Finding Convex Lens Focal Length

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the focal length of a convex lens using recorded data on image distance (di) and magnification (M). Participants analyze the relationship between these variables through the lens formula and graphing techniques. The gradient of the graph is identified as 1/f, indicating that it represents the focal length rather than a constant object distance (do). Clarifications are sought regarding the manipulation of the lens formula and the significance of multiplying by di in the calculations. The conversation emphasizes understanding the relationship between magnification, image distance, and focal length to accurately derive the focal length of the lens.
dh743
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Following data recorded:

Di (distance image to lens) 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Magnification 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8

Graph magnification against di and use the graph to find the focal length of the lens.



Homework Equations


\frac{1}{di}+\frac{1}{d(object)]}=\frac{1}{f}
M=\frac{di}{do}


The Attempt at a Solution


I worked out that the gradient should be equal to \frac{M}{di}
=\frac{1}{do}

Since the gradient is obviously 0.2, this leaves me with a constant value for do of 5cm, which is in fact the correct answer for the focal length. It doesn't make sense that there would be constant do value, nor does it make sense that this value would be the same as the focal length since no image is formed when object on focal length. Any instruction on manipulating these formulae is much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Th lens formula is
1/di + 1/do = 1/f

1 + di/do = di/f or
1 + M = di/f. or M = di/f - 1
It is in the form
y = mx + c. Here y is M, x is di and m is 1/f.
 
rl.bhat said:
Th lens formula is
1/di + 1/do = 1/f

1 + di/do = di/f or
1 + M = di/f. or M = di/f - 1
It is in the form
y = mx + c. Here y is M, x is di and m is 1/f.

Thanks for the reply. So you've multiplied everything by di, but what does that actually show? As in why would you do it? Also, why isn't the gradient simply 1/do since (di/do)/di = 1/do?
 
You have collected data by keeping the screen at 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 and adjusting the position of the object to get clear image. In that position you have measured the magnification.
so you have drawn the graph of image distance vs magnification.
The gradient is (M1 - M2)/di1 - di2)
The gradient is 1/f, not 1/do. In the problem do is not constant.
To draw the graph, you have to form the relation between M, di and f by using the lens formula.
 
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...
Back
Top