You are on page 1of 4

Lab 3: The Concave Mirror

Ryan Schade
Monday, October 10, 2011
Help Received: None
__________________________
Introduction
In the study of optics one of the most important characteristics of both lenses and mirrors is the
focal length. Determining the focal length of a concave mirror and compare using various methods is
paramount to understanding the mirror that one is working with. The two methods that are used to find
the focal length are the object image method and the quick and dirty method. Both methods vary in
complexity and it is desired to find which method results in a more direct, accurate, and precise
measurement of the focal length.
Theory
The focal length is one of the more crucial descriptive factors of any mirror. It is the length that
is defined as half of the total radius of the curvature of the mirror. The focal length becomes important
when one is trying to discover the location of the images formed by a mirror. It is known that all rays
that move from the original object strike the mirror and are redirected through the focal length so that
the image will form in front of or behind the mirror.
To find the focal length one can use 2 different methods that have very different complexities
and accuracies. The basic concept for all of the methods is that we use the existing relationship between
focal length and image/object distance.


The fastest method for a rough estimate would be to use a light source at a very large distance,
like ceiling lights, which can be assumed to be at an infinite distance. If this assumption were made then
the equation would simplify to:


From this, one could use a measuring stick to measure the distance between the mirror and the
focused image location, which is found by moving a half screen until the image is in focus on the screen.
The second method uses a light source that has a simple image, preferably a candle or arrow to
indicate the upright direction. Then along the same track place a concave mirror and a half screen for
the image to show up on. By taking measurements when the mirror is different distances from the
object, one can measure the different image distances which will give you the focal length more
accurately then the first method, using the same original equation.



y = -0.974x + 0.0658
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
1
/
d
o

1/di
1/di vs 1/do
1/di vs 1/do
Linear (1/di vs 1/do)
Data and Analysis
The first analysis that was conducted was the crude, quick and dirty method. The measured
image length was recorded as 15 cm, which corresponds with a 15 cm focal length. This result
corresponded almost exactly with the 150 mm concave mirror, and was a very reliable rough estimate.
The second method of analysis that we used was the object image method. The 150 mm
concave mirror was used again to gather the necessary data, while an emphasis was placed on accuracy
during the procedure.
Object Image Method
150 mm Concave
d
i
d
o
1/d
i
1/d
o
f
[cm] [cm] [1/cm] [1/cm] [cm]
61 20 0.016393 0.05 15.06173
38 25 0.026316 0.04 15.07937
30 30 0.033333 0.033333 15
26 35 0.038462 0.028571 14.91803
24 40 0.041667 0.025 15
22.25 45 0.044944 0.022222 14.88848










The average focal length that we recorded was 15.19 cm. This was a great result and considering
the complication of the experiment was one of the best that one could imagine. The graph of 1/d
i
vs
1/d
o
is also a fantastic representation of the linear nature of the relationship between object distance
and the image distance.
It was noted that all the points of data that were collected were outside of the predicted focal
length, and thus all images formed were smaller and inverted. When one moves the object inside the
focal length, the image becomes much larger and is a virtual image behind the mirror. This was difficult
to notice from the apparatus that was assembled.




DIAGRAMS ON PHYSICAL COPY




Conclusion
The object of this experiment was to determine the best method for finding the focal length of
any concave mirror that one may be given. Both of the methods tested in this experiment turned out to
be incredibly accurate and the only real difference between the methods was the amount of set up each
required and the calculations involved. Unfortunately, the quick and dirty method has the most room
for error, and is the least likely to give a reproducible result. The calculations involved in both methods
were virtually the same. It is the opinion of these researchers that if one is looking to get the most
accurate results, the object image method should be used, while taking care to get as many samples as
possible.

You might also like