Table 32

Table 32-1 5 5 15 15 25 25 35 35 45 45 It is the same angle measured as the incidence. It is mirrored from the m 55 55 65 65 75 75 85 85 90 90 85 32.6 1.85 1.849 0.05 75 31.5 1.85 1.849 0.05 65 29.3 1.85 1.851 0.05 55 26.3 1.85 1.849 0.05 45 22.5 1.85 1.848 0.12 35 18.1 1.85 1.846 0.22 25 13.2 1.85 1.851 0.05 15 8.04 1.85 1.85 0 5 2.7 1.85 1.85 0 equation used: n1(sin(theta1))=n2(sin(theta2)) 85 52.8 1.25 1.251 0.08 75 50.6 1.25 1.25 0 65 46.5 1.25 1.2494 0.048 55 40.9 1.25 1.251 0.08 45 34.5 1.25 1.248 0.16 35 27.3 1.25 1.251 0.08 25 19.8 1.25 1.248 0.16 q inc ( o ) q refl ( o ) Questions 32-1 : 1. What relationship did you find between the incide Table 32-2: Angle of Incidence [°] Record angle of refraction [°] Nominal index of refraction for 600nm Calculate index of refraction using n[air]=1 % error column D and C Table 32-3: Angle of Incidence [°] Record angle of refraction [°] Nominal index of refraction for 500nm Calculated index of refraction using n[air]=1 % error column D and C

15 11.9 1.25 1.255 0.4 5 4 1.25 1.2494 0.048 Do not edit the below cells: #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1. What do you expect your percent errors for the two sets of calculations for the index of refraction I expected them to not be so drastic in comparis on to the theoretic al value which they were not.

n to look like?