Approximating the Edge of a Lens as a Prism

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around using the Lensmaker's Formula to find the radius of curvature and minimum thickness of a lens, while addressing the challenge of the formula's assumption of negligible thickness. The user contemplates using trigonometry to approximate the angle between the curved and planar surfaces, seeking confirmation on the accuracy of this approach. The conversation reveals that there are additional parts to the problem, specifically calculating the angular deviation of the lens and recalculating the focal length considering the prism approximation. The user anticipates that the new focal length will differ from the original due to this approximation, which introduces concepts like spherical aberration. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities of lens geometry and the implications of approximations in optical calculations.
Mr_Allod
Messages
39
Reaction score
16
Homework Statement
A convex planer lens has Diameter D = 3cm, focal length f = 10cm and refractive index n = 1.5
a. Find the minimum thickness of the lens which maintains the diameter D = 3cm
b. Approximate the top/bottom edge of the lens as a prism and find the angle ##\theta## shown.
Relevant Equations
Lensmaker's Formula: ##\frac 1 f = \frac {n_2-n_1} {n_1} \left( \frac 1 R_1 - \frac 1 R_2 \right)##
Convex - Planer Lens.JPG
Tangent to Circle.JPG
Prism.JPG


Hello there, for part a. of this problem I thought I should try to find the radius of curvature R of the lens using the Lensmaker's Formula. Then it would be quite easy to find the minimum thickness T by just finding the thickness of the circle segment using Pythagoras' Theorem. But part of deriving the Lensmaker's Formula is making the assumption that the thickness of the lens is negligible, so ##T \to 0##. So I'm not sure if I can actually use it here?

For part b., assuming that I know the thickness T, my first thought was to find the tangent to the circle at the point where the curved and planer surfaces meet. Then I would have the relationship $$90^{\circ} = \theta +\phi$$
And I would be able to find ##\theta## with trigonometry. But I don't know if this is the correct way to approximate the angle between the curved and planer surfaces, its just a guess that made sense to me at the time. So if there is a more accurate way to approximate it I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds like a plan. Your expression for the angle is exact for the edge as drawn. Is there a part (c) to the question? (I know what I would want for extra credit!)
 
hutchphd said:
Sounds like a plan. Your expression for the angle is exact for the edge as drawn. Is there a part (c) to the question? (I know what I would want for extra credit!)

Ah thank you, I'm glad to hear my hunch made sense.

Yes there is in fact a part (c) and also a part (d) actually, for part (c) we are asked to find the Angular Deviation of this approximated prism.

Then in part (d) the objective is to recalculate the focal length of the lens by finding the point of intersection of rays passing through the top and bottom edges. I'm guessing the new focal length will be slightly different from the original 10cm because of the prism approximation.
 
Yes that's a nice question and instructive. And you get to do the trigonometry, and are introduced to spherical aberration.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top