Why Measure Angles to the Side of the Yellow Line in Spectra Experiment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NitroNinja
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment Spectra
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on measuring the wavelength of yellow light using a diffraction grating and telescope setup. Participants question the rationale behind measuring angles to the sides of the yellow line instead of directly on it, suggesting that this method might reduce accuracy due to the line's thickness. It is emphasized that results should be compared to accepted values rather than "true results," and the importance of citing sources and stating uncertainties in conclusions is highlighted. The approach aims to determine the center position of the yellow wavelength by averaging angles measured on both sides of the spectrum. Overall, the method is designed to enhance precision in wavelength measurement.
NitroNinja
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Okay, I'll start off with a summary of the practical. And then the question.
The aim was to measure the wavelength of yellow light from a sodium vapour lamp, using a telescope and a diffraction grating of 300 lines per mm. The instructions tell us to prepare the apparatus, so that the telescope [If you want to see an image, search 'spectrometer telescope' into google images] aligns with the centre yellow wavelength.
We then move this telescope, to the first order on the left hand side of the original position. To measure the angle, we move the telescope to the right of the yellow line on the first order spectrum, then measure the angle. We repeat for the first order spectrum on the other side, and subtract, divide by two, to find the position of the centre position. This is compared to true results.

Now the question is, why did they make us go to the right of the yellow line, rather than on top of the yellow line (when measuring angles)?

Homework Equations


- N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


I attempted to look at this from different aspects, but keep wondering... 'wouldn't this just decrease accuracy?'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The line has a thickness - which part of the top of the line did you have in mind?

Note: you are not "comparing to true results" - there is no such thing. You are comparing with accepted results.
You conclusion should state whether your results are consistent with the accepted results (cite the source) and to what uncertainty.
 
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 '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