12.38 342.48 ± 14.02 342.72 ± 13.78 342.72 ± 13.78
Vt (m/s) 344.14 ± .13 344.20 ± .13 344.66 ± .13 344.75 ± .13
% difference .42 .5 .56 .59

Table 4: Final Comparisons

Comparing the measured speed to the theoretical speed, there is a very small
percent difference for each trial, and when factoring in the error bounds of the
measured speed, the theoretical speed falls within these bounds.

Conclusions
The outcomes of the experiment supported the theory and aligned with
expectations. The measured speed of sound and the theoretical speed of sound
had less than 1% difference in every trial. Accounting for error, the theoretical
value falls well within the possible spread of the measured speed.

Notes:
Initially, the raw data of the measurements of the first fork was deemed to be
inaccurate. The lab was re-done a few days later, and much more accurate results
were obtained.

7
Appendix A: Raw Data from Lab (9/8/2021)

8
 Appendix B: Raw Data from Make-Up Lab (9/13/21)

View publication stats