Why Are My Newton's Rings Experiment Results Inconsistent?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around inconsistencies in the results of a Newton's Rings experiment, where a plano-convex lens produces dark rings observed through a microscope. The experiment aims to calculate the lens's radius of curvature using a specific formula, but the calculated slope from the graph of ring diameters is significantly larger than expected, leading to a discrepancy with the radius obtained from a spherometer. Participants suggest potential errors, such as mixing units or omitting factors in calculations, but the original poster insists that these have been checked. Despite achieving a nearly perfect linear fit in the graph, the mismatch in results raises concerns about the accuracy of the measurements. The conversation highlights the challenges in experimental physics and the importance of meticulous data analysis.
TachyonLord
Messages
54
Reaction score
6
When monochromatic light is incident on a plano convex lens(as shown in the picture), these dark rings are produced which are observed with the help of a traveling microscope.
Picture1.jpg
maxresdefault.jpg

The procedure requires us to measure the diameter of each ring (We need to measure the diameter of at least 10 rings).
This is done by noting down the microscope reading at the left and right end of the ring and then subtracting the readings. The aim of the experiment is to calculate the radius of curvature of the given lens(which can also be done using a spherometer and we also do that to verify the result)

The radius is calculated using the formula $$ R = \frac {D^2_n - D^2_m} {4(n-m)λ} $$ where λ is the wavelength of the light used (For sodium, it is 589.3nm)

As a result, if we plot a graph as D2 vs n(where n is the ring number), we get a straight line.
As a result the formula can be simplified to $$ R = \frac {c} {4λ} $$
where c is the slope
The problem I'm encountering is that I get a very very nice fit for my graph, its almost a perfectly fitted straight line but the slope that I get is much much larger as compared to what we are supposed to get. When I tried to measure the radius using a spherometer, I got around 147cm which is really far from the radius that I get using the graph.
In order to get anything about 140cm, the slope from the graph should be around 0.03 but I get 0.218 which is really really far (and incorrect if you may but the straight graph just messes up my intuition).
I'll attach the graph:
14055086_10154050222533702_2639753554470574213_n.jpg


The radius found using the spherometer is much more likely to be correct but the graph that I got from my set of observations is near perfect too. It would be extremely wonderful if anyone could find out what is wrong or where I went wrong. I can't really ask my profs now because uni is closed for a week.
Thank you!
 

Attachments

  • Picture1.jpg
    Picture1.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 4,979
  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 1,820
  • 14055086_10154050222533702_2639753554470574213_n.jpg
    14055086_10154050222533702_2639753554470574213_n.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 3,510
  • Like
Likes horizz
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't been through the calculations but I see there is a factor of approximately ten difference. Are you using a mix of cm and mm, by any chance? It's easily done.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I haven't been through the calculations but I see there is a factor of approximately ten difference. Are you using a mix of cm and mm, by any chance? It's easily done.
I did consider that but I'm pretty sure I haven't and even if there was, since we're plotting D2 vs n, the error would either be of 100 or 0.01 because we're squaring D.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
TachyonLord said:
I did consider that but I'm pretty sure I haven't and even if there was, since we're plotting D2 vs n, the error would either be of 100 or 0.01 because we're squaring D.
Have you dropped the factor of 4 somewhere?
 
tech99 said:
Have you dropped the factor of 4 somewhere?
Like radius squared vs diameter squared ??
 
tech99 said:
Have you dropped the factor of 4 somewhere?
No, I'm pretty sure I haven't. I can send in a couple of my readings if you want to.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top