Lab 3 Analysis Worksheet

1. Include a photo of your raw work, including your TA’s signature. Failure to include
this data will result in a grade of zero for the entire lab report.
2. Calculate the theoretical value of the fundamental frequency and its uncertainty.

𝑣 343.495 ± 1.2 𝑚𝑠 −1
𝑓1 = =
2(𝐿 + 0.6𝐷) 2((1.226 ± 0.001 𝑚) + 0.6(0.04625 ± 0.00001 𝑚))
= 𝟏𝟑𝟔. 𝟗𝟖𝟕 ± 𝟎. 𝟓𝟖 𝒔−𝟏

1.2 2(0.001 + 0.6(0.00001))

SO: 𝑓1 = 𝟏𝟑𝟕. 𝟎 ± 𝟎. 𝟔 𝑯𝒛

3. Include your four tables of frequency fi, peak-to-peak amplitude Fi, and central-
difference derivative of the amplitude Fi′. Remember, the central difference method
cannot be used to calculate the derivative for the first and last entries.
4. Produce plots of the finite-difference derivative value versus the frequency value for
each of the tables. Clearly identify on the plots which points you feel lie within the
central straight-line region. It will be these points that you use with the LINEST
function in the next question.

The three points on the n=4 plot will be utilized in the next question
 5. Use the LINEST function to calculate the slope and intercept for the Fi′ vs fi data for
ONE of the tables. Include a screenshot of your LINEST function output, and make a
statement of the slope and intercept, along with its uncertainty, summarizing the
results. Since y = Ax + B, the x-intercept occurs at x = −B/A. Use this to calculate the
x-intercept and its uncertainty for this table.

(n=4 values)

Slope = -0.72 ± 0.04 mVs2

y-Intercept = 400 ± 20 mVs

20 0.04
x-Intercept uncertainty = ( + )(555.56 𝑠 −1 ) = 58.6 s-1
400 0.72

So: x-Intercept = 560 ± 60 s-1

6. Now invert the LINEST analysis - calculate the slope of fi vs Fi′ for all four tables.
Include a screenshot of your LINEST function output for each one and accompany
each screenshot with a statement of the slope and intercept, along with its
uncertainty, summarizing the results.

For n = 2:

Slope = -1.2 ± 1.0 (mvs2)-1

y-Intercept = 230 ± 30 s-1

Slope = -0.348 ± 0.006 (mvs2)-1

y-Intercept = 409.9 ± 0.2 s-1

For n = 4:

Slope = -1.38 ± 0.08 (mvs2)-1

y-Intercept = 546.0 ± 0.9 s-1

for n = 5:

Slope = -0.6 ± 0.6 (mvs2)-1

y-Intercept = 680 ± 10 s-1

𝑓𝑛
Using 𝑓𝑛 = 𝑛𝑓1 , 𝑓1 =
𝑛

230 30 −1
For n = 2, 𝑓1 = ± 𝑠 = 115 ± 15 𝑠 −1 → 𝟏𝟐𝟎 ± 𝟐𝟎 𝒔−𝟏
2 2

409.9 0.2 −1
For n = 3, 𝑓1 = ± 𝑠 = 136.6 ± 0.07 𝑠 −1 → 𝟏𝟑𝟔. 𝟔 ± 𝟎. 𝟏 𝒔−𝟏
3 3

546.0 0.9 −1
For n = 4, 𝑓1 = ± 𝑠 = 136.5 ± 0.225 𝑠 −1 → 𝟏𝟑𝟔. 𝟓 ± 𝟎. 𝟐 𝒔−𝟏
4 4

680 10 −1
For n = 5, 𝑓1 = ± 𝑠 = 𝟏𝟑𝟔 ± 𝟐 𝒔−𝟏
5 5

8. Use these to calculate f1 ± δf1 .

∑ 𝑓1
𝑓1 = = 132 𝑠 −1
4

∑ 𝛿𝑓1
𝛿𝑓1 = = 6 𝑠 −1
4

𝑓1 = 𝟏𝟑𝟐 ± 𝟔 𝒔−𝟏

9. Perform a statistical comparison of f1 as compared to your theoretical value.

𝑥1 − 𝑥2
𝑡=
√𝑥12 + 𝑥22

137 − 132
𝑡= = 0.83
√0.36 + 36

-2 < t < 2, so the statistical t-test shows that the theoretical and experimental values for the
natural frequency of the resonance tube agree.
10. Respond to the following questions/instructions using sentences:
(a) Based on your results, does the theoretical value hold up to experimental
evidence? Explain how you know.

Yes, it holds well. The t-test shows that it agrees with the theoretical value, and,
during the experiment, when the frequency was set to 136.49 Hz (which is
within the experimental value’s uncertainty) (shown in the table in the raw
data), maximum amplitude was measured.

(b) What is the largest source of uncertainty in the experimental determination of

Interference. Many people were conducting the experiment in the same room,
which, on a few occasions, led to the observation of a beat frequency that may
have distorted the measured values for the amplitude. To remove this
uncertainty, the experiment would have to be repeated in a room with no noise.

Likewise, the data set was limited, and only a few measurements were made.
This may increase the uncertainty. To reduce it, the experiment should be
repeated, and more values of n should be considered, and more measurements
of more frequencies close to a harmonic frequency should be recorded.

Numerically, the largest source of uncertainty was the data for n = 2, and these
measurements should be discarded and re-evaluated.

(c) Why were you asked to invert the x and y values for using LINEST to calculate
the frequencies? What about the analysis in Q4 above suggests that there is a
better way to perform the analysis?

Inverting the LINEST analysis allows for an easier way to calculate the x-
intercept, which represents the oscillations’ frequency. Question 4 calculates the
x-intercept, but in a longer and more tedious way, with more steps and sources
of uncertainty.
(d) Given the information in the Background section for this lab, what are some
possible reasons why the theoretical value and the experimental value might
disagree? Explain using math.

Firstly, the temperature of the air may be greater than the given value, so the
speed of sound in air may be greater. This means that the values for the
wavelength of the sound waves are still correct, but, because the wavespeed is
greater, the frequencies will be greater than calculated. In the equation, 𝑣 = 𝑓λ,
where λ is constant, 𝑣 ∝ 𝑓.

Likewise, the central difference method that was used to calculate the derivative
of the amplitude may not be perfectly accurate.

(e) The boundary layer at either end of the tube is theorized to be 0.3D. Given your
experimental value of f1, how big is the boundary layer, relative to D, according
to your data?

𝑣
𝑓1 =
2(𝐿 + 2𝑎𝐷)

343 ± 1 𝑚𝑠 −1
137.0 ± 0.6 𝑠 −1 =
2(1.226 ± 0.001 + 2𝑎(0.04625 ± 0.0001))

𝑣 343 ± 1 𝑚𝑠 −1
−𝐿 − 1.226 ± 0.001 𝑚
2𝑓 2(137.0 ± 0.6 𝑠 −1 )
𝑎= = = 0.28 ± 0.2 → 𝟎. 𝟑 ± 𝟎. 𝟐
2𝐷 2(0.04625 ± 0.0001 𝑚)