Number of Visible Diffraction Orders on a Grating

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sabrina_18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diffraction Light
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the number of visible diffraction orders for light of wavelength 500 nm incident on a grating with 600,000 lines per meter. The initial calculation suggested that only one order of diffraction would be visible, but further analysis revealed that the correct approach involves determining the grating spacing and applying the diffraction equation. After recalculating with the correct values, it was concluded that three orders of diffraction would be visible. The final consensus confirmed that the calculations were accurate and the problem was resolved. Understanding the relationship between wavelength, grating spacing, and diffraction angles is crucial for solving such problems.
Sabrina_18
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How many orders of diffraction will be visible if light of wavelength 500nm fals on a grating with 600 000 lines per metre?


Homework Equations



n = dsinѲ / λ


The Attempt at a Solution



n = 6X10⁵m ÷ 5 X 10ˉ⁷m = 1.2
So 1 order of diffraction will be visible is this right??

I don't have the angle so I could put it into the equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that d is really (1/600,000) m, so that 600,000 lines would fit in 1 m.
 
Another way to pose this question is: how many maxima do you see between theta=0 and theta=90 degrees?

Consider that for a maximum to appear on the wall or the screen in front of the grating the angle theta can never be more than 90 degrees. (Recall that sin(theta) ~ (distance of nth maxima from the 0th maxima)/(distance of the grating from the screen).)
 
Thanks for your help. Here is my improved answer:
λ = 500nm = 5 X 10ˉ⁷m
d = 6 X 10⁵ per metre = 1 ÷ 6 X 10⁵ = 16.7 X 10ˉ⁷m
n = 16.7 X 10ˉ⁷ X sin 90 ÷ 5 X 10ˉ⁷ = 3.34
There will be 3 orders of diffraction visible

Is this correct? If not please tell me where I am going wrong

Thanks
 
Looks good. Problem solved :smile:
 
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 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
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