Standing Waves

RIA LAPIZ
IB Physics

BACKGROUND
On a string with both ends fixed, standing waves can be formed if the string length is equal to an integral number of
wavelengths or bubbles. The wavelength depends on the wave speed in the string and the frequency of vibration
that is setting the string in motion. Given the right wave speed and driving force, a wavelength will fit the string and
eventually result in a standing wave.

RESEARCH QUESTION
When second harmonic standing waves are produced on a string of fixed length, how does the period depend on the
tension force?

HYPOTHESIS
Wave speed v depends on tension force FT and linear density .

Wave speed v also depends on wavelength and period T.

In deriving the two equations we get:

When tension is achieved by hanging a weight with mass M at one end of the string:
The final equation would then be:

The equation suggests that

is proportional to the mass

VARIABLES
Independent: mass of tension weight M
Dependent:

period T

Controlled:

linear density of string

wavelength of second harmonic

of the string.

MATERIALS
frequency generator
wave driver with piston
2 m light string
pulley
voltage sensor
computer and graphing software with curve
fitting feature

data logger
weights (with hooks)
o range: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 g
electronic weighing scale
o range: 0.5000 0.0001 kg
ruler
o range: 1.000 0.001 m

PROCEDURES
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Measuring mass M of tension weights:
1. Masses of the tension weights were measured on the weighing scale.
a. The uncertainty 0.0001 kg was taken from the smallest subdivision of the scale.
2. Seven (7) different weights were used with masses of approximately 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 g.
3. The weights were hooked on at one end of the string that ran over the pulley, pulling the string taut.
Note: The hanging weight and the vertical part of the string moved very little as the standing waves were formed.
This enabled us to assume that the tension force was equal and opposite to the force of gravity that pulled n
the weight.
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Measuring period T of 2nd harmonic standing wave:
1. The driving frequency of the wave driver was tuned by turning a dial on the frequency generator.
2. The dial was turned until a second harmonic was observed.
a. The observed amplitude of the standing wave varied for a narrow range of driving frequencies.
The natural frequency, which gave the maximum amplitude as observed by eyesight, was found by
adjusting the frequency within that range.
3. The scales on the frequency generator were difficult to determine. Period was then measured according to
the voltage of the frequency generator which varied over time.
4. A voltage-time graph was generated by the graphing software as recorded by the voltage sensor, data logger
and computer.
a. The recorded graph was fitted with a sine curve and a generated function gave the period with an
uncertainty of 110-6 s.
CONTROLLED VARIABLES
An assumption here is that the wavelength of the second harmonic exactly equals the string length; that there are
stationary nodes at both ends of the string, at the pulley and the piston rod.
Linear density () of the string
The linear density was kept constant by using the same string throughout the experiment.
2

Wavelength () of second harmonic

The wavelength was kept constant by fixing a horizontal string length between the wave drivers piston rod and the
contact point on the pulley. The pulley was fastened onto the edge of a desk. The wave driver was positioned across
the desk surface. Pieces of clay were used to prevent the driver from moving away from position.
A length of 1.000 0.005 m was measured with a ruler from the center of the piston rod to that of the pulley.

DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING

UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainty in mass is taken from the smallest subdivision of the weighing scale used to measure the mass of each of
the weights, which is 0.0001 kg.
Uncertainty in period measurement per trial is taken from the graph generated by the data logger as detected by the
voltage sensor from the wave driver. See Figure 2.
According to graph, uncertainty in the best fit sine curve generated is 110-6 s.

Figure 1: Graph of time against voltage from data logger (Software: DataStudio)

RAW DATA
Mass, M
T1
(s)

(kg)
0.0005
0.0100
0.0406
0.0199
0.0281
0.0299
0.0228
0.0404
0.0196
0.0500
0.0179
0.0600
0.0170
0.0705
0.0159
Table 1: Raw data

T2
(s)
0.0398
0.0285
0.0229
0.0198
0.0179
0.0168
0.0160

Period, T
T3
(s)
110-6
0.0394
0.0282
0.0238
0.0196
0.0182
0.0167
0.0157

T4
(s)

T5
(s)

0.0418
0.0286
0.0233
0.0198
0.0179
0.0167
0.0162

0.0412
0.0275
0.0231
0.0204
0.0182
0.0167
0.0157

Maximum, Minimum
Software: Microsoft Excel 2007

The derived equation is a proportional relationship between

and

; where T is the period, g is acceleration

due to gravity, is linear density of string, is wavelength, and M is the mass of the weights use to apply tension.

DATA PROCESSING
Average Period:

Example:

Uncertainty in period:

Example:

1/T2:

Example:

To solve for the uncertainty in period, we did the following process:

0.0406 0.0012

Example:

PROCESSED DATA
Mass, M

Average Period, TAVE

Uncertainty in Period, T

(kg)
(s)
(s)
0.0005
0.0100
0.0406
0.0012
0.0199
0.0282
0.0006
0.0299
0.0232
0.0005
0.0404
0.0198
0.0004
0.0500
0.0180
0.0002
0.0600
0.0168
0.0002
0.0705
0.0159
0.0003
Table 2: Processed data (Software: Microsoft Excel 2007)

T-2

Uncertainty in T-2

(s-2)

(s-2)

610
1260
1860
2540
3080
3550
3960

40
50
80
100
70
80
150

DATA ANALYSIS

Figure 2: Graph showing processed data of period T-2 against mass M (Software: Graph 4.3)
The graph in figure 2 does not suggest a linear relationship between

and mass because the best fit line does not

hit all the data points or at least go through their error bars. Outliers include data points 1, 4, 5 and 7. The does not
suggest a proportionality either because the best fit line does not pass through the origin.

With trial and error, I have re-plotted the graph omitting one data point each time. Omitting data point 7 makes data
point 1 an outlier. However, omitting data points 6 and 7 gives us the resulting graph in figure 3 on the following
page.

Figure 3: Graph showing processed data; data points 6 and 7 omitted (Software: Graph 4.3)
The best fit line goes through all of the error bars and even goes though the origin. The line now supports the linear
relationship as well as a proportionality between

and mass.

CONCLUSION
We have established that the final graph shown in figure 2 (on previous page) suggests a linear relationship between
and mass, with the best fit line passing through all of the error bars and roughly through the origin, indicating a
proportionality. This proportionality is also supported by the minimum and maximum gradient lines that contain the
origin.
The equations generated by the graphing software contain the values that we need to put into the
equation formulated on page 3 that indicated a proportional relationship between

-mass

and mass.

We can now solve for the linear density of the string () using the gradient found in the graph in figure 3.

We have measured the string length manually by weighing 2 meters of the string used and solved for by diving
mass by length and got a result of (1.65 0.01) 10-4 kg m-1, which will then be used as the accepted value for this
experiment as this was directly measured and calculated (i.e. mass and length).
String length, L: 2.000 0.001 m
(String length uncertainty is based on the smallest division of the measuring stick which is 1 mm or 0.001 m)
String mass, m: 0.329 0.002 g
(String mass uncertainty is based on the second smallest division of the weighing scale which is 0.01 g)
String density, :

Uncertainty in string density, :

We also know that wavelength is 1.000 0.005 m and that acceleration due to gravity g in Oslo is 9.819 ms-2.1
Best Fit Line:

Maximum Gradient:

Minimum Gradient:

Experimental Value:
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

Precision:

Our accepted value for the linear density of the string () is (1.65 0.01) 10-4 kg m-1.

Accuracy:

The -3.64% accuracy indicates the difference of the experimental value that is to the left of the accepted value. Our
experimental value is less than what is expected.
On time management:
Data was gathered accordingly with equipment and in the allotted time of two periods (2 hours). However, only one
setup was used in order to save time. More setups could have been used for more variation which would probably
lessen uncertainties.

EVALUATION
We will first look at the possible errors caused by possible changes our variables. Effects of these changes will most
likely be reflected on our data points and error bars (random error) and our best fit line (systematic error), and
because of this we will be using Figure 4 to see these possible effects.

Figure 4. Best fit line of raw and processed data

8

Independent: Mass
Masses of the weights used to apply tension were measured on a weighing scale. Our masses deviate from a desired
sequence of 10, 20, 30 or so grams. (See Table 1 pg3) For example, if the mass 70g (data point 7) was used instead of
70.5, it could have probably made the blue line in Figure 4. This change however wont make the best fit line pass
through all of the data points and/or their error bars. Perhaps random error is caused by the period measurements.

Dependent: Period
Period measurements were generated via computer (See Figure 1 pg2). A frequency generator was adjusted to
obtain the required second-harmonic standing wave. It was agreed that the frequency that gave the biggest
amplitude for the second harmonic would be taken. However, deciding the frequency was a problem because the
standing wave collapsed very easily with the slightest adjustments. Alternatively, the frequency generator was
connected to the computer and the DataStudio software was used to create a voltage-time graph. From that graph,
the voltage frequency was taken from the best fit sine curve generated. We made the assumption that this
frequency was also that of the standing wave. This assumption can lead to random error because the voltage
frequencies may not exactly correspond to the same wave frequencies. For example in Figure 3, data points 6 & 7
deviate under the green line, which passes through the first five. The frequencies for these two data points were a
bit high.
Furthermore, the assumption previously mentioned could also lead to a systematic error. According to Figure 4 (pg7)
the raw data best fit line is above the origin which means that overall

is too high, i.e. period measurements are

too low. Since period is inversely proportional to frequency, our wave frequencies were therefore too high. Maybe
the frequency we needed to get was not at the time where the amplitude was biggest. Again, deciding which
frequency would be difficult since there is a vast range of frequencies to choose from.
In addition, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength. If our frequencies were too high, then our
wavelengths were too low. We measured the wavelength to be 1.000 0.005 m from the piston rod to the other
end.

Notice that the piston rod moves up and down to produce the standing wave. It
does not actually resemble a node because it has its own amplitude, hence its up
and down movement. This makes a node that is somewhere to the left of the piston
rod, thus creating a longer wavelength. Accordingly, as we increase the mass of the
tension weight, the amplitude of the resulting standing wave decreases each time. This makes a node that is further
towards the opposite ends of the wavelenth.
Its nearly impossible to keep the wavelength steady as we need the piston driver to create the standing waves.
Perhaps we can lessen this error by decreasing the common difference between our masses. Instead of starting from
9

10 grams and adding ten after each setup, we can use 5 grams and add five after each setup. Wavelength might still
increase but at least to a minimal amount. If the systematic error persists, we can lessen the masses of the tension
weights even more.

Controlled: Gravity, Wavelength, String Density

Gravity could not have been a problem since it is constant in the area and the setup was done in one location only. It
may have some uncertainty but they would probably be far too small and thus the effect would be negligible. String
density should be constant since we used the exact same string throughout the experiment. Uncertainties have
arisen in mass and length measurements (for accepted value) and in calculation (for experimental value) but these
are recognized in the final answers (i.e. 1.650.01 or 1.590.05 kg m-1). Wavelength should also be kept constant
since we did not move the devices that were to serve as the nodes of our waves. However deciding the exact
location of the nodes may cause both systematic and random error. (See evaluation of dependent variable, period.)

10