| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | USA | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 6 months |
| seen | Dec 12 '12 at 13:59 | |
| stats | profile views | 4 |
|
Dec 5 |
awarded | Student |
|
Dec 4 |
awarded | Custodian |
|
Dec 4 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Malus' Law (Polarization) |
|
Dec 4 |
asked | Malus' Law (Polarization) |
|
Dec 4 |
accepted | Image Formation (Convex-Convex lenses) |
|
Nov 28 |
asked | Image Formation (Convex-Convex lenses) |
|
Nov 20 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Nov 20 |
accepted | Index of Refraction |
|
Nov 20 |
comment |
Index of Refraction I actually got it now. Thank you very much for the time sir! God Bless! :D |
|
Nov 20 |
comment |
Index of Refraction If I try using a different formula for finding the index of refraction for the curved surface : n = sin(refracted angle)/ sin(incident angle). (just the inverse of the formula I used for the flat surface trial) I get indices of refraction almost similar to the indices of refraction I calculated from the flat surface trial. Why is that so? |
|
Nov 20 |
comment |
Index of Refraction The set-up somehow look like this. google.com.ph/… |
|
Nov 20 |
comment |
Index of Refraction The angles were measured with the use of an optical disk. And the flat surface of the semicircular coincides with the component axis of the disk. And we make sure that the ray strikes the center of the glass for both trials (and surfaces). So, did I get the right angles? And are the indices of refraction really different for each surface? And If ever they aren't, why are they different? |
|
Nov 20 |
asked | Index of Refraction |