Finding Object Distance for Upright Image with Magnification +1.51 for Concave Mirror

AI Thread Summary
To find the object distance for an upright image with a magnification of +1.51 for a concave mirror with a radius of curvature of 5.0 cm, the focal length is calculated as f = R/2, resulting in f = 0.025 m. The equations used include 1/Do + 1/Di = 1/f and m = -Di/Do. Substituting Di in terms of Do and simplifying the equations is recommended for easier calculations. Some participants suggest working in centimeters for simplicity. The original attempt at solving the problem contained errors in substitution and simplification, leading to an incorrect object distance.
longcatislong
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose the radius of curvature of a concave mirror is 5.0 cm
a) Find the object distance that gives an upright image with a magnification of +1.51.


Homework Equations



1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

m=-di/do=hi/ho


The Attempt at a Solution



First i convered all cm into m.

f=R/2, so .05/2 = .025.
1/.025=40

then I used m=-Di/Do. Since don't know Do or Di, I substituted for the unknowns using 1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

I came up with...
m=-[40-(1/Do)]/[40-1/(40-1/Do)] and solved for Do.

I got Do=.02506m.

Online HW says it's wrong.

Any help is GREATLY appreciated. What I did makes sense to me but obviously there's an error or just some major concept I don't understand. Thank you so much for taking the time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
longcatislong said:

Homework Statement



Suppose the radius of curvature of a concave mirror is 5.0 cm
a) Find the object distance that gives an upright image with a magnification of +1.51.

Homework Equations



1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

m=-di/do=hi/ho

The Attempt at a Solution



First i convered all cm into m.

f=R/2, so .05/2 = .025.
Okay, everything seems right so far. :approve:
1/.025=40
I'm not sure why you would want to invert that at this point in the process, but okay.
then I used m=-Di/Do. Since don't know Do or Di, I substituted for the unknowns using 1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f
Substitution is the right idea. :approve:
I came up with...
m=-[40-(1/Do)]/[40-1/(40-1/Do)] and solved for Do.
Now you've lost me. :rolleyes:

So far, you've already figured out
\frac{1}{D_o} + \frac{1}{D_i} = \frac{1}{f}
and
m = -\frac{D_i}{D_o}.
Rather than going the other way around, try substituting D_i = -mD_0 into the first equation. Also substitute f = R/2 into the first equation. It might make it a little easier to solve for D_o that way. (Hint: then find a common denominator for the left side of the equation :wink:)
 
Oh god that's SO much simpler than what I was trying to do. Thanks a million!
 
Glad it worked out. By the way, I find it easier to work in cm rather than meters for this problem. For example, "1/2.5" is easier (for me) to work with than "1/0.025". In the end you get the same answer, of course.
 
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 .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top