ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.

TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM

April 2017

Research into the interference pattern of sound in a classroom:

1. Preliminary Process:
1.1 Research Question:
Can the interference patterns generated by two speakers in a classroom be accurately modelled
through the use of Young’s Equation?

1.2 Introduction:
Thinking about the way that sound and light travel as well as how waves interfere highlights an
interesting aspect of waves. As we learnt in the classroom, destructively interfering waves can
actually cancel each other out; something that at first may seem impossible. Trying to link this to the
way in which it could become relevant in real life I realized that the only necessary requirement for
this to happen is for two waves to be converging or crossing each other. The first thing that came to
mind was the way in which most classrooms have two speakers at the front, which would actually
affect the interference pattern displayed in the room. This means that where you sit in class could
actually affect the loudness of the video you are watching! However, this would happen in a room
with one speaker too, waves bouncing off the walls could easily interfere with waves from the
source to created areas of higher amplitude and others with lower amplitude. This is due to the fact
that not all the energy is lost once you hit a wall, and thus there will be more than just the primary
interference (David Oliva Elorza, 2005). Nonetheless, this secondary interference effect would be
more difficult to observe in a classroom environment in school since these secondary waves would
have less energy and thus will have a smaller effect than ones coming directly from a separate
source. Hence, I decided to stick to experimenting with two sources of waves. In fact, these would
act like light in a double slit experiment to create an interference pattern, meaning I could use
Young’s equation to make predictions for my experiment.

This effect caused by having more than one source of waves (or primary and secondary bouncing
waves form a single source) has, in fact, been explored extensively due to its importance in theaters
and concert halls. The effect is now known as stereophony and was first discovered in 1881 with the
telephones at the Palais de l’Industrie. Telephones used to transmit an opera performance to those
unable to attend the event itself had separate earpieces for the right and left ear, and these
earpieces received a sound signal from two microphones in different areas of the concert hall. This
resulted in slight variations in the time the two ears of listeners received the sound which produced
a “special character of relief and localization which a single receiver [could not] produce.” (Thomas H
White, 1996) The idea of stereophony is what allows a viewer to follow an actor walk across a movie
scene not only with sight but also with hearing and, this was, in fact, first applied in cinematography
in Disney’s Fantasia (Jim Fanning, 2017).

With an interesting insight into this problem’s applications in real life, I decided to go back to the
classroom and explore the way waves would interact in a two-dimensional plane. I wanted to model
the classroom but in a smaller scenario and observe whether I could predict the way the waves
would interact with Young’s equation. The best way to test this relationship would be in an anechoic
chamber which is a room with walls which almost completely absorb the sound (Ashish, 2016),
rather than having it reflect. However, due to the limitations of the availability of an anechoic
chamber, I decided that the school’s “sound-proof” music room would be the best option I had for
reducing any reflected sounds. Furthermore, these reflections would simply show me the
complicated patterns of the classroom which can’t be described with such simple equations;
allowing me to draw relevant comparisons between real life and the predicted model.

1
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

1.3 Hypothesis:
I learnt in the classroom that waves can interfere in two different ways, they can add up
constructively or subtract from one another destructively. This will result in a total amplitude which
may be higher or lower depending on the position of the two waves (Hamper, 2014). I wanted to
look at this in a three-dimensional perspective as it would allow me to apply my findings to the real
word and a real classroom. Since I wanted to look at thin in a 3D perspective to allow me to apply
my findings to the real world, both types of interference will be happening, creating peaks and
troughs. I will explore the positions of these since these will link to Young’s Equation directly.

Young’s Equation can be used to model the way sound behaves similarly to the way light behaves,
since they both act as waves. Exploring the way two speakers interfere, this equation allows me to
predict where peaks and troughs will occur.

𝐷𝜆
𝑠= (1)
𝑑
s

Picture 3 – Defining the terminology for double slit diffraction

Putting these together brings about the way in which two sources could possibly interact in a room.
When we combine the way sound spreads out from a source producing waves in all directions (in a
circular pattern) and the interference of waves, we begin to see something like:

Picture 4 –Interference pattern Adapted from (Paul Falstad, 2017) Picture 5 – Pattern on wall (Uconn, 2017)

In Picture 4 we are able to see how when wave peaks interact with peaks an anti-node is amplified,
while when peaks meet throughs (the red colored lines) a node would instead be created. Picture 5
on the right shows how this would look like projected on a wall/sheet (Blue being an anti-node).
The interesting idea is reproducing this in real life by taking a small area (the purple rectangle in
Picture 4), making it into a cartesian plane grid as shown, and checking if the model fits with the real-
world data. The predicted values could be shown as a table with intensities for different points on
the grid. This is because, although the above pictures display peaks and troughs, what I will measure
with a microphone will be the RMS amplitude of the sound (NOTE: This will be my “relative intensity”
to simplify and avoid confusing dB units). Since, like on Picture 5 and predicted by equation (1), the
distance between peaks is constant (for small angles); we are dealing with a simple trigonometric
curve. As a result, I could plot out some formulas in excel to predict the interference pattern for any
scenario. For example, finding 𝑠 when (Please refer to Picture 3 for the definition of the variables):

2
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

𝐷 =8𝑚 𝜆 =1𝑚 𝑑 =5𝑚

𝐷𝜆 8×1
𝑠=𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝑠= = 1.6
𝑑 5
Knowing that my maxima occur every 1.6 meters, now I could generate a cosine curve with a peak to
peak difference of 1.6m. This cosine curve would look a little like:
1
cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 ×
1.6
The amplitude of the curve (which is half the range of the obtained RMS amplitude) would multiply
by this curve to scale it, and adding the minimum intensity and the amplitude would shift this curve
up to have nodes at the “average intensity”, meaning the peaks of the curve would be the highest
and lowest intensity values (The areas where constructive and destructive interference occur.
1
𝐴 cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 × +𝐼 +𝐴
1.6
𝐴=Amplitude 𝐼 = Minimum intensity 𝑥= X-Coordinate (of purple box in Picture 4)
For simplicity purposes I decided the amplitude of this example to be 5 with minimum intensity 5
and maximum intensity 15 thus my equation would be:
1 1
5 cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 × + 5 + 5 = 5 cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 × + 10 (2)
1.6 1.6
However, to plot this formula on a grid of 33 columns by 5 rows (for simplicity during actual testing
as shown on Table 2, NOTE: Column size=0.1m), I had to scale each row by a factor (since the closer
to the sound you are the closer the peaks as seen in Picture 4). I decided to make the 2nd maxima
one column shorter for each row down, thus, I could calculate at what distance “𝐷” perpendicular to
the sources my readings had to be taken (the Y-Coordinate of purple box in Picture 4):
3.1
2𝑠 = (3.2 − 0.1) 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝑠= = 1.5
2
𝐷𝜆 𝐷×1
𝑠= → 1.55 = → 1.55 × 5 = 𝐷
𝑑 5
= 7.75
And then to scale the 2nd maxima to fall on one column earlier
for each row I had to scale cos(𝑘𝑥) by a scale factor of (since I
now have 32 columns instead of 33) which means 𝑘 =
1 1
cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 × ×𝑘 = cos 𝑥 × 2𝜋 ×
1.6 1.6 (3)
33
×
32
Repeating this process for all 5 rows:
Table 1 – Values obtained for sample predicted table (Table 2)
s
𝐷 (Y-axis) 8.00 7.75 7.50 7.25 7.00
33 33 33 33 33
𝑘 Graph 1 – Adapted from Table 2
33 32 31 30 29
s
Table 2 – Predicted interference pattern “Purple box” generated with formula (3) and Table 1 k-values. (Green = Higher Intensity)

3
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

1.4 Method:
I could now prepare a room with two speaker sources, and record the values of RMS amplitude at all
different coordinates in the above table. I could then compare my results with the above table to
see the difference between the model and real life values. However, since I will obtain a different
range of values than as shown in Table 2, I will repeat the whole calculation of this table with respect
to the experiment at hand and the obtained values (for predicting the distribution of intensities).
Since I am working with sound, I will be doing this experiment in a closed room to prevent any sound
from outside from disturbing the testing. However, the walls of the room should also be relatively
sound absorbing in order to reduce secondary interference happening in my experiment. Although
new smaller music rooms but with better sound-proofing were available, when considering the
effect of the small angle approximation (deeming it acceptable under 10°), the size of the rooms
made testing impractical and thus a larger music room with slightly worse sound-proofing was used.
After some rigorous pre-tests of sampling large areas of the room, I realised that the interference
patterns produced by the two speakers were extremely hard to interpret, since the secondary
interference produced by the walls largely affected the pattern visualised. Furthermore, the sample
space used resulted to be quite large for the small number of readings taken (i.e. resolution of
interference pattern was very poor). Additionally, I experienced the large amount of time taken to
produce one set of data points including set up time. Due to this I was unable to take multiple
repeats of the data points. Instead, I decided to leave the microphone to record a longer period of
sound at each point since the software used (Audacity) would provide an average of the time period
(as if it had taken multiple values and averaged them).
Due to reasons further discussed in the limitations section of this exploration, I also compromised
number of repeats for the range of readings taken. As a result, I ended up zooming into one section
and looking for the patterns there instead of experimenting on the entire room (Equivalent to the
purple box in Picture 4).

Picture 6 – Diagram showing testing room with important terms for the experiment.

4
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

In Picture 6 two extra secondary interference rays have been shown, to express how secondary
interference (and further interference) can affect results in my testing area. This, can be used later
to explain any errors or disparities in the interference pattern generated.

This method is would only require: a 5-meter measuring tape, a microphone, 2 speakers, and 2
computers (one with to play sound through speakers and one to record sound with microphone).

Procedure:

1. Place down 2 speakers with a separation of 1m and connect both together to a computer.
2. Play a sound with a 0.125m wavelength (2744Hz) for at least 10s before testing (to produce
the final interference pattern to include both primary and any further interference).
3. Record with microphone 15s of sound for all 33 columns for each of 5 rows (165 points).
4. Generate predicted interference pattern table and compare with results; and plot predicted
position of peaks graph and compare with results.

1.5 Variables:
Independent Variable: RMS Amplitude

Dependent Variable: Position of microphone in a room.

Controlled Variables How and why it was controlled

Room ambient It is important to make sure that the air conditioner in the room is off
during testing as well as trying to keep the layout of large items near the
walls of the room unchanged. This could affect the way sound travels
and the interferences that it causes and thus should be controlled.
Speakers, computer The type of speaker used for both speakers should be of the same
connection and manufacturer since the manufacturing of a speaker will have an effect
volume. on the way the sound it produces spreads out as well as its qualities.
Keeping them constant will make sure that original amplitude and
frequency is kept as constant as possible. The volume of the speakers
will also be kept constant by using the full volume option for both of the
speakers (this will also be checked by measuring the RMS amplitude of
each speaker at 0.5m distance and adjusting as necessary). This is
important as beginning with different amplitudes or frequencies may
affect the interference pattern. Since the sound produced by the
speakers comes from a device, I will also keep this constant by using an
earphone splitter to make sure the signal sent out by the computer is
the same for both speakers, specially so that the waves from both
speakers are in phase.
Microphone and Since I am dealing with sound, the measuring devices used are really
software important due to the specifications and varied uses. Different
microphones may vary widely, and the way the data can be analyzed
depends on the software. As a result, I will use the same throughout to
avoid unnecessary uncertainties.
Constants in the Since I am dealing with the equation for diffraction from a double slit, I
diffraction from will have to keep some values constant. I will have to make sure the
double slit equation: separation of the speakers is constant as well as the wavelength of the
sound produced. The Distance from source on the other hand will be
𝐷𝜆 varying as the 2-dimensional relationship between D and s is being
𝑠=
𝑑 explored upon. (The prediction shown in Graph 1 previously)

5
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

2. Data Collection and Analysis:

Table 3 – Sample of Raw Data
2.1 Raw Data table:
Note: The uncertainty in axis values is that measured by the measuring tape (±0.001m), but is not included in the table for
purposes of conserving space and uncertainty of microphone for dBFS values is lower than random error, and is thus omitted.
Note 2: RMS values were obtained directly from the equipment (Audacity) and therefore, calculations are not shown.

Table 3 shows the results at 1 column of an X-coordinate “0.000”. “Pos” Standing for “Positive peak” of the amplitude of the
wave, while “Neg” stands for “Negative peak” of the amplitude of the wave. These were used for uncertainty calculations as
they were the only values provided by the software. Only RMS values are shown of the rest of the table to conserve space:
Table 4 –RMS values (in dBFS) of the data obtained and colour coded according to the amplitude [Green = Louder, since negative values have been omitted]

Note 2 [throughout rest of IA]: For conciseness, X&Y axes and negative signs of all values (in dBFS) were omitted.
Table 5 – Additional Measurements made

2.2 Qualitative Observations:

 The sound of the speakers didn’t always appear to be the same amplitude during experimentation as you
moved around the room (as expected).
 The battery charge of the speakers seemed to affect the amplitude of the sound produced as well.
 The amplitude of the waves at a point, directly after the sources of sound were turned on, fluctuated slightly before coming to more of a stand-still
with relatively fewer fluctuations.
 The position I myself took when collecting data seemed to at times be affecting the final amplitude of the data collected.
 Very slight fluctuations of the angle in which the microphone is held during the recording of data seemed to affect the data collected. Moving or
touching the cable connecting the microphone to the computer during testing also had a similar effect.
 Turning off the aircon left the room relatively quieter which could affect the recordings. However, background noise of students moving around
outside didn’t show much of an observable change in data recorded.

6
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

2.3 Processed data Tables and Uncertainties in data Tables:

Predicted against Obtained first peak position

5.00 y = 32.994x - 2.081

4.50
y = 2x + 3.3125
Y-Coordinate (m)

R² = 0.4 y = 8x
4.00

3.50

3.00

y = -3.3335x + 4.1674
2.50
0.03125 0.0625 0.09375 0.125 0.15625 0.1875 0.21875 0.25 0.28125 0.3125 0.34375 0.375 0.40625 0.4375 0.46875 0.5 0.53125 0.5625
X-Coordinate (m)
Predicted Values Obtained Values Excluded Value _
Linear (Predicted Values) Linear (Obtained Values) Linear (Max) Linear (Min)

Graph 2 – A section of the testing area was used and calculations performed to determine the similarity between predicted and obtained first peak positions.

Note: The purple square is about half the size of the testing area in Picture 6 to allow a comparison between predicted and obtained values to be made.
Note 2: Error bars were found by multiplying percentage errors in Table 6 by X&Y distances, since other uncertainties were either too small or incalculable.
Note 3: When first peak position values were plotted, a negative correlation was obtained. To more accurately represent the data, I chose to make this an
“excluded value” as seen on the graph, and plotted the next highest value as the peak instead. Nonetheless, uncertainty was still too large.

7
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

Sample calculations in Graph 2: (Taking coordinate (0.3125,4.00) as an example)

1. Error bar calculation:
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 29.5564
× (𝑋, 𝑌 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠) → × (0.3125, 4.00) = (0.092364, 1.18226) ≈ (0.092, 1.2)
100 100
2. Gradient and uncertainty in final gradient (𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 ± 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦):
𝑀𝑎𝑥 − 𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 32.994 − (−3.3335)
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 ± → 2± = 2 ± 18.16375 ≈ 2 ± 18.2
2 2
Comments on Graph 2:
When I repeat the prediction process to plot a graph of the position of the first peak on a cartesian plane, there is an almost non-existent correlation
between the predicted and obtained values. Even though the gradient of “8” lays within the uncertainty of the obtained value, this gradient is at a
completely wrong position in the graph. In fact, it seems to have been shifted by about 0.2-0.3 meters to the left (or, in fact, to the right, since these peaks I
am considering could also be the primary maximum). Furthermore, the percentage error used to calculate this uncertainty in position, is that of the
intensity of the sound. This is an extreme assumption made of the correlation between errors in intensity and position, which (possibly) revealed to be very
inaccurate. However, I had no other option due to limitations in equipment in the experiment.

On the contrary, this difference in position may be pointing towards a systematic error being in play. One possibility is that the positioning of furniture in
the room may have affected the way sound interfered. The room layout may have produced this effect of seemingly “shifting by a factor of 0.2-0.3 meters”
and since I was only taking values on the right half of the room, I cannot conclude whether this affected the whole room. However, another possibility is
that the error in my beginning speaker amplitudes could have had a large effect as the error aggravated as sound intensity decreased with distance:
. .
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 2 − 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 1 (𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒) 10 − 10
× 100 → . × 100 = 9.6478% ≈ 10%
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑟 1 (𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)
10
As measurements were made at a large distance (and the speakers were of different brands), this factor could be responsible for the large systematic error.
Table 6 – Table showing the Percentage Uncertainties (obtained with Sample calculations in Table 5 Method 2) [Blue = More Percentage Uncertainty]

8
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

Sample calculations in Table 6: (Taking coordinate (0.94,4.000) as an example)

3. I firstly tried measuring uncertainties directly, but I obtained deceivingly low values which seemed inappropriate. As a result, for Method 2 I decided
to convert the values to a linear scale (floats) to make it more accurate to compare uncertainties using a linear scale (rather than logarithmic). This
resulted in values that expressed more reliable uncertainties, given the confusing nature of sound due to the logarithmic scale.
s

𝑑𝐵𝐹𝑆 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡 → 10

. .
𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 − 𝑁𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 (𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡) 10 − 10
2 × 100 → 2 × 100 = 91.7823 ≈ 90%
.
𝑅𝑀𝑆 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡)
10

2.4 Final Compiled Results:

s

Table 7 – Float values of: 1) Generated Predictions (Top); 2) Obtained values (Bottom); and 3) Absolute difference between predicted and obtained values [Orange = Higher absolute difference]

9
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

Sample calculations in Table 7: (Taking coordinate (0.94,4.000) as an example)

1. Table 7, Predicted Values – These were generated like in section 1.3 Hypothesis and for the range a standard deviation calculation was carried out:
a. I firstly found the average and Standard Deviation of data using excel. Then I created a predicted table with peak intensity as the value 3
standard deviations away from the mean (99.7% of data). However, since this peak seemed too extreme, I chose to use the peak intensity
as the value 2 standard deviations away (95th percentile of data) which looked more accurate for the data.
b. For the lowest intensity, I used the value 0.01 (Since this is the “intensity” measured when the speakers were off).
2. Table 7, Obtained Values – For these, the values from Table 4 were taken and converted into float values using the same formula as for Table 6.
3. Table 8 - I firstly tried finding percentage uncertainty, however, due to the predicted values being very close to zero, this resulted in extreme
percentages. Thus, I calculated the absolute difference and colour coded it to make the error between predicted and obtained easier to visualize.
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑂𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒(𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑡) → 0.073282 − 0.029174 = 0.044108 ≈ 0.044

2.5 Discussion of uncertainties and other factors and qualitative observations:

s

Although percentage uncertainty (Table 6) may seem large at some points, I believe this is due to the nature of sound being logarithmic in scale. Thus, even
though the average is quite high, I think this is an acceptable uncertainty to work with and should have had a relatively smaller impact than other factors. It
is also important to note that the values with the highest percentage uncertainty in measurement (Table 6) don’t correlate with those with the highest
absolute difference between predicted and obtained values (Table 7 – Bottom). This means that the error produced can’t be attributed to uncertainty in
measuring, but may instead be due to other factors. Considering my experiment, this may mean that reflections from the surfaces of the room may deem
the use of Young’s Equation to predict the interference pattern in a room inaccurate, and thus, inapplicable.
s
Additionally, if the error in the speakers as discussed with Graph 2 were to be determined as the factor attributable to the systematic error, it would justify
the aforementioned fact about uncertainty in measuring. This is because if there is no correlation between the random error (the uncertainty in measuring)
and the percentage error (the difference between predicted and obtained), this strongly implies that an external factor that wasn’t considered has affected
the results. After all, random error is meant to include all variable factors, thus, a variance not fitting into the random error points out a flaw in the
measurement of random error (in this case, the exclusion of different speaker intensities as a source of uncertainty).
s

Lastly, it is important to note that I was positioned near the set-up when measurements were recorded. This is because as noted in the Qualitative
Observations section, during preliminary and actual data acquisition, my position varied during the recording of values of different points which would
affect the interference pattern formed slightly; specially since I was near the microphone collecting data. Although I tested the microphone and it captured
sound mainly from the direct forwards direction, I must say that this could have also added on to the uncertainty produced by the speakers. This could have
had a similar impact as the speakers as a wave bouncing off me would interfere to a greater extent than one bouncing off the wall, since it had to travel a
significantly smaller distance.

10
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

3. Conclusion and Evaluation:

3.1 Conclusion:
Although the data allows me to visualise an interference pattern being generated, the data also
demonstrates that the patterns formed are not closely concurrent with those predicted by Young’s
equation. As a result, I conclude that the interference patterns generated by two speakers in a
classroom cannot be accurately modelled through the use of Young’s Equation; this equation can
only provide a superficially basic model.

The uncertainties in this exploration, however, were quite difficult to measure and seem to have
altogether resulted in a discrepancy on whether what the data shows is the effect of the classroom
on the pattern; or it is merely the product of a systematic error. Regardless, the discussion of
uncertainties clearly reveals that there is a source of unaccounted error. This could either be: the to
the difference between the two models and relative wear and tear of the speakers; or the effect of
the secondary and any further order interferences on the interference pattern (which I aimed to
explore). As a result, I am not entirely confident in my results due to the “cliff-hanger” conclusion
and I would have certainly hoped to have been able to extend my exploration with some more time
which may have led to a stronger conclusion being drawn.

3.3 Strengths, Limitations and Improvements:

Strengths
My experiment was conducted in the Music Room of my school. Being used for multiple
instruments, the walls of the room are specially designed to absorb the sounds, and keeps the
room sound proof. This was better than using a regular classroom to conduct experiments with no
method of absorbing sound, or blocking out external sounds. (Nonetheless, improvable)
During my preliminary experiments, my speakers ran out of battery mid-experiment and the
experiment was continued. This was improved in the final experiments by charging both the
speakers fully, and additionally leaving them charging to reduce fluctuations in performance.
Both of the speakers were connected to the same computer- this allowed both of them to work
on the same signals and thus ensure the same frequency being produced and in phase.
For my final experiments, I used a highly sensitive microphone. This microphone was able to
detect wave amplitudes more accurately and thus more reliable data was collected.
Limitations Improvements
Even though the experiments were conducted in a Experiments could be conducted in an
music room, it was not a perfect environmental anechoic chamber. This is a room
condition as some of the sound was still reflected off specifically designed to completely absorb
the walls - the resonance could not be controlled. reflections or either sound or
This secondary interference was a large factor in the electromagnetic waves. This would allow
discrepancy of sources of error. me to simply measure primary
interference of the waves produced.
The conducting of experiments and data analysis With the availability of a better software
were time consuming; the setup of the experiments that could allow me to analyse my data
was tedious. The availability of the music room was more efficiently, extremely reducing the
also limited, hence experimentation time was time taken in recording points.
reduced meaning that longer measuring periods per Furthermore, perhaps if more people
point were employed, rather than multiple could assist in the setting up of the
repetitions. apparatus and data acquisition, it would
be faster and more reliable.

11
 ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO OWNERS.
TAKEN FROM HTTPS:WWW.INTERNALASSESSMENTS.WORDPRESS.COM
April 2017

The speakers I used during my experiment were the
same brand but different models. This means that
both speakers could have different ways or forms of
emitting of sound and thus fluctuations it may have
been part of what largely affected my data.
However, unfortunately I was unable to source two
equal circular-emission speakers for the experiment.
I was unable to certify if the sound produced by
both speakers were always of the same amplitude,
as I used recreational speakers. Although the RMS
amplitude was measured, there was still fluctuation
in this value throughout the experiment.
The use of a highly sensitive microphone records
even the slightest of movements in the direction
and angle it’s held.
s
The same model of speakers should be
used to have the waves emitted in the
same form from both speakers.
Additionally, if the sound could be
restricted to be emitted mostly in a
horizontal rather than a vertical plane, it
would largely benefit the experiment.
Using speakers with specifications and
designs either made for scientific
experiments or for performance rather
than cost would give more accurate
results.
Using a protractor and a set apparatus to
ensure the correct placement of the
microphone could easily tackle this issue.

3.5 Extensions:
I was very surprised by the way my results varied from the actual predicted values. Extending this to
testing in not only an anechoic chamber, but also simply to other classrooms, would definitely be
very interesting. Calculating the amount of error in the experiments in comparison to the predicted
values for multiple rooms would allow one to see slightly more clearly how the absorbance of walls
affects the way sound interacts and the interference patterns created.

Although more complicated, I thought that applying this to other types of waves could also result in
interesting implications. Perhaps exploring how radio waves could be interacted over long distances
in order to increase the signal in an area while reducing it areas where the signal is unnecessary;
implying ways of saving energy, as well as ways of transmitting information only to certain areas.
s

3.6 Works cited:

David oliva elorza , D. .O. .E. (2005). Psuedu. Retrieved18 March, 2017, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.112.43

Thomas H White, T. .H. .W. (1996). The Telephone at the Paris Opera. Retrieved 8 April, 2017, from
http://earlyradiohistory.us/1881opr.htm

Jim Fanning, J. F (2017). Fifteen Fascinating Facts About Fantasia. Retrieved 10 April, 2017, from
https://d23.com/15-fascinating-facts-about-fantasia/

Ashish, A. (2016). How Are Anechoic Chambers, The Quietest Rooms On Earth, Made?. Retrieved 18
March, 2017, from https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/anechoic-chambers-quietest-most-
silent-rooms-work-made.html
Hamper, C.H. (2014). Higher Level Physics. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex, CM20 2JE:
Pearson Education Limited.
Paul falstad, P. F. (2017). Riple Tank. Retrieved 10 April, 2017, from http://www.falstad.com/ripple/
(Paul falstad, 2017)
Uconn . 2017. 54 Interference in Space: Patterns. [Online]. [8 March 2017]. Available from:
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_4/Sec5_4.htm

12