Why Are My Newton's Rings Experiment Results Inconsistent?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inconsistencies observed in the results of a Newton's rings experiment, specifically regarding the calculation of the radius of curvature of a plano-convex lens. Participants explore potential sources of error in measurements and calculations related to the diameter of the rings and the derived slope from the plotted graph.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the experimental setup and the formula used to calculate the radius of curvature, noting a discrepancy between the slope obtained from the graph and the expected value.
  • Another participant suggests the possibility of a mix-up between centimeters and millimeters as a source of error, indicating a potential factor of ten difference.
  • A participant acknowledges the suggestion but asserts confidence in their unit consistency, arguing that squaring the diameter would not introduce such an error.
  • Further inquiries are made about whether a factor of 4 was overlooked in the calculations, specifically in the context of comparing radius squared to diameter squared.
  • The original poster maintains that they have not dropped the factor of 4 and offers to share specific readings for further analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the potential sources of error, with no consensus reached on the exact cause of the discrepancies in the results. The discussion remains unresolved as participants continue to explore various hypotheses.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not provided detailed calculations or specific readings, which may limit the ability to fully diagnose the issue. The discussion is dependent on the accuracy of measurements and the interpretation of the experimental setup.

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: 5,012
  • maxresdefault.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 1,875
  • 14055086_10154050222533702_2639753554470574213_n.jpg
    14055086_10154050222533702_2639753554470574213_n.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 3,532
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
3K