How Do You Calculate Image Distance with Magnification in a Converging Lens?

AI Thread Summary
In calculating image distance with magnification in a converging lens, the relationship q = (1+m)f is established, where q is the image distance, f is the focal length, and m is the magnification. The discussion highlights confusion in the mathematical derivation, particularly when manipulating the equations for magnification and lens formula. It is clarified that the equation q = (1+m)f is a general formula applicable in all real situations when using non-negative magnification conventions. The conversation also notes that the only case where object distance p equals image distance q occurs at twice the focal length, resulting in a magnification of 1. Overall, the equation is affirmed as valid, although the initial question posed may have contained inaccuracies.
ben488
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If I have a converging lens, of focal length f, and magnification of the image m, where q is the distance of the image from the lens show that q = (1+m) f

m = - q/p
1/f = 1/p + 1/q


I just need to show that they are equal, but I am getting confused with the maths..

q= (1 - (q/p)) (1/(1/p + 1/q))
q= (1 - (q/p))(qp/(p+q)
q= (qp/p + q) - (q/p)(qp/(p+ q)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If by "they" you mean p=q, you could look at the scene from the ray diagram point of view. The only situation where p=q for a converging lens, is when both are at a point at 2x the focal length of the lens. At this point, the gemoetry is perfectly symmetrical, and image is the same size as the object, therefore, magnification is 1 (w
 
ben488 said:
I just need to show that they are equal, but I am getting confused with the maths..

q= (1 - (q/p)) (1/(1/p + 1/q))
q= (1 - (q/p))(qp/(p+q)
Good. Rearranging, this becomes:
q= [(p-q)/p][qp/(p+q)] = [(p-q)/(p+q)]q

Well, looks like it's not true! :eek:

Perhaps they meant to write: q = (1-m)f
 
Actually I get unity each time I do it (actually 1= -1). So then I noticed that the first equation:
q= (1+m)f
is derived directly from the thin-lens and magnification equations, if you use m=q/p (no negative).

So the equation q=(1+m)f is a general equation (true for all real situations) not a specific equation, as long as you are using the non-negative convention for the magnification equation.

There is a problem with the question, as stated.
 
thanks so much for all your help, its great.

Ben
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top