Physics Lab Report - Refractive Index
Physics Lab Report - Refractive Index
Data Processing
Sin i ()
0.26
0.02
0.50
0.02
0.71
0.01
Trial1
0.17
Trial2
0.17
Sin r ()
Trial3
Trial4
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.34
0.50
0.48
0.47
0.48
0.47
Trial5
0.17
Average
0.18
0.01
0.35
0.02
0.48
0.02
0.59
0.02
0.67
0.01
The column labeled Sin I contains the sines of the incident angles in degrees. (Sin i)
were calculated by the formula: sin i = sin(incident angle), and were recorded corrected
to 2 s.f.
For i = 15: sin i = sin(15) = 0.26 (2 s.f.)
For i = 30: sin i = sin(30) = 0.50 (2 s.f.)
For i = 45: sin i = sin(45) = 0.71 (2 s.f.)
For i = 60: sin i = sin(60) = 0.87 (2 s.f.)
For i = 75: sin i = sin(75) = 0.97 (2 s.f.)
Then the incident angles were converted from degree into radians:
angleradians=angledegree
For i = 15:
15
180
=
180 12
|dd sin |
sin =
For i = 15:
For i = 30:
For i = 45:
For i = 60:
For i = 45:
|cos |
where
| 12 | 180 =0.02
sin =|cos |
=0.02
6 180
sin =|cos |
=0.0
4 180
sin =|cos |
=0.0
3 180
5
sin =|cos |
=0. 0
12 180
sin = cos
sin
is the uncertainty of
sin
(2 s.f.)
(2 s.f.)
1 (2 s.f.)
1 (2 s.f.)
average=
Where Trial1, Trial2, Trial3, Trial4, Trial5 are the sin r of that trials.
For sin i = 0.26; average of sin r =
0.17+0.17+0.19+ 0.19+0.17
=0.18 ( 2 s . f . )
5
The uncertainties of the average of sin r were calculated from the range of sin r of the 5
trials:
Range=
Range=
0.190.17
=0.01
2
Data Presentation
0.80
f(x) = 1.96x
2.13x - 0.32
0.38
0.70
0.67
f(x) = 0.69x + 0
0.60
0.59
0.50
Average
0.48
Linear (Average)
Linear (Average)
0.40
Minimum gradient
Linear (Minimum gradient)
0.35
Maximum gradient
0.30
0.20
0.18
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
In Graph1, sine of incident angles (sin i) is plotted on the x-axis against the sine of
refracted angles (sin r) (on the y-axis). The values are taken from Table2 and shown as
blue data points. The vertical error bars are the uncertainty of the sin r and taken from
the same table. The horizontal error bars shows the uncertainties of sin i, and are taken
from Table2. The maximum gradient line is drawn by joining the negative vertical error
bar of sin i = 0.26 and the positive vertical error bar of sin i = 0.97. The minimum
gradient line is drawn by joining the positive vertical error bar of sin i = 0.26 and the
negative vertical error bar of sin i = 0.97.
The equations of the lines of best fit are generated automatically by Microsoft Excel,
where the coefficients of x represent the gradients of the lines.
sin i n glass
=
sinr nair ; where sin i is the incident angle, sin r is
the refracted angle, nglass is the refractive index of the glass block, nair is the refractive
index of air.
By manipulating the formula into the form
sinr nair
=
sin i n glass ; it can be seen that
m=
nair
nglass
1
nglass
n glass=
1
m
For the average sin r: m = 0.6862 (shown as black colour in the graph)
n glass=
1
=1.46 (3 s.f.)
0.6862
For the minimum gradient line: m = 0.6699 (shown as red colour in the graph)
n glass=
1
0.6699
= 1.49 (3 s.f.)
For the maximum gradient line: m = 0.7265 (shown as green colour in the graph)
n glass=
1
=1.38 (3 s.f.)
0.7508
Percentage error=
Percentage error=
1.46 0.06
|1.491.46|
1.49
100 =2.01
100
(3 s.f.)
The theoretical value of n does fall into the range of the experimental value after the
uncertainties of 0.06 has been allowed for. Also, the percentage error of this experiment
is quite small. Thus, it can be concluded that experiment was precise and accurate.
2 Poly(methyl methacrylate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(methyl_methacrylate)#Properties (accessed on 3rd
September 2012)
1
nglass
. However, it is possible that the difference between the theoretical value and
the experimental value is because the light source is not monochromatic, and the light
rays would contain light with wavelengths different from 587.6 nm. And since the
refractive index of Perspex glass depends to some extent on the wavelength of the light
used3, the different wavelengths of the light would give different refractive index.
In this experiment, the uncertainties of the values came from the random error caused
by uncertainties in the position of the incident, refracted and the emergent rays,
caused by the thickness and the scatterings of the light rays. And due to these
uncertainties, the value of the incident and refracted angles contain some uncertainties
too.
Evaluating Procedures
3 http://www.filmetrics.com/refractive-index-database/Acrylic/Acrylate-Lucite-Plexiglass
The pencil lines drawn to show the position of the emergent rays also had a
considerable thickness, and therefore the accuracy of position of the refracted
rays and the refracted angles were reduced while the uncertainties increased.
However, this was not the major factor affecting the reliability of the data.
Much time was consumed in drawing the glass block, incident and refracted rays,
and measuring the incident and refracted angles.
A convex lens could be used to focus the light coming out from the light box to
give less scattered and thinner rays with higher intensity. Also, a narrower slit
could be used to narrow the light coming out from the light box. Moreover, more
care should be taken to place the middle of the incident rays on the line drawn to
indicate the incident rays, and to draw the emergent rays at the middle of the
emergent rays.
A mechanical pencil which produces narrower lines or a well-sharpened pencil
could be used to draw the rays and glass block on the papers.
The drawing of the blocks, the incident rays, and the normal at the point where
the incident rays enter the glass block could be photocopied so that it would not
be necessary to draw the same thing for all the five trials, and thus much time
could be saved.
The experiment should be conducted in the darker room so that the position of
the light rays could be identified and draw more easily.