Destructive interference in wavelengths question

AI Thread Summary
A nonreflective coating with a refractive index of 1.24 is applied to a camera lens with a refractive index of 1.52 to prevent reflection of yellow-green light at 564 nm. The wavelength of light in the coating is calculated to be approximately 454.84 nm. Initial calculations for the thickness of the coating using destructive interference equations yielded incorrect results. The user ultimately realized that they needed to account for phase shifts correctly, leading to a final thickness calculation of 341.13 nm, which was still incorrect due to a misapplication of the wave shift concept. The discussion highlights the complexities of calculating destructive interference in optical coatings.
StudentofPhysics
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
1. A nonreflective coating (n = 1.24) covers the glass (n = 1.52) of a camera lens. Assuming that the coating prevents reflection of yellow-green light (wavelength in vacuum = 564 nm), determine the minimum nonzero thickness that the coating can have.




2. wavelength of the light in the coating = wavelngth of light / n of coating

desructive interference: 2t = (1,2...) wavelngth coating
t=thickness




3. OK the wavelngth of the light through the coating is: 564/1.24 = 454.84

I figured maybe that was all i needed and attempted to find t.

2t=1(454.84)
t= 227.42

this was not correct, so I next proceded to find the wavelength once through the film to the glass:

454.84/1.52 = 299.24 nm

The destructive interference for this is:

2t = (1) 299.24
t= 149.62 nm

This too was incorrect.

I even tried plugging in the original wavelength of 564 nm with the n of glass; 1.52, then solving for t. This gave me:

564/1.52 = 371.05
2t= (1) 371.05
t= 185.53


None of these were correct.

Any thoughts on where am I going wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I've made some progress:

Since there are 2 1/2 wave shifts then the equation should be:

2t + 1 wavelength in film = (1/2) wavelength in film

this gave me an answer of 341.13 nm for t and is still incorrect though.
 
Ok nevermind I finally figured it out. I was adding the wave shift across the sides of the formula rather than subtracting it like I should have.

Thanks to those who considered it for me though. :smile:
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top