Stage One Physics Design Practical Investigation: The Speed of Sound

Deconstruct:
Initial Question: What method proves to be the most effective in measuring the speed of sound?

Introduction:
Sound waves are a pattern of disturbances that are caused by the energy travelling away from the source of the
sound. Sound waves are longitudinal waves, meaning they travel through any given medium. In extension, they
include compression which occurs when particles move close together creating regions of high pressure, while
rarefactions occur in low-pressure areas where particles are spread apart from each other. This can be seen in
Figure 1, as it presents the object moving back and forth rapidly, in a series of compressions and rarefactions
created in the air, making the sound wave propagate through the medium (BYJU, n.d.).

The phenomenon of sound waves was first discovered in 1681 by Robert Hooke, an English Physicist, who was
the first to produce a sound wave of known frequency, using a rotating cog wheel as a measuring device ().
Moreover, as science evolved the first standing waves were first described scientifically by Michael Faraday in
1831. It was the year of the description of nodes which are the points where the value of displacement is zero,
while antinodes are where the value of displacement is maximum .

Brainstorming:
How To Measure the Speed of Sound
Method One: Method Two:
Measuring sound from a distance. Measuring the speed of sound using standing waves,
For example, two people standing on either end of more specifically harmonics.
the oval and yelling. The best-suited harmonics to measure are the open-
The sound generated should be loud and clear, also end and closed-end. The first harmonic would have an
visible from afar. equation of:
Someone can clap and the other the starts timer 𝜆
when the clap is seen and stop when the cap is heard. 𝐿=
4
However, this presents a big margin for human error as
it is associated with reaction time. Through the use of that harmonic, it is hypothesized
Also, would the person from the other side hear a that the antinode will be the loudest project sound.
sound? To ensure that the sound is heard, utilizing: To find the velocity the following equation was also
A sprinting gun or starter pistol as the effect of the taken into consideration:
sound is heard from a distance. 𝑐 = 𝑓𝜆
The use of drums can also be heard from a distance.
Moreover, the popping of balloons is very effective To fill out that equation, it should be a well-known
as it has a high frequency and high pitch for the sound to fact that the frequency is the independent variable, which
travel through, and balloons are visible from afar. is being purposefully changed. The frequencies that are
Distance to measure: being used are:
 • 300(Extremely difficult) • 256 Hz
• 200m (Moderate) • 512 Hz
• 100m (Easy) • 1000 Hz
The equation to measure the speed of sound is: These frequencies will be projected via a phone app.
𝑠
𝑣= By filling the cylinder with water it creates the same
𝑡
The units of the speed should be: effect of a closed-off end, through this we should be able
to recognize the first and third harmonic, this should be
𝑚𝑠 −1 demonstrated as in Figure 2.

Trials:
The first trial performed was method 1, in which the class was able to record some of the results and observe
whether the method was effective and didn’t include many errors. While the second trial was based on the second
method that was brainstormed, it was constructed on discovering the right steps to the method and manipulating
the tube to hear where the antinodes were.

1st Trial- Balloon Popping:

As seen in the brainstorm the first trial was managed by measuring the speed of sound in air by popping balloons
and measuring how long it took for the sound to travel the decided-upon distances. The distances that were decided
upon were 50 meters, and 100 meters as they presented to be easier.

Equipment:
• 6x Balloons • Measuring Wheel
• Timer • Phone for recording
• 2x Cones • Thermometer
• 3x Pins • Waste bag

Procedure:
1. The temperature was recorded using a thermometer.
2. Participants were divided into two groups: Group A, and Group B
3. Group A positioned a cone at the starting point in an open area. The participants were stationed at the
starting point.
4. A 50-meter distance from the starting point was measured using a measuring wheel by Group B. The
participants were stationed at the 50-meter cone.
5. The first three balloons were inflated and held ready by Group A.
6. Once Group B was ready, they were given a signal to start the timer.
7. The first balloon was popped simultaneously with the start of the timer, and the time of the balloon pop
was recorded. This step was repeated twice.
8. The participants gathered and discussed the strategy once before dividing into two groups again.
9. Group A was still present at the starting point.
10. Group B measured a 100-meter distance from the starting point using the measuring wheel and placed a
cone.
11. The same process from steps 5-7 was repeated.
12. The ground was then scoped to check if any plastic or balloon residue was present.

Results table:
Temperature recorded on the day: 30ºC
50 meters:
Rounded Value (seconds) Speed of Sound (𝑚𝑠 −1 )
1st Trial 0.30 167
2nd Trial 0.40 125
3rd Trial 0.40 125

100 meters:
Rounded Value (seconds) Speed of Sound (𝑚𝑠 −1 )
1st Trial 0.80 125
2nd Trial 0.70 142
3rd Trial 0.78 128

The rounded value is unlikely the correct value that the experiment could accurately capture the time taken for
the sound to reach 50 m and 100m in one or two decimal places. In the table below, the number of seconds from
both trials has been averaged to find the average speed of sound too.

50 meters 100 meters

Speed of Sound (𝑚𝑠 −1 ) 𝑠 𝑠
𝑣= 𝑣=
𝑡 𝑡
50 100
𝑣= 𝑣=
0.37 0.76
𝑣 = 135.14 𝑚𝑠 −1 𝑣 = 131.58 𝑚𝑠 −1

The true value of speed of sound in the air at 30ºC is 𝑣 = 349.1𝑚𝑠 −1 (The Engineering ToolBox, 2003)
In Contrast, the experimental result yielded values of 135.14𝑚𝑠 −1 and 131.58𝑚𝑠 −1 . This is significant
discrepancy between the experimental values and true values indicating that there is a percentage error, for the 50
meters it contained 61.3% error, and the 100 meters presented with 62.3%. This shows that neither of the
experiments were near the true value showing that this practical was quite unreliable and not accurate.

2nd Trial – Standing waves in water

During the second trial, sound frequencies of 256Hz, 512Hz, and 1000Hz were utilised to generate standing
waves, producing a clear sound and vibration with easily distinguishable antinode. This sound was transmitted
through a pipe submerged in water. The pipe’s position was adjusted until the highest-pitched sound,
corresponding to the antinode, was identified. This specific harmonic configuration is recognized as one open end
and one closed end.

Equipment:
• 1x long pipe • 512Hz tuning fork
• 2x 30cm ruler • 1L water
• 1L measuring cylinder • 1x Tape
• Speaker • 1x Scissors
• Phone (Frequency app) • Camera
• 256Hz tuning fork
Procedure:
1. A ruler was affixed vertically along the edge of the pipe.
2. Another ruler was taped to extend the measurement scale.
3. Water was poured into a 1-liter cylinder until it reached approximately 90% capacity.
4. The pipe was submerged and aligned inside the cylinder.
5. The first frequency, 256Hz, was prepared.
6. The speaker was positioned over the pipe’s hole to allow sound vibrations.
7. The highest pitch, indicating the antinode’s location, was identified.
8. The point was marked on the ruler attached to the pipe.
9. A photograph was taken to record the precise distance between the top of the pipe and the antinode for
the 256Hz frequency.
10. The process was repeated three times for accuracy
11. The frequency was changed to 512Hz, and the procedure was replicated for three trials, marking and
documenting the antinode’s position each time.
12. A 1000Hz frequency was used to detect the first and third harmonics.
13. The process was repeated for each trial, marking and documenting the antinode’s position for the 1000Hz
frequency.

Results:
Although no numerical data was collected, it was noted that antinodes were easier to spot at the distance was
accurate. This procedure presented a more accurate way of collecting data that doesn’t relate to any systematic
error. It also presents consistent data with no outliers.

Justification:
Based on the two different method trials, the standing waves in water was justified by the substantial
difference between the practical outcomes and the established true values. The balloon popping method
presented with 61.3% for the 50-meter and 62.3% for the 100-meter trial, showing a huge percentage error
as it is higher than 50% meaning that the method was ineffective it also established the lack of reliability and
accuracy in the practical experiment. On the other hand, despite the absence of numerical data, there was a
noticeable trend with the antinodes as they were rapidly and easily distinguished. The standing waves in water
procedure was chosen for its effective and easiness, further validating its selection for detailed analysis and
explanation in the context of this experiment.
Practical Investigation:
Measuring The Speed of Sound Through Standing Waves in Water
Aim: The aim of this practical is to successfully measure the speed of sound using the method of standing waves
in water.
Variables:
Independent Variable: The independent variable in this experiment is the frequency (Hz) of sound waves.
Dependent Variable: The dependent variable in this experiment is the distance (cm) within the pipe where the
antinodes of the standing waves are formed.
Controlled Variables:
Controlled Variables: How will it be controlled:
Temperature: To maintain temperature control,
the experiment will be conducted
in an environment with minimal
temperature fluctuations.
Moreover, the use of room-
temperature water, ensures that it
remains at a constant temperature.
This approach minimizes any
temperature-related variations in
the speed of sound.
Frequency of Sounds: The frequency of sound will be
controlled by using a high-
precision audio oscillator to
generate the desired frequencies
(256Hz, 512Hz, 1000Hz) for this
practical. This oscillator has been
calibrated and verified for
accuracy. This control guarantees
that the experiment’s independent
variable, the frequency of sound, is
maintained to the specified values,
reducing any potential systematic
errors.
Water Level: By controlling the water by
consistently filling a 1L cylinder to
a predetermined level. Typically,
90% full. This is done by carefully
measuring the amount of water
added to ensure it reaches the
specific level while avoiding
overfilling.
Position of The Rulers Positioning of the rulers is
controlled by securely taping them
to the edge of the pipe. This
ensures that they remain fixed
during the experiment, maintaining
26/10/2023
Why it needs to be controlled:
Temperature control is vital in this
experiment because the speed of
sound in the air is highly dependent
on the temperature. For instance, as
the temperature increases, sound
travels faster, and as it decreases,
sound travels slower. Keeping the
temperature at a constant, a
significant factor is eliminated as a
source of error, this ensures the
accuracy of the results.
Controlling of the frequency of
sound is needed to maintain a
consistent and known parameter.
Controlling the frequency ensures
that variations in sound pitch do
not introduce errors in the
measurements. Since the
experiment aims to investigate the
speed of sound by detecting
specific harmonics or standing
wave patterns, any uncontrolled
changes in frequencies would
affect the results, making it more
challenging to draw valid
conclusions.
The water level needs to be
controlled to maintain consistent
conditions. Variations in the water
levels could affect the behaviour of
standing waves in the pipe, and in
the same time, the measurement of
the speed of sound. This again can
minimize any source of error and
help obtain more reliable results.
In the standing wave practical, the
rulers serve as a visual guide for
determining the locations of
antinodes, which are points of
maximum amplitude in the wave
pattern. If the rulers were fixed and
 a set reference point for measuring controlled, any movement or
the positions of antinodes. displacement could to inaccurate
measurements.

Uncontrolled Variables:

Uncontrolled Variables: Why will it be uncontrolled:
Humidity: Humidity can affect the speed of
sound because the density and
compressibility of air change with
humidity levels.
What effect can it have on the
results:
Having higher humidity tends to
lead to a faster speed of sound, and
lower humidity leads to a slower
speed of sound.

Hypothesis: If the frequency sound increases, the distance from the top to the water column to the antinode will
decrease. Then, if the frequency decreases, the distance to the antinode will increase.

Materials:
• 1x long pipe • 512Hz tuning fork
• 2x 30cm ruler • 1L water
• 1L measuring cylinder • 1x Tape
• Speaker • 1x Scissors
• Phone (Frequency app) • Camera
• 256Hz tuning fork

Method:
1. A ruler was affixed vertically along the edge of the pipe.
2. Another ruler was taped to extend the measurement scale.
3. Water was poured into a 1-liter cylinder until it reached approximately 90% capacity.
4. The pipe was submerged and aligned inside the cylinder.
5. The first frequency, 256Hz, was prepared.
6. The speaker was positioned over the pipe’s hole to allow sound vibrations.
7. The highest pitch, indicating the antinode’s location, was identified.
8. The point was marked on the ruler attached to the pipe.
9. A photograph was taken to record the precise distance between the top of the pipe and the antinode for
the 256Hz frequency.
10. The process was repeated three times for accuracy
11. The frequency was changed to 512Hz, and the procedure was replicated for three trials, marking and
documenting the antinode’s position each time.
12. A 1000Hz frequency was used to detect the first and third harmonics.
13. The process was repeated for each trial, marking and documenting the antinode’s position for the 1000Hz
frequency.
Risk Assessment Report:

Possible Hazard, and explanation was to why:
Water Spillage: is a hazard as it can lead to slippery
surfaces, increasing the risk of falls and accidents.
Additionally, the water can damage electronic
equipment, posing a threat to the practical and
potentially causing costly equipment failures.
Suggested Safe Operating Procedure to
minimize the hazard:
To minimize the risk of water spillage, a safety
procedure must be established. This includes ensuring
all containers and vessels are securely sealed and
positioned on stable surfaces, providing absorbent
materials like towels to quickly address any spills.

Hearing Damage: loud and unpleasant noise for a To minimize hearing damage, always ware
prolonged exposure to high sound levels can lead to appropriate hearing protection, such as ear muffs or
permanent hearing loss or impairment. earplugs, when working with loud frequencies, e.g.,
1000Hz.

Glass Breaking: it can result in sharp, jagged Handling glassware with care, and inspecting it for
fragments that may cause cuts or injuries to defects before use. In the event of glass breakage, use
individuals. protective equipment like gloves and safety glasses
and follow correct disposal procedures.

Overall, Hazard Assessment LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Risk Assessment: Hazard

(tick  any potential hazard)
Chemical Electrical Radiation
Solids ☐ Gas(es) 240v ☐ Laser ☐ Microwave ☐
Liquids Product ☐ High voltage ☐ Ionizing (e.g. Gamma) ☐
Biological Thermal Sharps
Insects ☐ Microbes ☐ Hot ☐ Scalpel/Blades ☐ Glass 

Plants ☐ Zoonoses ☐ Cold ☐ Pipettes ☐ Coverslips ☐

Animal ☐ Parasites ☐ Cryogenic ☐ Scissors ☐ Microscope slides ☐

Safety instructions and control measures

(Tick  for those to be read and followed)
SOP’s ☐ MSDS ☐ Code of Practice (safe use of Ionizing radiation in
Secondary Schools) ☐
Clean Up  Spillage  Code of Practice (for the use of lasers in
Secondary Schools) ☐

Safety Precautions
(Tick  for those to be used)
Gloves Aprons Lab Coats ☐ Safety Glasses
Wash Hands Safety Screen ☐ Fume Cupboard ☐ Heat Mats ☐
Special Disposal Tongs/Pegs ☐ Insulated Gloves ☐ Equipment left to cool ☐

Visual Inspection ☐ Electrical tag ☐ Tongs ☐ Other ☐

Record your risk assessment by ticking the appropriate boxes, (use the risk assessment matrix below if it is needed to
evaluate the risk in more detail)
Extreme Risk ☐ High Risk ☐ Medium Risk Low Risk 

 I have received the necessary training, instruction and supervision to use the materials required for this practical/task
and have implemented the control measures identified above
 Instructions for this practical activity include safety information
Student name: Mennatallah Kassim Date: 26/10/24

Results:
Temperature during the practical:

256Hz 512Hz 1000Hz

Temperature (ºC) 20 20 20

True value of the speed of sound at 20ºC is 343.3m/s

Length of the first harmonic (one open end, one closed end):

Frequency (Hz) 1st trial (cm) 2nd trial (cm) 3rd trial (cm) 4th trial (cm) 5th trial (cm)
256 31 31 31 31 31
512 14 14 14.4 14 14.3
1st 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.6 6.6
harmonic
1000
3rd 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5
harmonic

Wavelength of sound waves:

𝜆 3𝜆 4𝐿
𝐿 = ∴ λ = 4L 𝐿= ∴𝜆=
4 4 3

256 Hz 512Hz 1000z

1st harmonic (m) 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.31 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.141 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.0632
𝜆 = 4𝐿 𝜆 = 4𝐿 𝜆 = 4𝐿
𝜆 = 4 × 0.31 𝜆 = 4 × 0.141 𝜆 = 4 × 0.0632
𝜆 = 1.24 𝜆 = 0.564 𝜆 = 0.2528
3rd harmonic (m) DNH DNH 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 0.235
4𝐿
𝜆=
3
4 × 0.235
𝜆=
3
𝜆 = 0.313

Speed of sound of Standing waves:

𝑣 = 𝑓𝜆

256Hz 512Hz 1000Hz

Speed of sound 𝑣 = 𝑓𝜆 𝑣 = 𝑓𝜆 𝑣 = 𝑓𝜆
(𝑚𝑠 −1 ) of the 1st 𝑣 = 256 × 1.24 𝑣 = 512 × 0.564 𝑣 = 1000 × 0.2528
harmonic 𝑣 = 317.4 𝑣 = 288.8 𝑣 = 252.8
Speed of sound (𝑚𝑠 −1 ) DNH DNH 𝑣 = 𝑓𝜆
of the 3rd harmonic 𝑣 = 1000 × 0.313
𝑣 = 313
Percentage error:

256Hz 512Hz 1000Hz (1st 1000Hz (2nd

harmonic) harmonic)
Percentage error 7.54 15.9 26.4 8.82
(%)

Discussion:
The aim of this investigation was to successfully measure the speed of sound using the procedure of standing
waves in water. This was effectively achieved by following the procedure correctly, collecting data, and solving
equations to find the speed of sound. The results proved to follow the hypothesis and proved to have a great start
of 317.4 𝑚𝑠 −1 , though as frequency increased, the speed of sound decreased. This means that the frequency and
speed of sound are inversely proportional, as one increases the other decreases. The hypothesis of this experiment
was that if the frequency of sound increases, the distance from the top to the water column to the antinode will
decrease. Then, if the frequency decreases, the distance to the antinode will increase. Again, this was confirmed
as the 1000Hz’s first harmonic measured an average distance of 6.32 cm, while the lowest frequency of 256 Hz
measured an average distance of 31 cm.

Random errors are caused by unknown and unpredictable changes in the experiment, it can occur due to chance.
A random error that was present in the experiment was some of the acoustic interferences in the room. The cause
of this error was external sounds or background noise, such as people talking or other equipment running in the
vicinity. This random error significantly impacted the results, as the trials would have to be repeated to overcome
the results. It made it challenging to precisely detect the antinodes and the highest pitch, affecting the accuracy of
distance measurements. For example, in the third trial in 1000Hz, the interference led to the misinterpretation of
the highest pitch being, 6.3cm, as it is the only outlier in the data, resulting in ana incorrect measurement of the
distance of the antinode.

Another random error that was observed in this experiment was related to the mobile application that displayed
the frequencies. The cause of this error was the timer on the app, which ended spontaneously, causing the team to
lose track of where the distance measurement was in some instances. This random error had notable impact on
the results, particularly during trials where the timer ended unexpectedly. For instances, this occurred during the
512Hz trials, when the timer ended before the team could properly identify the antinode, causing for a retrial.

A systematic error occurs when an observed or calculated value deviates from the true value in a consistent way.
A systematic error that was presented in this experiment was when the 2nd ruler was taped onto the pipe, the 1st
ruler was easily taped as it was aligned to the tip of the piper, but the second ruler had to be meticulously attached
onto the pipe to continue the effect of the ruler to expand the measurement levels. The systematic error affected
all the results of the trials of the 256Hz as the distance extended over 30 cm, although the closest estimate was
calculated.

Precision refers to the closeness of two or more measurements to each other. The precision of this practical was
on point, there were no obvious outliers, all the trials presented identical or consistent numbers. This can be proven
again as when the total distance was averaged some of the frequency’s presented with the same number as the
repeated values. Hence the results are both precise and reliable, as consistency in values prove that

Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the true or accepted value. Based on the literature values they
were measured using percentage error. For 256Hz has a percentage error of 7.54%, 512 Hz was 15.9%, The first
harmonic for the 1000Hz was 26.4%, and lastly the third harmonic for 1000Hz was 8.82%. The overall percentage
error percentage is 14.7% which is great as it is under 50% meaning that the method was effective and
demonstrated accuracy. This proves that the results are accurate and valid.

Conclusion:
The aim of successfully measuring the speed of sound using standing waves in water was achieved by following
the experimental; procedure and analysing data. The data supported the hypothesis, demonstrating an inverse
relationship between frequency and speed of sound. However, some limitations including acoustic interferences
in the experiment room and issues with mobile application times, impacting the precision of distance
measurements. Despite minor systematic errors, the results were accurate, with a percentage error below 50%. In
conclusion, the aim was achieved, the results supported the hypothesis, and while limitation existed the practical
seemed to be conclusively valid.

References:

The Engineering ToolBox. (2003). Air - Speed of Sound vs. Temperature. Engineering ToolBox.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-speed-sound-d_603.html