How Do Newton Rings Help Calculate Lens Curvature?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the radius of curvature of a lens using data from a Newton rings experiment. Measurements of the diameters of the first five rings were plotted against their respective ring numbers, resulting in the equation D^2 = 0.0093N + 0.0011 mm². Participants highlighted the importance of unit accuracy and the need to correctly interpret the experimental equation in relation to the theoretical model. Calculations for the radius of curvature yielded a value that was initially deemed too small, prompting a reevaluation of units and decimal placements. Ultimately, the correct radius of curvature was estimated to be around 39.5 cm, leading to a calculated lens power of approximately +1.5.
bondgirl007
Messages
73
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



These are problems from a Newton rings experiment where a lens was placed on a flat surface and the interference patterns created Newton rings. I measured the diameter of the first five rings and then plotted a graph of d^2 against N (number of the individual ring).

These are my x and y values:

N D^2
1 0.011 mm
2 0.019 mm
3 0.029 mm
4 0.038 mm
5 0.048 mm

From this, I found the slope of the graph and the intercept of the line on the y-axis as I got an equation of y=0.0093x+ 0.0011. From this, I was told to graphically calculate r (radius of curvature of unknown lens) and then calculate r for each ring using the formula d^2 = 4 (lamba) r N + constant where lamba = 589.3 nm and the constant is the y-intercept.

This is what the first question is asking...
1. What is the radius of curvature of this lens? Show your results as separate calculations for each value of N. After doing this, I am required to calculate the power of the lens, assuming the refractive index of the lens is 1.523.

Homework Equations



y=0.0093x+0.0011 which translates to...
d^2 = [4*lamba*r]N + b

F = n'-n/r (for power of the lens after finding r)

The Attempt at a Solution



For the first part where it says graphically calculate r from the slope:

y=0.0093x + 0.0011

I am unsure how to get radius from this...

I tried:
9300 nm^2 = 4 (589.3 nm)(r)
r = 3.95 mm but this seems incorrect...

I would really appreciate help on this!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
bondgirl007 said:

Homework Statement



These are problems from a Newton rings experiment where a lens was placed on a flat surface and the interference patterns created Newton rings. I measured the diameter of the first five rings and then plotted a graph of d^2 against N (number of the individual ring).

These are my x and y values:

N D^2
1 0.011 mm
2 0.019 mm
3 0.029 mm
4 0.038 mm
5 0.048 mm
Please check the units of D^2 in that table.

Are these D^2 or D?
How did you measure to such a high level of accuracy?

From this, I found the slope of the graph and the intercept of the line on the y-axis as I got an equation of y=0.0093x+ 0.0011.
Since you plotted D^2 vs N, you do not have x and y values. You have N and D^2 values. Your equation should be:

D^2=(0.0093)N+(0.0011) mm2

Never use generic variables.
Always include units.

From this, I was told to graphically calculate r (radius of curvature of unknown lens) and then calculate r for each ring using the formula d^2 = 4 (lamba) r N + constant where lamba = 589.3 nm and the constant is the y-intercept.
What color corresponds to that wavelength?
Does that match the color you used?

This is what the first question is asking...
1. What is the radius of curvature of this lens? Show your results as separate calculations for each value of N.
So you compared the theoretical equation with the equation you determined experimentally.

you have
theory: d^2 = 4λrN + c
experiment: d^2 = (0.0093mm)N + (0.0011mm)
therefore: 4λr=?

I tried:
9300 nm^2 = 4 (589.3 nm)(r)
r = 3.95 mm but this seems incorrect...
... that does seem a tad small. What sort of radius would be plausible?
Note: 0.0093mm2 ≠ 9300nm2
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply and tidying up my equation!

4λr should equal 0.0093 mm. I tried plugging it in as follows and still get the same answer..

0.0093 mm = 4(0.0005893mm)r
r= 3.95 mm

These measurements were obtained using a Vernier scale, thus they are to three decimal places.
The final answer, which is the surface power of the lens and obtained using the equation (n'-n)/R is around +1.5, which would mean the radius of curvature is around 0.35 m. I am not sure if my units are off with the decimals...
 
I think you have misplaced the decimal point - yes.
If 4λr=0.093mm, then r=39.5cm - which is the right order of magnitude.

A micrometer scale makes more sense for vernier calipers too.

For the future: you should make some effort to get a crude measurement (scientific estimate) for important properties as a kind-of reality check. The curve of the glass could have been traced, or you could work it out by rocking it and sighting the angle. This is stuff you learn from experience... it gets so you don't even notice yourself doing it half the time.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top