PHYS101L

REPORT NO. 6

NAME (LAST, FIRST): Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.

SUBJECT & SECTION: PHYS101L/A12
SUBMISSION DATE: October 16, 2022
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Analysis of Results
I. Spherical Mirrors
A. Theory
Mirrors are extremely useful and versatile tools that are used by pretty much everyone. From checking
one’s face after waking up to redirecting laser beams unto microscopic samples to produce a 3
dimensional image, the ability of mirrors to reflect light has such a high variety of uses that it became
ubiquitous in everyday life.

As mentioned, the main purpose of a mirror is to reflect light and once the light is reflected to the
observer, an image can be observed, assuming the wavelength of the reflected ray is in the visible
spectrum. There are 3 main types of mirrors, namely plane, concave, and convex mirrors. This report is
focused on the latter two types and the figure below shows ray diagrams of both types of mirrors.

Figure 1. Ray diagrams of a concave(left) spherical mirror and a convex(right) spherical mirror
Every spherical mirror has two important components, the focal point, which is where the light rays
converge upon after striking the reflective surface of the mirror, and the center of curvature which is
twice the distance of the mirror to the focal point. Depending on the type of mirror, the focal point may
change signs due to convention, as a general rule regarding mirrors, if the focal point is in front of the
mirror, the sign for the focal length, the distance from the focal point to the mirror, is positive. If the
focal point is behind the mirror, then it is considered negative. The equation describing the relationship
between the distances of the object and image to the focal length is called the mirror equation.
1 1 1
𝑓
= 𝑠 + , (1)
𝑠
The image produced by the reflected rays also has its own unique characteristics. For one it changes its
size and even orientation depending on where the object is placed and the relative positioning of the
components. Under varying conditions, the image may either get larger than the object, stay the same
size as the object, or get smaller than the object. In terms of orientation, the image could either be
upright or inverted. This is described quantitatively using the concept of magnification, which is also
related to the distance of the object and the image from the mirror.
ℎ𝑖 ,
𝑠
𝑀= ℎ𝑜
=− 𝑠
(2)
Just like with the focal length, the magnification also has sign conventions, however this time it is due to
the variables of the equation. If the image is upright, then the sign for hi is positive and if it is upside
down, it is considered negative.

Using equations 1 and 2, it is possible to describe a spherical mirror quantitatively, which is the aim of
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

the experiment in this part of the report, specifically it aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. To compute the focal length of a concave mirror using the mirror equation.
In order to achieve a theoretical value, it was decided that the setup where the image is at the same
distance from the mirror as the object will be used to determine the theoretical value of the focal length.
To compare the accuracy of the other data sets, the percentage difference was calculated using the
following equation:
|𝑉1−𝑉2|
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑉1+𝑉2 100% (3)
2

Percentage error was used to check the accuracy of data given an actual theoretical value.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
(4)
B. Collected Data
The data gathered from Table 1 was used as the basis for the theoretical value. The focal length was
calculated using equation 1 and the resulting value will be used as the theoretical value for the rest of the
data in this part of the report. The experimental setup for Table 1 is the image being set at the same
distance as the object.
Table 1. Image Distance Equal to Object Distance

Trial Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 32.20土0.05 cm 32.20土0.05 cm 16.10土0.025 cm

Using equation 1, the focal length for the second experimental setup was determined and was then
averaged, the resulting average focal length was then compared via percentage difference using equation
3.
Table 2. Object Distance Greater than Image Distance

Trial Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 60.00土0.05 cm 20.00土0.05 cm 15.00土0.025 cm

2 50.00土0.05 cm 20.00土0.05 cm 14.29土0.025 cm

3 45.00土0.05 cm 25.00土0.05 cm 16.07土0.025 cm

Average Focal Length 15.12土0.008 cm

Percentage Difference 6.27%

The same process as Table 2 was used in Table 3. Once again using equation 1, the individual
experimental focal lengths in each trail was calculated, and then was averaged to get an average focal
length. The result was then checked for accuracy using percentage difference calculated using equation
3.
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Table 3. Image Distance Greater than Object Distance

Trial Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 23.20土0.005 cm 48.00土0.005 cm 15.64土0.025 cm

2 17.20土0.005 cm 52.00土0.005 cm 12.92土0.025 cm

3 19.30土0.005 cm 59.20土0.005 cm 14.55土0.025 cm

Average Focal Length 14.37土0.008 cm

Percentage Difference 11.35%

C. Analysis
The sources of error in this experiment primarily comes from human error and the uncertainty of the
equipment. First the uncertainty of the measurements, both the meterstick and the optics track are
accurate up to a tenth of centimeter, thus the fifth significant digit is uncertain due to the calibration of
the equipment. To account for this, an uncertainty of upto 土0.05 cm was applied in each measurement.
The error was then corrected for the calculated values as seen in Table 1,2 and 3. The large majority
comes from human error in part of the students, where factors such as inaccurate measurements and
incorrect judgment regarding the clarity of the produced image can lead to noticeable errors

The was first analyzed for consistency using standard deviation. The results for the focal lengths in
Table 2 and Table 3 are 0.89605 and 1.36890 respectively. The low standard deviations for both data
sets indicate a consistent set of measurements, thus both data sets are considered valid. As for
comparison of the average focal length of both data sets to the calculated focal length in Table 1, the
percentage difference is also considered to be acceptable as a match for the theoretical data in Table 1.

In terms of the results correlation to theory, it can be seen that both data sets follow the theory of
spherical mirrors. It can be seen that regardless of the placements of the variables, the resulting focal
length is around the theoretical value which is supported by the proportionality shown in equation 1.
Whilst the focal length remained constant, the properties of the reflected image did change as the
distances changed. It was observed that the image seems to be smaller when the object is farther to the
mirror than the image, larger when the object is closer to the mirror than the image, and stays the same
size when the two are set side-by-side. These observations are supported by the theory set by
constructing ray diagrams for each of the three scenarios. Regardless of distances of the object and the
image to the mirror, the image stayed inverted, again supported by the construction of a ray diagram.

Given the statistical analysis which pointed to a strong correlation to theory and high consistency as well
as the observations relating well to the theory, it can be concluded the experiment is successful in
calculating the focal length of a concave mirror and subsequently successful in describing and
demonstrating a concave spherical mirror setting

II. Thin Lenses

A. Theory
Whereas a mirror’s main purpose is to reflect light, the purpose of a lens is to diffract light. The
principle of Snell’s law aids in this effect and is used very prevalently in various industries and processes
that need some form of focused light. It is for this purpose that lenses also made a mark as an incredibly
important tool in daily, industry, and scientific use.
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Figure 2. Ray diagrams for a converging lens(left) and a diverging lens(right)

There are two different categories of thin lenses, both of which are depicted in Figure 2. Lenses may be
considered to be either converging or diverging. The primary method for classification is by comparing
the width of the edge of the lens to its center. If the lens’s end is wider than its center, then it is
considered as a diverging lens, and if the lens’s center is wider than its end, it is classified as a
converging lens.

As is the case with spherical mirrors, lenses also have certain components in a ray diagram. Due to the
fact that lenses refract light, every lens has a pair of foci and a pair of centers of curvature, one of each
on either side of the lens. The equation relating the focal length of a lens is the same equation as the one
used in mirrors, which is equation 1. The difference comes from the sign convention of the focal length.
In lenses, the focal length behind a lens has a positive focal length and a negative focal length if it is on
the opposite side. Lenses may also change the size and orientation of an object when creating the image.
Equation 2 also applies to lenses and the sign conventions are also the same.

The experiment detailed in this part of the report tackles on the description of a converging lens,
specifically it aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. To determine the focal length of converging lenses using the thin lens equation.
2. To compute the image magnification using image height and object height and image distance
and object distance.
In order to achieve such objectives, the experiment involves testing the focal lengths at different
positions of the object, lens, and image. The focal length was calculated using equation 1 and this was
compared with the theoretical value using equation 3. An additional point of reference was made
regarding the magnification, which is calculated using equation 2. The two sets of values are checked for
correlation using percentage difference.

B. Data
The following table enumerates the data gathered from the experiment. At given positions of the image
screen, two positions of the lens and the object were determined using the clarity of the image. The data
was then used and through equation 1, the experimental focal length was determined, after taking the
average across the 3 image positions, the result was then compared with the theoretical value using
equation 4.
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Table 4. Determination of Focal Length of a Converging Lens (actual value =+20cm)

Position of Position 1 Position 2

Image
Screen Object Object Focal Object Object Focal
Distance, s Distance, s, Length, f Distance, s Distance, s, Length, f

90.00 cm 27.00土0.05 63.00土0.05 18.90土 58.50土0.05 31.5土0.05 20.48土

cm cm 0.025 cm cm cm 0.025 cm

100.00 cm 32.00土0.05 68.00土0.05 21.76土 68.80土0.05 31.2土0.05 21.47土

cm cm 0.025 cm cm cm 0.025 cm

110.00 cm 25.50土0.05 84.50土0.05 19.59土 82.40土0.05 27.6土0.05 20.67土

cm cm 0.025 cm cm cm 0.025 cm

Average Focal Length 20.08土 Average Focal Length 20.87土

0.008 cm 0.008 cm

Percentage Error 0.42% Percentage Error 4.36%

Using the data from Table 4, the magnification using the object and image distances was calculated
using equation 2. The height of the object and the image was also recorded and utilized using equation 3
to determine the magnification indicated by the image and object height. The data was compared using
the percent difference as described in equation 3.
Table 5. Image Magnification

Magnification, M

Position of ,
𝑠 𝑀 =−
ℎ𝑖 Percent
𝑀 =− ℎ𝑜
Image Screen 𝑠 Difference

Position 1 90.00 cm -2.330 -2.300 1.29%

100.0 cm -2.130 -2.070 2.86%

110.0 cm -3.310 -3.250 1.82%

Position 2 90.00 cm -1.850 -1.800 2.74%

100.0 cm -0.450 -0.440 2.28%

110.0 cm -0.330 -0.320 3.07%

C. Analysis
The sources of error for this experiment is the same as the ones present in the experiment with the
spherical mirrors. To reiterate, the measuring equipment is accurate only up to a tenth of a centimeter,
thus an uncertainty of 土0.05 cm which was corrected to account for the focal length calculations and the
average focal length. Errors mostly come from human error in measurements and judgements leading to
inaccuracies in the results.

The data presented was also checked for the standard deviations to assess for consistency of the data.
The following table enumerates all of the standard deviations of the relevant data from Table 4 and 5
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Table 6. Standard deviations of the data from Tables 4 and 5

Standard Deviation

Position 1 Focal Length (Table 4) 1.4924588

Position 2 Focal Length (Table 4) 11.987911

Position 1 Magnification via distance (Table 5) 0.63150614

Position 2 Magnification via distance (Table 5) 0.8450641

Position 1 Magnification via height (Table 5) 0.62553977

Position 2 Magnification via height (Table 5) 0.82203001

It can be seen in Table 6 that with the exception of the focal length of position 2 from table 4, all of the
data are consistent with the standard deviation being around 1. The focal length of position 2 from table
4 can also be considered consistent but the variation is significant.

Due to the two data sets in Table 4 being independent of each other, the analysis done for both to test if
there is a significant difference between the two treatments, a two-tailed t-test was used at a significance
level of 0.05. The two hypotheses are that there is no significant difference between the two data sets for
the null, and for the alternative there is a significant difference. The resulting p value is 0.435928. and
the t value was found to be -0.8648, at the given significance level, there is not a significant difference
and thus the test failed to reject the null hypothesis.

From the data in Table 4, it can be observed that as the distance between the lens and the object
decreases, the distance between the image and the lens tends to increase. This indicates that the two are
in an inverse relationship, which is supported by equation 1. Given a constant focal length, an increase
in one parameter must necessarily indicate a decrease in the other, thus explaining the observation. It can
also be seen that regardless of positioning of both the object and the image, the focal length stayed the
same across all setups, again supported by the theory in equation 1.

The same process was applied to Table 5 with the same significance level. The difference is that the data
sets that were compared are different, in this data set there were 2 t-tests done and the results are
enumerated in the following table.
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

Table 7. Two tailed t-test of Table 5

Data sets Significance Level p value t value conclusion

compared

Magnification via 0.05 0.927072 -0.09743 result is not significant at p < 0.05
distance vs.
Magnification via
heights (Position
1)

Magnification via 0.05 0.974296 -0.03428 result is not significant at p < 0.05
distance vs.
Magnification via
heights (Position
2)
The t-test results indicate that in both data sets, there is no significant difference between the
magnification taken from the distances and the heights. This is in accordance with the theory stated in
equation 2.

The observations regarding the qualities of the image with respect to the original also follows theory
under the principles of a ray diagram. The image was seen to decrease in height as the image gets farther
in position 2 and vice versa in position 1. In addition, the image is observed to be inverted as well,
which is to be expected when using converging lenses, observations all supported by theory of lenses.

Given that the data and the observations made are supported by the theory, the experiment is considered
successful in constructing and describing the properties of a system with a converging lens. The focal
length and the magnification was also successfully calculated with a decent level of reliability and
supported by the theory governing lenses.

Problems and solutions

I. Spherical Mirrors
1. An experiment attempted to calculate the focal length of a concave mirror by setting the image and the
object at the same distance from the mirror, the distance was determined to be d, What is the focal length
of the concave mirror?
Solution:
1 1 1
𝑓
= 𝑠 + ,
𝑠
1 1 1 2
𝑓
= 𝑑
+ 𝑑
= 𝑑
𝑑
𝑓= 2
2. A certain object was placed in front of a concave mirror in between the mirror’s center of curvature and
the mirror’s focal point. Using a ray diagram, what are the expected properties of the resulting image?
Solution:

From the ray diagram, the object is expected to be beyond the center of curvature,
real, inverted, and larger than the object.
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

3. What is the focal length of a concave mirror when an object placed 23cm from the mirror and the object
was found to be 53cm from the mirror?
Solution:
1 1 1
𝑓
= 𝑠 + ,
𝑠
1 1 1
𝑓
= 23𝑐𝑚
+ 53𝑐𝑚
(23𝑐𝑚)(53𝑐𝑚) = 𝑓(53𝑐𝑚) + 𝑓(23𝑐𝑚)
(23𝑐𝑚)(53𝑐𝑚) = 𝑓(53𝑐𝑚 + 23𝑐𝑚)
(23𝑐𝑚)(53𝑐𝑚)
𝑓 = (53𝑐𝑚+23𝑐𝑚)
𝑓 = 16. 04𝑐𝑚

4. An object is placed 24cm away from a concave mirror, if the mirror’s focal length was determined to be
19cm, at what distance is the object expected to appear?
Solution:
1 1 1
19𝑐𝑚
= 16𝑐𝑚 + ,
𝑠
, ,
𝑠 (24𝑐𝑚) = 𝑠 (19𝑐𝑚) + (24𝑐𝑚)(19𝑐𝑚)
, ,
𝑠 (24𝑐𝑚) − 𝑠 (19𝑐𝑚) = (24𝑐𝑚)(19𝑐𝑚)
,
𝑠 (24𝑐𝑚 − 19𝑐𝑚) = (24𝑐𝑚)(19𝑐𝑚)
, (24𝑐𝑚)(19𝑐𝑚)
𝑠 = (24𝑐𝑚−19𝑐𝑚)
,
𝑠 = 91. 2𝑐𝑚

II. Thin Lenses

1. What are the expected properties of an image produced by an object placed beyond the center of
curvature of a concave lens?
Solution:

From the ray diagram, it can be seen that the image is between the lens and the focal length, virtual,
smaller than the object, and upright.

2. An object is placed in front of a convex lens. The object was measured to have a height of 4cm, if the
magnification of the mirror was given to be 7.6, what is the height of the image?
Solution:
ℎ𝑖
𝑀= ℎ𝑜
ℎ𝑖
7. 6 = 4𝑐𝑚
ℎ𝑖 = 30. 4𝑐𝑚
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

3. An object was placed at 15cm from a convex lens. It has a height of 5.5cm and the resulting object was
discovered to be 7cm. What is the distance between the convex lens and the mirror?
Solution:
ℎ𝑖 ,
𝑠
ℎ𝑜
= 𝑠
,
7𝑐𝑚 𝑠
5.5𝑐𝑚
= 15𝑐𝑚
, 7𝑐𝑚(15𝑐𝑚)
𝑠 = 5.5𝑐𝑚
,
𝑠 = 19. 09𝑐𝑚

4. What is the focal length of a lens when an image of an object of height 3cm placed 14cm away was
measured to have a height of 5cm?
Solution:
,
5𝑐𝑚 𝑠
3𝑐𝑚
= 14𝑐𝑚
, 5𝑐𝑚(14𝑐𝑚)
𝑠 = 3𝑐𝑚
= 23. 33𝑐𝑚
1 1 1
𝑓
= 14𝑐𝑚 + 23.33𝑐𝑚
(14𝑐𝑚)(23. 33𝑐𝑚) = 𝑓(23. 33𝑐𝑚) + 𝑓(14𝑐𝑚)
(14𝑐𝑚)(23. 33𝑐𝑚) = 𝑓(23. 33𝑐𝑚 + 14𝑐𝑚)
(14𝑐𝑚)(23.33𝑐𝑚)
𝑓 = (23.33𝑐𝑚+14𝑐𝑚)
𝑓 = 8. 75𝑐𝑚
Caro, Engelo John Gabriel V.
PHYS101L/A12

References:
● Henderson, T. (1997). Physics Simulations at The Physics Classroom. Retrieved 14 October 2022, from
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Interactives/Refraction-and-Lenses/Optics-Bench/Optics-Be
nch-Refraction-Interactive