Answer to December Figuring Physics

Paul Hewitt

Citation: The Physics Teacher 54, 53 (2016); doi: 10.1119/1.4937977

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4937977
View Table of Contents: http://aapt.scitation.org/toc/pte/54/1
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

Answer to January 2016 Figuring Physics Question
The Physics Teacher 54, 124 (2016); 10.1119/1.4940184

Answer to September 2016 Figuring Physics

The Physics Teacher 54, 439 (2016); 10.1119/1.4962787

Answer to November 2016 Figuring Physics

The Physics Teacher 54, 565 (2016); 10.1119/1.4967900

Answer to December 2016 Figuring Physics

The Physics Teacher 55, 54 (2016); 10.1119/1.4972502

Answer to April 2016 Figuring Physics

The Physics Teacher 54, 243 (2016); 10.1119/1.4944369

Answer to April Figuring Physics Question

The Physics Teacher 54, 276 (2016); 10.1119/1.4947153

in bronze, because in the case of church bells, we do not deal
with the propagation of compressional waves, but bending
(transverse) waves as suggested by the coffee cup model. In
order to use Eq. (3) for the modeling of the radius, we need to
estimate the propagation velocity of the bending wave. Again
we turn to the model of a metal plate bent to a cylinder. For
the estimated velocity of transverse waves vT, we then get:2
(7)
By substituting d = R/7 and fhum = vT/(pR) and vL =
3400 m/s, we get vT ≈ 282 m/s, which also explains why the
insertion of the sound velocity of air (343 m/s) leads to such
good results. Curve fitting leads to 0.91∙ vair as an ideal value,
which comes very close to the estimated propagation velocity
of the bending wave. There is some evidence that this match
has been brought about deliberately by the bell founders;
at present, however, a coincidence cannot be excluded. We
would be very grateful for any information on the question
of whether this match is a coincidence or has been brought
about deliberately by the bell founders.
Re 3: Can the “coffee mug model” be
saved?
The modeling proposed regarding question 1 is probably
Answer to December Figuring Physics
The Physics Teacher ◆ Vol. 54, January 2016
iPhysicsLabs
unsuitable for secondary school physics classes, since the nec-
essary mathematical relationship cannot be easily motivated
or explained to young learners. The same applies to the mod-
eling of the propagation velocity of the bending wave, which
would “save” the intuitive model. Is the use of the coffee mug
model then still useful from a physics teacher’s point of view,
even if the propagation velocity of the bending wave is ig-
nored? We think it is, because the proportional relation
R ~ 1 / fhum can be fundamentally justified within the model.
The proportionality factor of 100 m/s, however, must then
simply be communicated to the learners.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Don Easton, who drew our attention
to the error, and Andreas Müller (University of Geneva) for
his helpful hints in this discussion.
References
1. P. Vogt, L. Kasper, and J.-P. Burde, “The sound of church bells:
Tracking down the secret of a traditional arts and crafts trade,”
Phys. Teach. 53, 438–439 (Oct. 2015).
2. R. E. Apfel, ‘‘‘Whispering’ waves in a wineglass,” Am. J. Phys.
53, 1070-1073 (Nov. 1985).
3. http://www.kirchenglocken.de, accessed Oct. 2015.
DOI: 10.1119/1.4937977
53