Lab O2 Analysis

docx

School

California State University, Northridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100B

Subject

Physics

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by BrigadierElectronElephant21

Report
Lab O-2: Refraction and Thin Lenses Analysis 1. Convex f = 12.40 + 12.40 2 = 12.40 cm Concave f = 10.80 +(− 12.00 ) 2 =− 11.4 cm f avg = | 12.40 | + | 11.4 | 2 = 11.9 cm 2. f mirror = 6.30 + 6.20 2 = 6.25 cm R = 2 f mirror = 2 ( 6.25 ) = 12.5 cm 3. 1 f avg =( n l 1 )( 1 R 1 1 R 2 ) 1 11.90 =( n l 1 )( 1 12.5 ( 1 12.5 ) ) 1 11.90 =( n l 1 )( 2 12.5 ) n l 1 = ( 1 11.90 )( 12.5 2 ) n l = 1 + ( 1 11.90 )( 12.5 2 ) n l = 1.53 4. d avg = 2.30 + 2.40 2 = 2.35 cm
t avg = 3.85 + 3.80 2 = 3.825 = 3.83 cm n = t avg d avg = 3.83 2.35 = 1.63 Questions 1. a. When combining the concave and convex lenses, it was seen that the light did not refract, rather they continued to go straight like they were before entering the lens. Since the radius of the convex lens, R 2 , is equal to the radius of the radius of the concave lens, R 1 , the light is not refracted. And since the light continued in a straight line like it was before entering the lenses, it shows that the focal points of the two lenses have the same absolute values, but opposite signs. b. The focal lengths for the concave and convex lenses were similar, but not the same when measured by my partner and myself. In fact, my partner had closer measurements of the focal lengths (concave = 12.00cm, convex = 12.40cm) than I did (concave = 10.80cm, convex = 12.40cm). This difference could be caused by one of us improperly tracing the lines, or making a mistake in the actual measurement. However, considering the radii of the convex and concave lenses are the same, but inverted, this should mean that the focal points of the convex and concave lenses should be the same value, with the measurement for the convex lens being positive and the concave lens being negative. This would mean my partner’s measurement is more
accurate than mine, as his focal point measurements were closer to their absolute values than mine were. c. Could not do 1D. 2. % Error | Expected Experimental Expected | 100 = | 1.5 1.53 1.5 | 100 = 2.00% Our measured index of refraction was greater than the expected index of refraction of acrylic by just 2%, meaning our measurement was accurate. We could have been more accurate, however, if my measured values for the concave and convex lenses had been closer in absolute value to each other. This would have led to a more accurate f avg , which would have given us a value closer to the accepted value of the index of refraction of acrylic, 1.5. 3. % Error | Expected Experimental Expected | 100 = | 1.5 1.63 1.5 | 100 = 8.67% Our measured index of refraction was greater than the expected index of refraction of acrylic by 8.67%, making it less accurate than the index of refraction calculated from the lensmaker’s formula. There are two main reasons as to why this could be. The first is that there could have been inaccuracies in the measurement of the depth of the acrylic block. If the depth measurement had been slightly greater, then our answer would have been more accurate. The second option is that the apparent depth formula is not as accurate as the lensmaker’s formula. If this is true, then this could also be a cause for the inaccuracy.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help