Lens power/focal length question

  • Thread starter Thread starter StonieJ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Length Lens
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the focal length and power of a +20 diopter lens in water, leading to conflicting results of 22.5 diopters and 5.1 diopters. The correct approach involves using the lens maker's equation, which highlights the importance of the ratio of the lens's refractive index to that of the surrounding medium. When transitioning from air to water, the focal length increases and the power decreases due to the lesser bending of light in water. The final consensus emphasizes that the key factor is the ratio of the lens index to the medium index, explaining the significant change in focal length. Understanding this ratio clarifies the calculations and resolves the discrepancies in results.
StonieJ
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
A friend and I are getting conflicting answers for a focal length/power question. He says he gets 22.5 diopters, whereas I get 5.1 diopters, so I was wondering who's screwing up. Here is the question and my answer:

Q: If a +20 diopter lens is a symmetric double convex lens of index 1.50, what is its focal length and power when placed in a tank of water with index 1.33?


A:

Code:
f = 1/d = 1/20 = 0.05 m

Using lens maker's equation:

1/f = (n1/n2 - 1) (1/r1 - 1/r2)

Let (1/r1 - 1/r2) = K.

Solve for K in air (which will be the same in water).

1/0.05 m = (1.50 / 1.00 - 1)K
20 = (0.5)K
K = 40


Now plug in values for water:

1/f = (1.50/1.33 - 1) (40)
1/f = 5.1 diopters
f = 0.20 m

A priori, it seems to make sense that the focal length would increase and the power would decrease. Since the change of light going from water to the lens is less than the change of light going from air to the lens (in terms of indices of refraction), it seems that the light should be less bent in water and therefore travel further before converging to an image.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I seem to have a third opinion. :smile:

I don't recognize the equation you're using. The "lensmaker's equation" that I learned is:
\frac{1}{f} = (n-1)\left ( \frac{1}{R_1} - \frac{1}{ R_2} \right )

In your problem \left ( \frac{1}{R_1} - \frac{1}{ R_2} \right ) is constant so call it k and we have just
\frac{1}{f} = k(n-1)
20 = k(1.50-1)
k = 40
And then, in water:
\frac{1}{f} = 40(1.33-1)
\frac{1}{f} = 13.2 \; \text{diopters} \: = .076 \; \text{m}
 
Actually, I wasn't too familiar with that form of the lens maker's equation either, but the place I got it from is located here:

http://online.cctt.org/physicslab/content/Phy1/lessonnotes/thinlensequation/lensmakerequation.asp

(And I also noticed it here: http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~medgar/RayDiagram/

and here

http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~rgb/lens.htm)

I don't doubt that your answer is correct (considering a change of focal length of only a few centimeters is much more likely than about 15), but I'm still curious as to why exactly it works out. For example, when you solved for the value of K in air, you used the index of refraction of the lens, but when you solved for the focal length in the second part, you used the index of refraction of water. It just seems somewhat odd to at one point use the index of the material and in the second use the index of the medium. It seems like the indices of both the material and medium should be included together all the time, especially when the medium is changing (this is coming from a definitely NON-physics student, so forgive the egregious mistakes).


Just out of curiousity, what would be mathematically wrong with the following (which is yet ANOTHER mutation of this problem I've come up with):

Code:
The lens maker's equation more formally is:

n1/f = (n2 - n1) (1/r1 - 1/r2), where (1/r1 - 1/r2) = K.

In this case, n2 is the index of the material and n1 is the index of the medium

Let n = index of lens.
Let na = index of air.
Let nw = index of water.

In the case of air, we can solve for K by doing:

na/f = (n - na)(K)
1/0.05 = (1.5 - 1.0)(K) 
20 = (1.5 - 1.0)(K)
K = 40

But now in water...

nw/f = (n - nw)(K)
1.33/f = (1.5 - 1.33)(40)
1.33/f = 6.8 diopters
1/f = 5.11 diopters
f = 0.20 m


Which brings me back to the answer I originally got.

This problem will be the death of me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I guess my mind was somewhere else. You are right. I should have written:

in water:
\frac{1}{f} = 40 \left( \frac{1.50}{1.33} -1 \right )
\frac{1}{f} = 5.11 \; \text{diopters} \: = 0.20 \; \text{m}

What's important is not the index of refraction itself, but the ratio of the index of the lens to the index of the surrounding medium. In air the ratio is 1.50, in water the ratio is only 1.13. This accounts for the relatively large change in focal length.
 
Excellent. Thanks!
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top