The Speed of Sound

Acoustics is a subject of great practical importance, and electronics plays a large role in the generation,
detection and measurement of sound. On this page, the measurement of the speed of sound, and some
topics that it brings up, will be described. This is not a general treatment of acoustics, of course, but only
of a few topics that are interesting and are good general knowledge for the experimenter. Other pages on
this website give further information on the physical and psychological aspects of sound.

The Newton-Laplace Formula

The difference in the speeds of propagation of light and sound are evident from the casual observation of
lightning. The sound follows the flash after a delay proportional to the distance, as if light propagated
instantaneously (which is does, for all practical purposes) and sound at a speed of 1100 ft/s or 340 m/s
under typical conditions. When we observe lightning, the paths of the sound rays are affected by the
vertical temperature gradient (lapse rate), so usually the thunder from any considerable distance passes
overhead.

This effect was used for one of the early determinations of the speed of sound. In 1709, Derham observed
cannon firing on Blackheath from 12.5 miles away with a telescope, north over the Thames from
Upminster Church tower. He timed the delay at from 55-63 s, which gave a speed of 1142 ft/s or 348 m/s,
a pretty good result. Isaac Newton had determined theoretically in 1686 that the speed of sound should be
the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the compressibility of air, , and the density, , or c =
1/ . We use c for the speed of sound. The compressibility is (1/V)( V/ p) = 1/p for an ideal gas, where
p is the pressure. This yields c = (p/ ). Unfortunately, this theory gave a value some 15% too low when
compared with Derham's and other results. The discrepancy was too large to be explained by
experimental error or inaccurate constants.

The mystery was not solved until 1816, when Laplace pointed out that the sound vibrations were too
rapid to allow thermal equilibrium, and the variations in density were adiabatic, not isothermal, as
Newton had assumed. The slight heating when a gas was compressed made it less compressible, which
would raise the predicted speed of sound to the observed value. In fact, S = T/ , where is the ratio of
the specific heat at constant pressure to the specific heat of constant volume. For diatomic gases like air,
at normal temperatures, = 1.40, approximately (for air, = 1.402). Laplace's formula, c = ( p/ ),
agrees excellently with experiment.

Using the ideal gas law p = RT/M, where T is the absolute temperature in K, R is the universal gas
constant 8314.32 J/K-kmol and M is the molecular weight in kg, we find c = ( RT/M). Since the
pressure and the density are proportional, the speed of sound is independent of pressure but proportional
to the square root of the absolute temperature. This is the result for an ideal gas, but it holds very well for
all gases at low pressure. The molecular weight of dry air is 28.966. Moist air has a lower density than dry
air, so the speed of sound is a little faster in it, but the difference is quite small. At 0°C, c = 331.4 m/s, and
at 20°C, c = 343.4 m/s. A value of 340 m/s is a good average value for normal conditions.

The speed of sound is remarkably dependent on the molecular weight of the gas. When helium (M = 4) is
breathed, the speed of sound is so high that all the vocal resonances on which the pitch of the voice
depends are raised in frequency, with the usual droll effect. Carbon dioxide (M = 44) would produce the
opposite effect, but is not healthy to breathe in the necessary concentration. Nitrous oxide (M = 40) would
produce a similar effect, but with few ill effects. The normal medium for sound is air, however, so these
variations are uncommon.

Ultrasonic Transducers
It turns out to be relatively easy to measure the speed of sound approximately
with the facilities of modern electronics. Ultrasonic ceramic sensors are
convenient for the purpose. A reasonable pair is manufactured by Panasonic
and is available from Digi-Key as receiver P9894 and transmitter P9895. I used
a cheaper pair from another distributor that seem to be similar. The transmitter
and receiver are both resonant at about 40 kHz, and have little output or
sensitivity away from this frequency. They use a ceramic element, which could
be barium titanate (BaTiO3), that is strongly piezoelectric. They are similar to
the ceramic microphones that contained a diaphragm-actuated ceramic "bimorph" that produced a signal
when it was distorted. It would be interesting to know the exact construction of these sensors, but this
information is not available to me. An idea of the construction of an ordinary ceramic microphone is
shown at the right.

The transmitter has a metal case and a black fiber back, marked with a T, with two pins for the
connections. The maximum voltage that can be applied is around 20 V, but I do not have specific
information for the one I used, so I kept the voltage as low as possible (5 - 10 V peak-to-peak). The sound
pressure level (SPL) produced by the transmitter is given as 105 dB. To use this figure, one must know
what SPL is, and how the value was measured, but this information does not accompany the catalog
entry.

The sound pressure level in dB is defined as SPL = 20 log10 (p/po), where p is the overpressure in the
wave, and po is a reference pressure. Where human hearing is involved, po = 200 b (a b, microbar, is
the same as 1 dyne/cm2, or 1 Pa). An SPL of 0 dB is just audible under the best conditions with this
reference. For other purposes, po = 1 mb is used. A millibar (mb) is the usual unit. It is not clear which
one is used here, but I suspect it is the latter.

With a reference pressure of 200 b, ordinary conversation is SPL 70 dB, and anything over 140 dB is
damaging. Of course, these figures are for audible frequencies (20 Hz - 10 kHz) only.

The receiver has an all-metal case. Like the transmitter, it is 16 mm in diameter and 12 mm long. The
connections are made to two pins on the back, one soldered to the case. Its sensitivity is listed as -70
dBV/mb. Since the dBV is defined as dBV= 20 log10 V (reference value 1 V), this is the same as 0.315
mV/mb. This seems to be a middling value, between the -45 dB for a carbon microphone and the -85 dB
for a moving-coil microphone. Again, the results will depend on the conditions of measurement. One
might presume that this is the sensitivity when isolated in a free field that is not sensibly disturbed by the
presence of the microphone. On the other hand, the specifications could be for the sensors in an infinite
baffle.

In any case, the resonant nature of these sensors means that all of these figures are strongly dependent on
frequency.

Measuring the Speed of Sound

The sensors should be mounted securely. I put them in 5/8" holes bored in short pieces of 1 x 2. The
transmitter was clamped to a length of 1 x 2 with a C-clamp, while the receiver was free to move back
and forth, secured in any position with an elastic band. The
distance from transmitter to receiver could be varied up to about
300 mm. This is certainly not ideal, but was fast and convenient.
You will have no success without some such method of support.

The transmitter was driven directly by the 600 output of a

function generator, while the output of the receiver was examined
by an oscilloscope probe, without any amplification. The setup is
shown at the right. It is remarkable that this worked well enough,
though some amplification would have been convenient. Connect
the receiver to channel 2, and the output of the signal generator to
channel 1. Observe the output of the sensor as the frequency is varied, and set the frequency for
maximum response, which will be a compromise resonant frequency for the two sensors. This frequency
will be quite close to 40 kHz. Use only sufficient transmitter voltage to produce a usable received signal.

Now arrange the oscilloscope for XY display. Adjust the gains so that the ellipse has axes at as close to
45° as possible, and varies from lines to a circle as the receiver is moved. What we are looking at is the
phase difference between the signal applied by the function generator and the signal received by the
sensor. When the sensor is moved so that a complete cycle of Lissajous figures has occurred, it has
moved one wavelength. I quickly found a wavelength to be about 8 mm. This gives c = 40 kHz x 8 mm =
320 m/s, which is satisfactory.

This experiment can be carried out equally well with a pair of loudspeakers with matching (audio output,
5000 - 8 ) transformers. In this form, it is a classic.

This measurement, based on the variation of phase with distance, is the

phase velocity, obeying the familiar formula c = f , which is illustrated at
the left. A wave front propagates normal to itself at the phase velocity.
This explains very clearly why a sound wave is bent upwards if it is
cooler aloft, as is generally the case, so that sounds are generally not
heard at large distances. If the phase velocity varies with the frequency,
the medium is called dispersive. For ordinary sound waves in air, the
speed of sound does not depend on the frequency, so the propagation is
nondispersive. This means that the different frequency components of a
complex signal do not get out of step, and the shape of the wave is preserved. For very strong sound
waves, this is no longer true. The higher frequencies propagate faster, and catch up with the lower ones,
producing a shock wave of typical form.

We could also measure the sound speed with a sharp pulse or impulse, rather than a wave of definite
frequency (but not with these resonant sensors!). In this case, we would be measuring the group velocity,
which can differ from the phase velocity. If the medium is nondispersive, then the phase and group
velocities are the same. This is generally the case with sound, so we can measure the sound velocity either
way. Our sensors give phase velocity, Derham's cannon group velocity, but they will be the same.

We varied the distance in our measurement. It is also possible to vary the frequency. If we have a path of
fixed length D, then if N waves just fit for a frequency f1, N + 1 will jut fit for a slightly higher frequency
f2. Then, a little algebra shows that c = D(f2 - f1). If we try this with our sensors, taking D as the distance
between them, and using the oscilloscope to detect changes, we do not get very good results. The reason
is that there is an unknown and variable difference in phase between the applied voltage and the acoustic
pressure of the transmitter, due to the effects of resonance.

If we wish to make more accurate measurements, the easiest way would be to move the sensor a number
of wavelengths, and then divide the total distance by the number of wavelengths. With my crude
apparatus, it is difficult to count the wavelengths, but it would be quite possible if there were a better way
to move the sensor steadily. This would improve our results by about a factor of 10 or 20. Actually,
knowing the approximate wavelength, it would not be necessary to count each wavelength. The total
distance would give the approximate number of wavelengths, and the exact position of a node would give
the distance. Procedures like this, but in reverse, are often used in laser determinations of distance.

It becomes evident that the exact determination of the speed of sound, to, say one part in ten thousand, is
not a simple task. It depends on the elimination of various sources of error and bias. One apparatus for
accurate measurement is the acoustic interferometer, where the distance between fixed reflectors is
varied. There are very sharp resonances in this case. Such methods are required to study the dispersion of
acoustic waves.