Radius of curvature experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an experiment involving the calculation of the radius of curvature for a +0.25D lens using Newton's rings. Participants are exploring the discrepancies in the calculated values and the equations used in the process, focusing on theoretical and experimental aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports a calculated radius of curvature of 892mm for a +0.25D lens, questioning why this value is significantly lower than the expected radius of just over 2 meters.
  • Another participant requests the equations used and the methodology behind the calculations to better understand the discrepancy.
  • A participant shares the equation used for calculating the radius and provides specific values for wavelength and diameter squared, noting a correction to their initial reported value of 831mm.
  • Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of the equation provided, with a participant suggesting an alternative equation from Wikipedia that may yield a different result.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definitions of terms in the equations, particularly the significance of the radius and diameter in the context of dark fringes.
  • There is a suggestion to be cautious with units and to ensure they are consistently applied in calculations.
  • One participant proposes that the experimental error might account for the differences in calculated power when comparing results from different equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the correct equation to use and whether the initial calculations are accurate. There is no consensus on the best approach or the validity of the equations discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of correctly defining terms in equations and ensuring proper unit usage, which may affect the outcomes of their calculations. There are unresolved questions about the measurement techniques employed in the experiment.

lynsey
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi there

In an experiment I have calculated the radius of curvature for a +0.25D lens using Newtons rings and have obtained a value for 892mm, but the radius of curvature for a +0.25D lens is just over 2 metres. why is the value i got so much lower? do i have to double the value i got for the radius to take into account the 2 surfaces of the lens or not? please help I am really stuck!

thanks for any help!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Can you show the equations you used, and how you calculated your answer?
 
the equation we were given to use was

r = d(squared) / 4.N.wavelength

the wavelength was 0.000588m
the value for d(squared) was 1.955

My actual value was 831mm (sorry wrote the wrong figure down before)

although i think there may be a problem with the equation we were given to use as I have found another one:

The radius of the Nth Newton's bright ring is given by :

rn = [(N-1/2). wavelength. R]1/2

hope that makes sense to you:s its the one from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_rings

i measured the dark rings...so you can ignore the -1/2 and just use N

this seems to give me a figure of 3000 odd, which gives a power of 0.15D, which when doubled then gives 0.30D...i know it is 0.05D out but this may be due to experimental error?

how does that sound or is the equation we were given to use the correct one?

thanks for any help you can give me! :)
 
By the way, welcome to PF. :smile:

lynsey said:
the equation we were given to use was

r = d(squared) / 4.N.wavelength

That's right, since this is for dark fringes. Do you know what each term in that equation is? Since there are 2 different radii or diameters represented here, it is important to keep track of which is which. I.e., r is not simply "the radius", it is "the radius of ____?".

And similarly for "d".

the wavelength was 0.000588m
the value for d(squared) was 1.955

Let me suggest here that you get in the habit of being careful about writing units correctly. It appears that you are using mm for length units. Do you see what is wrong with BOTH of the values you have written above? (Hint: it has something to do with units.)

My actual value was 831mm (sorry wrote the wrong figure down before)
Looks correct given your values, assuming that N=1 (is it?)

Here is a question for you: how are you measuring the fringe diameter? It must be about 1.4 mm, to get the d2=1.955mm2 value you reported. It is difficult to measure it that accurately without some kind of precision instrument.

although i think there may be a problem with the equation we were given to use as I have found another one:

The radius of the Nth Newton's bright ring is given by :

rn = [(N-1/2). wavelength. R]1/2

hope that makes sense to you:s its the one from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_rings

i measured the dark rings...so you can ignore the -1/2 and just use N

I agree, ignore the "-1/2" for the dark rings. Then you get

rN = [N . wavelength . R]1/2

If you solve this equation for "R", you get essentially the same equation you had earlier.

Basically, I've given you a list of things to think about more:

  • Define the terms in your first equation (see above).
  • What are the values for wavelength and d2, with correct units?
  • Is N equal to 1?
  • How was the fringe diameter measured?
  • Solve the Wikipedia equation in terms of "R". Ignore the "-1/2", but do not ignore the "1/2" exponent. You should get your original equation, or something equivalent.

p.s. feel free to use ^2 or ^(1/2) for writing exponents in equations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K