Lab 5 Analysis Worksheet

1. Include a photo of your raw data, including your TA’s signature. Failure to include this
data will result in a grade of zero for the entire lab report.
2. Show a sample calculation for the slope, x-intercept and y-intercept for one of your
labeled points from your data.

Labelled point goes through (7.0, 0.3) and (13.0, 0.2)

∆𝑦 (0.2−0.3) −0.1
y = mx+c, m = ∆𝑥, m= = = −0.0167
13−7 6

so:

0.3 = −0.0167(7) + 𝑐

So that 𝑐 = 0.4167 𝑐𝑚

No uncertainties are required, as implied by the lab manual on page 55.

So we have the equation y = -0.0167x+ 0.4167

When y = 0, x = 0.4169/0.0167 = 24.964 cm -> 25.0 cm

Y-Intercept = 0.4 cm

X- Intercept = 25.0 cm

Slope = -0.017
3. Include both tables of values for your two different lenses. You do not need uncertainties
for the values in these tables.

Label x1/ cm y1/ cm x2/ cm y2/ cm Slope y-intercept/ cm x- intercept/ cm

0.5 7 0.3 13 0.2 -0.01666666667 0.4166666667 25
1 4 0.8 12 0.5 -0.0375 0.95 25.33333333
1.5 7 1 15 0.5 -0.0625 1.4375 23
2 5 1.5 10.5 1 -0.09090909091 1.954545455 21.5
2.5 7 1.5 15 0.5 -0.125 2.375 19
3 5.5 2 15 0.5 -0.1578947368 2.868421053 18.16666667
3.5 7 2 17 0 -0.2 3.4 17
4 3.5 3 8 2 -0.2222222222 3.777777778 17
4.5 8 2 11.7 1 -0.2702702703 4.162162162 15.4
5 5 3 8 2 -0.3333333333 4.666666667 14

Label x1/ cm y1/ cm x2/ cm y2/ cm Slope y-intercept/ cm x- intercept/ cm

0.5 9 0.2 14 0.1 -0.02 0.38 19
1 5 0.7 13 0.2 -0.0625 1.0125 16.2
1.5 6 1 12 0.5 -0.08333333333 1.5 18
2 4 1.5 9 1 -0.1 1.9 19
2.5 3 2 6 1.6 -0.1333333333 2.4 18
3 8 1.5 15 0.2 -0.1857142857 2.985714286 16.07692308
3.5 4 2.5 15 0 -0.2272727273 3.409090909 15
4 6 2 13 0 -0.2857142857 3.714285714 13
4.5 3 3 10 0.5 -0.3571428571 4.071428571 11.4
5 0.5 4 8 0.4 -0.48 4.24 8.833333333
4. Include both graphs of your values (two different images), along with the plotted second
order polynomial trend line that is forecast backwards and includes the equation on the
graph. You do not need uncertainties on your datapoints.
5. Include a screenshot or table of the six cells of LINEST values produced from the second
order polynomial fit for both graphs. Use this information to explicitly state the idealized
focal length of your lenses, along with the uncertainty, with proper significant figures.

The focal length for the first lens is 28 ± 1 cm.

The focal length for the second lens is 17 ± 1 cm.

6. Show a sample calculation of determining the radius of curvature and its uncertainty for
one of the lenses, and then include statements of both radii and their uncertainties.

For first lens:

𝐿2 + ℎ2 (12.3 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)2 + (1.8 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)2

𝑅= = = 42.925 𝑐𝑚
2ℎ 2(1.8 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)

0.1 0.1 0.1

𝛿𝑅 = (2 ( ) + 2 ( ) + ( )) (42.925) = (0.1829)(42.925) = 7.85 𝑐𝑚
12.3 1.8 1.8

So, for the first lens, R = (43 ± 8) cm

For the second lens:

𝐿2 + ℎ2 (12.0 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)2 + (3.0 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)2

𝑅= = = 25.500 𝑐𝑚
2ℎ 2(3.0 ± 0.1 𝑐𝑚)

0.1 0.1 0.1

𝛿𝑅 = (2 ( ) + 2 ( ) + ( )) (25.500) = (0.1167)(25.500) = 2.975 𝑐𝑚
12.0 3.0 3.0

So, for the second lens, R = (26 ± 3) cm

The values of L and h were measured utilizing a ruler, so the uncertainty will be one
of the smallest divisions, so 0.1 cm.
7. Show a sample calculation of determining the index of refraction of the lens from the
radii and the focal length for one of the lenses, and then include statements of both
indices of refraction and their uncertainties.

We know that:

𝑅
𝑓=
𝑛−1

Where R is the radius of curvature, f is the focal length, and n is the index of refraction. So:

𝑅
𝑛= +1
𝑓

This allows us to calculate the index of refraction of the lenses.

For the first lens:

𝑅 (43 ± 8)cm
𝑛= +1= + 1 = 2.535
𝑓 (28 ± 1) cm

8 1
𝛿𝑛 = ( + ) (2.535) = (0.222)(2.535) = 0.562
43 28

So, n = 2.5 ± 0.6

For the second lens:

𝑅 (26 ± 3)cm
𝑛= +1= + 1 = 2.529
𝑓 (17 ± 1) cm

3 1
𝛿𝑛 = ( + ) (2.529) = (0.174)(2.529) = 0.440
26 17

So, n = 2.5 ± 0.4

8. Perform a statistical comparison of the two indices of refraction that you calculated and
state your interpretation of the results of the comparison.

Utilizing
𝑥1 − 𝑥2
𝑡=
√𝛿𝑥21 + 𝛿𝑥22
We get:
2.5 − 2.5
𝑡= =0 <2
√0.62 + 0.42

So, the results agree statistically.

9. Respond to the following questions/instructions:

a) What are some of the assumptions and/or approximations that you used in
performing your analysis? Discuss their implications.

The index of refraction of the air at the temperature of the lab is 1. Should this be a
vastly different value, the value for the index of refraction of the lenses would be
different, as the index of refraction of the air in the lab would have to be accounted
for in the equation used in question 7.

The lenses were a perfect segment of a circle. – Otherwise, the location of the
idealized focal point would be different, and the rays would refract in different ways
at different angles.

The surfaces of the lenses were smooth, and the flat surface of the lenses were
perfectly flat.

The equations in the lab manual are correct.

b) Given that the theoretical relationship between the data points is not a quadratic
function, why do you think a second order polynomial fit used? Why isn’t a higher
order polynomial used? Discuss. (It may be useful to play around with the Trendline
feature in Excel to explore what the other fitting functions look like as compared to
your data.)

Because the practical relationship between the points IS quadratic, and the
polynomial fit allows for the IDEALIZED focal point to be located. This is the location
where a wide image would project clearly.

c) Using your polynomial fit equation, how far from the optical axis could light enter
the lens and focus no more than 5% from the ideal focal length? In other words, for
what value of x (the distance from the optical axis) would your laser light focus on
the optical axis no more than 0.05f away from f? (You do not need to calculate
uncertainties for this.)

0.17 cm

d) Given that the two lenses are made of the exact same material (cut from a single
piece), what would be the scientific implication if your statistical comparison of the
indices of refraction showed that they were not statistically the same (regardless of
the values you got)? In other words, discuss the implication of such a result in terms
of the analysis you performed.

The surfaces of the lenses were not smooth or badly cut, or that there is something
else refracting the light elsewhere, perhaps a bubble in the acrylic, or something
else. Basically, that the lenses were not the shape we assumed them to be.
Otherwise, it could mean that measurements were poorly made and that the
experiment would have to be repeated.