Deriving linear magnification from refraction angles

3 replies · 3K views · last reply
Baal Hadad
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Given the diagram below, I would like to derive the expression for linear magnification:
Relevant Equations
$$m=\mod{\frac{n_1v }{n_2u}}$$
I tried assumed ##\theta \approx sin \theta \approx tan \theta##.
By Snell's law(after approximation),
$$n_1 \tan( i_1)= n_2 \tan( i_2)$$
If ##\tan (i_1)=\frac {h_o}{ u}## and ##\tan (i_2)=\frac {h_i}{ v}##,then
$$m=\frac {h_i}{h_o}=\mod{\frac {v n_1}{un_2}}$$
Which is the expected expression.
I don't consider orientation of image here.
The point that I confused is why##\tan (i_1)=\frac {h_o}{ u}## and ##\tan (i_2)=\frac {h_i}{ u}##.
I even can't find the height of image and object from this diagram,and how the height is related with the angle ##i_1## and ##i_2##.
Can anyone help me?
Thanks in advance.
 
Attachments
  • Ray diagram of refraction at a spherical surface with centre C, showing object O at distance u, image I at distance v, and labels n1, n2, angles alpha, i1, i2, beta, gamma and heights h, r on the optical axis.
    15638045496385286667207122650364.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 401
Baal Hadad said:
The point that I confused is why##\tan (i_1)=\frac {h_o}{ u}## and ##\tan (i_2)=\frac {h_i}{ u}##.
I am confused about the same point. I see neither ##h_o## nor ##h_i## in the figure. Can you post a revised figure? If you do, please make sure that it's at the appropriate orientation.
 
kuruman said:
I am confused about the same point. I see neither ##h_o## nor ##h_i## in the figure. Can you post a revised figure? If you do, please make sure that it's at the appropriate orientation.
Here is the situation:
The diagram above is used to derive the refraction formula by my lecturer.After deriving,he directly introduce (without new diagrams ) when ##r=infinity## the right hand term becomes zero and then below the magnification formula.Do these two are related?
Anyway,so I assume the magnification formula is derived from the same diagram as no new diagram is given.
For now,I only found that Pedrotti has the relevant topics but still the diagram is as below attached.But still don't have the image height and object height.
Sorry that I can't find relevant diagrams (or I don't understand which diagram can be used).
 
Attachments
  • Ray diagram of refraction at a curved spherical surface labelled Geometrical Optics, showing center C, vertex V, points I, O and Q, object and image heights h and h', refractive indices n1 and n2, and the Normal line.
    Screenshot_20190723_065733.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 420
Baal Hadad said:
The point that I confused is why##\tan (i_1)=\frac {h_o}{ u}## and ##\tan (i_2)=\frac {h_i}{ u}##.
Oh,and sorry for typos.It should be ##\tan (i_2)=\frac {h_i}{ v}##.

Well,I found the relevant diagram just next page of the posted page of Pedrotti,sorry for bringing everyone much trouble.
Thank you.
 
Attachments
  • Ray diagram of refraction at a spherical surface with vertex V and center of curvature C, showing object height h_o at distance s, image height h_i at distance s', and refractive indices n1 and n2 on either side.
    Screenshot_20190723_202236.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 388
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G