Wavelength nature of light: magnesium Fluoride

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the minimum thickness of a magnesium fluoride coating on a glass lens to achieve non-reflecting properties for a specific wavelength of light. The context involves concepts of interference and the refractive indices of materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formula for calculating the thickness of the coating and question the implications of using a minimum thickness of zero. There is confusion regarding the correct interpretation of the variable 'm' in the context of destructive interference.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the formula for thickness, but there is no consensus on the correct approach or understanding of the parameters involved.

Contextual Notes

There is ambiguity regarding the definition of minimum thickness and whether a nonzero value is required. Participants are also considering the implications of different wavelengths in their calculations.

Dx
Hi!

In terms of magnesium fluoride what is the minimum thickness of mag fl coating that must be applied to a glass lens to make it non-reflecting for that wavelength? (the index of refraction of magnesium fluoride is intermediate to that of air and glass)

1/2 wavelength out of phase to eliminate reflection. why is this wrong? I usd the formula t = [lamb] / 4n. I used the minimum thickness (m=0) since the destructive interference will occur over the widest angle. Plz help? Or it this a trick question and there is no minimum thickness, huh?
Dx :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Dx
I used the minimum thickness (m=0) since the destructive interference will occur over the widest angle.

Obviously, they mean the minimum nonzero[/color] thickness. "Zero thickness" means that there is no film at all.
 


Originally posted by Tom
Obviously, they mean the minimum nonzero[/color] thickness. "Zero thickness" means that there is no film at all.
Its not that obvious Tom since that's not one of the answers. I understand what your saying so I need to figure out the different wavelengths then, huh?
Dx :wink:
 
Originally posted by Dx
why is this wrong? I usd the formula t = [lamb] / 4n. I used the minimum thickness (m=0)
Dx :wink: [/B]

You are right. The minimum thickness of the coating is given by t=[lamb]/4n. I think you did an error in calculations. Check it please.
 
Originally posted by Dx
I usd the formula t = [lamb] / 4n. I used the minimum thickness (m=0) since the destructive interference will occur over the widest angle.

OK, sorry. I didn't know what m was, and I thought you chose the thickness to be zero.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K