Aim The aim of this experiment is to investigate the propagation of ultrasound through water.

In particular, we will make an estimate of the speed of sound in water and investigate how impurities affect this result. Introduction If a sound wave propagates through a medium, we have
v= B

where B is the adiabatic bulk modulus of the medium considered. If we introduce many small hard particles into the medium, the speed of sound will be approximately B0 (1 + C) 1 v= v0 1 + ( )C 0 (1 + C) 2 where is a constant and a constant related to the volume excluded by the particles and C is the concentration of particles introduced. Experiment Basic setup. An ultrasonic transmitter-receiver system was setup within the glass cell as shown in gure 1. Both the transmitter and receiver were xed into place using retort stands. To reduce the errors arising due to reection at the glass-transmitter interface, the transmitter was wetted with glycerol before placing it into contact with the glass cell. For the experiment, the relative distance between the receiver and transmitter is to be varied. To ensure maximum accuracy, we placed the transmitter directly in line with the receiver. The receiver was connected to a micrometer drive in order to measure the displacement from the transmitter to a high accuracy. The transmitter, receiver and micrometer drive were held in place using retort stands.

retort stand micrometer drive

receiver

transmitter receiver

Figure 1a: Schematic of the experimental setup.

Figure 1b: Schematic of the receiver setup.

Signal input. To generate signals, the transmitter and receiver was connected to a oscilloscope and signal generator. The oscilloscope was triggered via channel 2, by the signal generator. The recorded signals at the receiver were input into the oscilloscope via channel 1. Finally, the values of

Figure 3: Setup of the oscilloscope. The time division setting, not visible, is 2s. the oscilloscope are calibrated to produce two sine waves on the oscilloscope screen. The signal generator was set at 788 kHz. Signal setup. The principle of the experiment is to measure the number of wavelengths travelled by the receiver relative to the distance travelled. To achieve this, we turned the knob of the micrometer anticlockwise until the signals of the transmitter and receiver were in phase (ie, the peaks and the troughs coincide exactly). This is the starting point of the experiment. In theory, as the receiver moves, it will move out of phase, and at integer wavelengths, the two signals will be in phase again. Data collection. We collected values of distance travelled by the receiver, l against the number of wavelengths travelled, m. Because the experiment starts when the signals are in phase (and start to go out of phase once the receiver is moved), we dene one wavelength travelled every time the signals return back into phase. To avoid mechanical backlash, we turn the micrometer knob clockwise, that is, in the opposite direction from that described in the section above. Moreover, during the experiment, we made sure to turn the knob only in the clockwise direction. Results Collected data for tap water. The table of results is shown in table 1 below. The details of raw calculations, conversions, and error calculations (error bar calculations) are shown in annex A.
Number of wavelengths, m Distance travelled, l / mm 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.92

4.02

6.11

8.26

10.11

12.21

Table 1: Values for tap water experiment.

10

Cumulative distance Linear Fit of Cumulative distance

Cumulative distance

Equation Adj. R-Square

y = a + b*x 0.99926 Value Standard Error 0.07905 0.0203 0.18533 1.66371

Cumulative dista Intercept nce

Cumulative dista Slope nce

Number of wavelengths

Figure 4: Graph for distance travelled against wavelengths travelled for the tap water experiment. The y error bar has a magnitude of 0.11 mm (see annex A). Results for tap water. The table of results is shown in table 2 below. The details of raw calculations, conversions, and error calculations (error bar calculations) are shown in annex A.

14

12

Cumulative distance / mm

10

6
Equation y = a + b*x Value B Intercept -0.0838 Slope 2.22063 B Standard Err 0.01376 0.00646 Adj. R-Squar 0.99996

2 1 2 3

Number of wavelengths
Figure 4: Graph for distance travelled against wavelengths travelled for the salt water experiment. The y error bar has a magnitude of 0.03 mm (see annex B).

Estimates for the speed of sound in water. Since from denition, m is the number of wavelengths and l is the distance travelled, we have l v = = m f where v is the speed of sound in water and f is the frequency of signal used. Therefore, f l v= = fk m where k is the gradient of the graph. The error regression is given by dv = f dk + k df where dk is the standard error of estimate, evaluated in annexes A and B for both experiments. The error in frequency arising from the signal generator, df is estimated at 0.5 kHz. f was calibrated at 788 kHz on the signal generator. From this equation, we obtain (1311 87) m s-1 for the speed of sound in tap water and (1749 25) m s-1 for the speed of sound in salt water. These values compare with 1481 and 1507 ms-1 for pure water at 20C and 30C. Estimating -. Using equation 2, we have the relation
2 = C v 1 v0

Because no standard values are available for our tap water at the laboratory temperature, we estimate v0 to be about 1500 m s-1, ie, using the pure water estimate for a temperature between 20C and 30C. Discussion How accurate the estimate of speed of sound is. From common measurements1, we have a range of speed of sound between 1481 and 1507 ms-1 at 20C and 30C respectively. The estimate for salt water is clearly higher than that of tap water, which ts our expectations from equation 2. The factors affecting the accuracy of our estimate include: Purity of water. Due to the lack of availability of distilled water, we conducted this experiment using tap water. From equation 2, we can see that introduction of impurities raises the speed of sound in water. However, this is not the most important source of error as our speed of sound measured turns out to be slower than that of pure water between 20C and 30C. In-phase readings. For the experiment, we checked the relative phases of the signals from the signal generator and the receiver visually on a CRO. This introduces some inaccuracies because the signal in the receiver was not steady and uctuated a little. We could have instead input the two sets of signals on opposite axes, to form Lissajeau curves. We can then tell when the signals are in phase to good accuracy, when the curves are closed (ie, they form an ellipse). However, these inaccuracies probably do not affect the result much. We were able to take a set of precise readings, as shown in gures 4 and 5. A larger
1

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-water-d_598.html

source of error therefore arises due to systematic errors in the experiment, rather than random errors in the measurement process. Equipment. Imperfections in the equipment, oscilloscope, cables, etc would introduce both systematic errors (shifting all the data points in one direction) and random errors. Glass cell interface. The glass cell interface is an obstacle to an accurate result. Ultrasonic waves can reect off the glass cell, even though precaution was made by wetting the transmitter with glycerol. This step may not have reduced error sufciently, especially in the case for the tap water experiment. Why is larger than . In the derivation of equation 2, the density increases with 0 (1 + C) and the fractional change in volume is approximated by V V (1 C) V V 0

The liquid density is a function of concentration, which is in turn a function of the number of moles of substance. On the other hand, the fractional change in volume is small by denition because the added particles are dened to be small as well. In other words, if we add many particles with innitesimal volume, the density will change much more rapidly than the volume, which is in any case dened to vary minimally only. Therefore, is larger than . In this experiment, we saw that although approximately the same amounts of liquid were used for both the tap water and salt water measurements, the additional impurities in the salt water made a very noticeable difference to the bulk modulus, and therefore the speed of sound. Although the fractional change in volume was small, the density change was not as minimal. In fact, the speed of sound measured was 1311 m s-1 for the tap water, compared with 1749 m s-1 for the salt water, or 33% faster. Why the speed of sound increases in water compared to air. Compared to air, water is a much stiffer medium, or, in other words, it has a much larger bulk modulus compared to air. A stiffer medium allows energy to be transmitted more efciently. Therefore, we expect that the speed of sound is much larger in water than in air. Change of signal amplitude from receiver. During the experiment, we noticed that the signal amplitude from the receiver is smaller than the transmitted signal amplitude. This is to be expected because energy dissipates in directions away from the receiver. Moreover, as the receiver is moved closer to the transmitter, the amplitude increased slightly. We also expect this observation since the power emitted from the transmitter is proportional to the square of amplitude. The closer the receiver is, the lesser the energy losses in the direction towards the receiver, and therefore, the greater the received amplitude. Conclusion In this experiment, we investigated the properties of ultrasound in water by emitted a signal through both tap water and salt water. We evaluated the respective speeds of sound in tap water and salt water to be (1311 87) m s-1 for the speed of sound in tap water and (1749 25) m s-1 for the speed of sound in salt water. These values compare well with the standard values, and also verify the general suggestion from equation 2 that impurities causes the speed of sound to increase.

Annex A Raw data for tap water

Number of rounds (on micrometer) Division marking (on micrometer) Change in number of rounds, n Distance travelled by ne marking / mm Distance travelled by n rounds / mm Overall distance travelled / mm Cumulative distance travelled / mm

4 7 11 0 4 7 11

0 83 64 47 18 88 68 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.420 0.100 0.090 0.150 0.350 0.100 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.92 1.60 1.59 1.65 1.85 1.60 1.92 3.51 5.1 6.74 8.59 10.19

Table A1: Raw data for tap water. In quantifying the error bars in gure 4, we have not performed error analysis on the equation because the standard error of the estimate is much larger than the instrument error (in the order of 5 microns). The standard error of estimate. The standard error of the estimate is given by
(x x)2 standard error of estimate = n1
Number of wavelengths, m Cumulative distance, l / mm Distance between wavelengths, x / mm 1.59 1.59 1.64 1.85 1.60 Best tted cumulative distance / mm Best tted distance between wavelengths, x /mm 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 0.07 0.07 0.02 -0.19 0.06 Difference, xx

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.92 3.51 5.1 6.74 8.59 10.19

1.85 3.51 5.17 6.83 8.49 10.15

Table A2: Measuring the standard deviation of distance between wavelengths. From the values in table 2, the standard error of estimate is the standard deviation of the difference column (last column) in table A2, which is 0.11 mm.

Annex B Raw data for salt water

Number of rounds (on micrometer) Division marking (on micrometer) Change in number of rounds, n Distance travelled by ne marking / mm Distance travelled by n rounds / mm Overall distance travelled / mm Cumulative distance travelled / mm

11 0 4 9 14 3 8

14 39 91 54 97 52 11 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.13 0.26 0.19 0.22 0.23 0.21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.13 2.26 2.19 2.22 2.23 2.21 2.13 4.39 6.57 8.79 11.01 13.22

Table B1: Raw data for salt water. In quantifying the error bars in gure 5, we have not performed error analysis on the equation because the standard error of the estimate is much larger than the instrument error (in the order of 5 microns). The standard error of estimate. The standard error of the estimate is given by
(x x)2 standard error of estimate = n1
Number of wavelengths, m Cumulative distance, l / mm Distance between wavelengths, x / mm 2.26 2.18 2.22 2.22 2.21 Best tted cumulative distance / mm Best tted distance between wavelengths, x /mm 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 -0.04 0.04 0.00 -0.00 0.01 Difference, xx

1 2 3 4 5 6

2.13 4.39 6.57 8.79 11.01 13.22

2.14 4.36 6.58 8.8 11.02 13.24

Table B2: Measuring the standard error of estimate. From the values in table 2, the standard error of estimate, or the standard deviation of D, of is measured as 0.03 mm.