86%(14)12 out of 14 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 10 out of 10 pages.
we were supposed to. The magnification values calculated show that the image was inverted and reduced, since m < 0 and |m| < 1. For the second scenario we were to set f < do< 2f. We had to shift things slightly and had to measure and calculate new values. We again had to use Eq. 6 and Eq. 7 to find, verify, and compare the values, in which we got a percent difference of about 3.2%.
The magnitude values were -1.22 and -1.26 for m1 and m2, respectively, which using our knowledge further proves that the image is both inverted and magnified because m < 0 and |m| > 1. Overall, we completed each part of the experiment with low percent yields, and each observation we made could be verified with the theory. I think the lab itself actually does a good job of showing you the concepts. If I had to change one thing, it would be to make the directions of method II in part 1 more detailed or direct, because neither me nor my lab partner really understood what to do just by reading them. Questions:1.Draw ray diagrams for Method I and Method II (Part 1, converging lens)
2.Consider a concavelens made out of air that is immersed in water (perhaps two watch glasses glued to each end of a piece of pipe, with air inside). Will it form a real image thatcan be focused on a screen? Draw a ray diagram to support your answer.
3.If a convex lens with n = 1.30 and f = 25 cm is immersed in a fluid with an index of refraction that is also 1.30, what is the new focal length of the lens? Draw a ray diagram. 4.What are the major sources of uncertainty in this experiment?5.Step 2: considering the lens equation, how many combinations of diand doare possible? 6.Step 27: Set do= f. Try to find di. Consider Method II and Eq. 22.1; where should the image be?