How Does Water Alter the Diameter of Newton's Rings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frosty128
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Optics Rings
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the new diameter of the third bright ring in Newton's rings when water fills the space between a planoconvex lens and a flat glass surface. The original diameter is provided, along with the indices of refraction for the lens, glass plate, and water. The key equation for the radius of the Nth bright ring is presented, but the user struggles with the absence of the wavelength of light needed for calculations. They recognize that the third bright ring corresponds to constructive interference, indicating a specific film thickness. The conversation highlights the challenge of solving the problem without the wavelength value.
Frosty128
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Newton's rings can be seen when a planoconvex lens is placed on a flat glass surface. For a particular lens with an index of refraction of n= 1.51 and a glass plate with an index of n= 1.78, the diameter of the third bright ring is 0.760 mm.

If water (n= 1.33) now fills the space between the lens and the plate, what is the new diameter of this ring?

Homework Equations



rN = [(N-0.5)λR]1/2

r=radius of Nth bright ring
N=ring number
λ=wavelength of light that passes through the glass
R=radius of curvature of the lens

The Attempt at a Solution



If I was given a value for λ for the wavelength of light, I know I could simply plug in everything to find the radius of curvature of the planoconvex lens, then divide λ by 1.33 and solve for the new r3, but with the given data I am not sure how to find the wavelength of light, or if there is some other way to go about solving this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I forgot to mention that, since this is the third bright ring, this must be the third instance of constructive interference, so that the thickness of the film at that point must equal (3/2)λ, but I do not know where to go from there.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top