Results and Discussion

For Plane and Spherical Mirrors:

This experiment investigated angle of incidence and angle of reflection, focal length and radius
of curvature of a cylindrical mirror, and the focal length and magnification formed in a concave mirror.

The first part of this experiment is the determination of the angle of incidence and angle of
reflection. The data for this part is given in Table 1.

(Table 1. Title)

(Table 1)

Table 1 shows the angle of incidence (theta_i) and angle of reflection (theta_r) formed for all the
trials that were performed. It can evidently be noticed in all of the trials that theta_i = theta_r. This
implies that the two variables are directly equal with each other. Thus, this verifies the “Law of
Reflection”, which states that the angle of incidence and angle of reflection are equal when a light (or its
likes) is reflected from a smooth surface with respect to the line perpendicular to the surface (called as
“normal”) [1].

For the next part, the focal length and radius of curvature of the cylindrical mirrors used are
determined. Table 2 below shows the data for this part.

(Table 2. Title)

(Table 2)

Table 2 compares the focal length and the radius of curvature of the concave and convex mirror
used. Theoretically, the radius of curvature of a cylindrical mirror is just twice the value of the focal
length. As shown in Table 2, the results of the experiment conform to this concept. It is easy to quantify
these two for cylindrical mirrors because it is a natural property of the imaginary sphere from where the
mirror was cut.

Unlike cylindrical mirrors, plane mirrors do not have a curve or bend. Since the radius of
curvature of mirror is defined as the radius of the imaginary sphere from where it is cut from, it is hard
to exactly quantify both the focal length and radius of curvature of a plane mirror. However, it is
theorized that a plane mirror bends at infinity, making both the focal length and radius of curvature
infinite too [2].

The next part primarily investigated the focal length formed in a concave mirror (when the
object is at infinity and when the object is closer than infinity) from a source. The data when the object
is at infinity are stated in Table 3 below.

(Table 3. Title)

(Table 3)
 Table 3 shows that a focused image reflected on the half-screen was only achieved when the
object distance (d_o) was at 50 cm and the image distance (d_i) at 12.5 cm. But if the object distance
were at infinity, mathematically, the value of 1/d_o approaches a very small value leading to 0.

For the data when the object is closer than infinity from a light source, refer to Table 4.

(Table 4. Title)

(Table 4)

Table 4 shows the calculated focal length as the object distance decreases. It can be noticed that
the image distance increased as the object distance decreased.

The calculated focal length from Table 3 and 4 resulted to a 0.8950-percent difference. This
error is mainly credited to the equipments used, the environment under which the experiment was
performed, and the measuring errors made by the experimenters. Faulty equipments may had caused
inaccurate data; the environment (since there were still light source during the experiment) may had
caused destructive interference among the light waves; and the measurements that were done were
quite subjective the experimenter’s view.

When d_o was set at 25 cm, the image distance (d_i) is positive. This implies that the image is on
the same side of the mirror as the object and the image formed is real and inverted.

The magnification formed in a concave mirror was also investigated. The data is shown in Table
5 below.

(Table 5. Title)

(Table 5)

Table 5 shows that the heights and distances of the image and object were gathered and
respectively used to compute for the magnification formed in the concave mirror used. It is shown that a
greater magnification was noticed when the values of the heights were used as compare to when the
values of the distances were used.

To relate the explanation from Table 3 (about objects at infinity) and Table 5 (magnification
using distance values), it can be inferred that lower magnification values will be computed if the object
is (infinitely) far from the light source. With a lower magnification value, the image size will diminish.
This is the reason why objects from far away appear smaller when reflected by a concave mirror.

Both magnification values are less than 1; thus, this implies that the size of image formed was
diminished. The values resulted to a 9.9904-percent difference. This likewise credited to the equipments
used, environment factors, and measuring errors on the side of the experimenters.

For Thin Lens:

 This experiment investigated the index of refraction of a lens and the focal length and
magnification of a thin lens.

The first part involved the determination of index of refraction of D-shaped lens using Snell’s
Law. For data, refer to Table 6.

(Table 6. Title)

(Table 6)

It is shown in Table 6 the angles of refraction made by the light under various angles of
incidence and its respective calculated index of refraction. It also compares the data that were recorded
using a flat surface and a curved surface.

From the data, it is generally noticed that the refracted ray of the incident ray on a curved
surface resulted to a greater angle of refraction and the value of index of refraction became lower. This
is due to the fact that there was an increase in the angle of refraction when the position of D-shaped
lens was reversed. Using Snell’s Law, it can be inferred that the value of the sin of the refracted angle is
inversely proportional to the index of refraction. And as the angle of refraction increase, it resulted to a
lower index of refraction. Lower index of refraction indicates that light traveled faster when it hit the
curved surface than when it hit the flat surface [3].

The next part of the experiment was about the determination of the focal length and
magnification of a thin lens. The data is shown in Table 7 and Table 8 below.

(Table 7. Title)

(Table 7)

Table 7 presents the object distance and image distance recorded and calculated focal length for
each trial when a clear image was portrayed on the screen used. Since the object is placed beyond twice
the focal length for all trials, the image formed is real, inverted, and reduced for all trials [4]. An upright
image will be formed by a spherical converging lens if the object is placed between the lens and the
focal length [4].

(Table 8. Title)

(Table 8)

Table 8 shows the calculated magnification using the heights/size and distance of the objects
and image respectively. It can be verified from here that the image size was reduced. The values
resulted to a 3.5757-percent difference, which was mainly credited to the equipments used,
environmental condition, and measurement errors.

References:
1. Dictionary.com (n.d.). Law of reflection. Retrieved from
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/law-of-reflection
2. Choudhury, S. (2018). What is the radius of the curvature of a plane mirror? Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-radius-of-the-curvature-of-a-plane-mirror
3. `Rennie, J. (2012). Visible light. Retrieved from
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44671/index-of-refraction
4. Meson, C. (2005). Easy way to remember imaging properties of lens? Retrieved from
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/easy-way-to-remember-imaging-properties-of-
lens.95953/