## Optics B/C

Test your knowledge of various Science Olympiad events.
Moderator Posts: 472
Joined: December 6th, 2013, 1:56 pm
State: TX
Location: Austin, Texas

### Re: Optics B/C

What is the smallest time delay required between two waves of 400nm light to obtain complete destructive interference?
You can answer I just wanted to give it a shot.
I'm getting...
That's correct; your turn!
University of Texas at Austin '22
Seven Lakes High School '18
Beckendorff Junior High '14

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

That's correct; your turn!
A certain lens has an index of refraction of 1.5, a front lens radius of 0.09 m, and a back surface lens of -0.04 m according to the cartesian sign convention. If it is 0.10 m thick, determine the front vertex power.

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

That's correct; your turn!
A certain lens has an index of refraction of 1.5, a front lens radius of 0.09 m, and a back surface lens of -0.04 m according to the cartesian sign convention. If it is 0.10 m thick, determine the front vertex power.
Using the lensmakers formula and its derivation for thick lenses, I came up with an answer of 13.42 diopters
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

That's correct; your turn!
A certain lens has an index of refraction of 1.5, a front lens radius of 0.09 m, and a back surface lens of -0.04 m according to the cartesian sign convention. If it is 0.10 m thick, determine the front vertex power.
Using the lensmakers formula and its derivation for thick lenses, I came up with an answer of 13.42 diopters
Almost. To find the front vertex power you need to subtract the equivalent focal length by the distance from the front of the lens to the first principal plane.

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

A certain lens has an index of refraction of 1.5, a front lens radius of 0.09 m, and a back surface lens of -0.04 m according to the cartesian sign convention. If it is 0.10 m thick, determine the front vertex power.
Using the lensmakers formula and its derivation for thick lenses, I came up with an answer of 13.42 diopters
Almost. To find the front vertex power you need to subtract the equivalent focal length by the distance from the front of the lens to the first principal plane.
Is it 64 diopters then? Since the equivalent focal length is the inverse of power and then subtract .09 from that
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

Using the lensmakers formula and its derivation for thick lenses, I came up with an answer of 13.42 diopters
Almost. To find the front vertex power you need to subtract the equivalent focal length by the distance from the front of the lens to the first principal plane.
Is it 64 diopters then? Since the equivalent focal length is the inverse of power and then subtract .09 from that
Keep in mind that the front surface radius will not be the same as the distance to the principal plane.

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

Almost. To find the front vertex power you need to subtract the equivalent focal length by the distance from the front of the lens to the first principal plane.
Is it 64 diopters then? Since the equivalent focal length is the inverse of power and then subtract .09 from that
Keep in mind that the front surface radius will not be the same as the distance to the principal plane.
okay, so I think it would be 80.55 diopters since the power of lens 1 is 5.55 m^-1 and P2 is 12.5 m^-1 so
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

Is it 64 diopters then? Since the equivalent focal length is the inverse of power and then subtract .09 from that
Keep in mind that the front surface radius will not be the same as the distance to the principal plane.
okay, so I think it would be 80.55 diopters since the power of lens 1 is 5.55 m^-1 and P2 is 12.5 m^-1 so

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

Alright so here's a quick conceptual question. You have a converging lens and divide the face into 4 equally sized areas. You then try to project an image using the lens. What happens when you place a piece of paper over quadrant 1,2,3 and 4. How about just 1 and 2 , or 1 and 4
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

correction I meant to say concave mirror
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

Alright so here's a quick conceptual question. You have a converging lens and divide the face into 4 equally sized areas. You then try to project an image using the lens. What happens when you place a piece of paper over quadrant 1,2,3 and 4. How about just 1 and 2 , or 1 and 4
Using the principle that all light coming from a point gets focused to the same point (no matter where it reflects), it would make sense that the image would grow a bit dimmer whenever one part of it gets covered. When two parts are covered, it is dimmed more.

Sean_Sylvester1
Member Posts: 21
Joined: March 15th, 2015, 9:29 am
Division: C
State: NH

### Re: Optics B/C

Alright so here's a quick conceptual question. You have a converging lens and divide the face into 4 equally sized areas. You then try to project an image using the lens. What happens when you place a piece of paper over quadrant 1,2,3 and 4. How about just 1 and 2 , or 1 and 4
Using the principle that all light coming from a point gets focused to the same point (no matter where it reflects), it would make sense that the image would grow a bit dimmer whenever one part of it gets covered. When two parts are covered, it is dimmed more.
Captain of Merrimack Science Olympiad
Founder of the Science Olympiad Programmers Coalition (SOPC)
2017 Events

Hovercraft
Electric Vehicle
Astronomy
Remote Sensing
Dynamic Planet
Fermi

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

Polarized light of intensity I strikes a rotating polarizing film whose angle is given by arcsin(1/t) where t is time in seconds. At one time does exactly 25% of the initial intensity of the polarized light get through the film?

jkang
Member Posts: 107
Joined: October 17th, 2014, 8:49 pm
State: TX

### Re: Optics B/C

Polarized light of intensity I strikes a rotating polarizing film whose angle is given by arcsin(1/t) where t is time in seconds. At one time does exactly 25% of the initial intensity of the polarized light get through the film?
No one's tried in a while, so let me.
UT Austin '19
Liberal Arts and Science Academy '15

Tom_MS
Member Posts: 41
Joined: April 28th, 2015, 11:08 am
State: PA

### Re: Optics B/C

Polarized light of intensity I strikes a rotating polarizing film whose angle is given by arcsin(1/t) where t is time in seconds. At one time does exactly 25% of the initial intensity of the polarized light get through the film?
No one's tried in a while, so let me.