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:
 
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