23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Quality of measurement report.

Django Trueman-Greinke-Group B

Determining the focal length of a lens.

Contents:
Aim:

Page 2

Background physics:
Page 2
Preliminary Method:
Page 2
Method:

Page 3

Risk Assessment:
Page 4
Results:

Page 5

Graphs:

Page 7

Anomalies and Errors:

Page 8
Analysis:

Page 8

Cross checking of results:

Page 9
Conclusion:

Page 10

Improvements:
Page 11

1 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Aim:
To find out the most effective way of determining the focal length of a lens.

Background Physics:
A key piece of background physics to make my experiment effective is that the
focal length is directly related to the distance from the lens to the object and the
distance from the lens to the image. The formula for is 1/v=1/u+1/f this can be
rearranged to 1/f=1/v-1/u. In this equation, f is the focal length; v is the
image distance; and u is the object distance (u is always negative).
The variables for the experiment are as follows.
Independent:
Distance from the lens to the object (u).
Dependent: Distance from the lens to the image (v).
Control:
The size and power of the lens.
The shape of the lens.
The position of the bulb.
If the theory is correct then each of the values for u and v should give the same
value for f (using the equation above).
In my graph I should get a straight line with the equation y=mx+c Where y is
1/Image distance; m is 1 (the closer it is to 1 the more accurate my
experiment); x is 1/Object distance; and c is 1/focal length. Using this graph I
will easily be able to work out the focal length by dividing 1 by c.

Preliminary Method:
I set up the equipment as shown in the diagram (Page 3). I then found the
approximate focal length of the lens and picked one with a medium focal length.
This allowed me to measure a large number of different distances with a good
amount of intervals between each value. I then took several measurements and
found out that a suitable interval to measure each value was a 5cm difference. I
then found that the lens was suitable for measurements between 20cm and
80cm.
This information shows me that my experiment should be set up so the lens is
20cm away from the object and then moved away at 5cm intervals until a
suitable number of data points are collected. For example up to 65cm away from
the object.

2 | Page

Django Trueman-Greinke

1/Distance from the

lens to the image
(m-1)

23/02/14

Method:

1/Distance from the lens to the

Equipment: object (m-1)
Meter ruler

To measure the distance between the bulb and the

lens, and the lens and the screen. This should be used
as it long enough to take all measurement from
without needing to take multiple measurements, like
you would with a 30cm ruler.

White screen

As a screen to view the image on, white is good as it

creates good contrast allowing it to be easy to tell
when the image comes into focus.

Fixed blocks

To place the lens and the bulb on securely, so they

dont move and affect the results.

Adjustable block

To place the screen on so it easily adjusted without

having to jog the entire apparatus.

Glass Convex Lens

To project the image of the filament onto the screen.

Glass should be used as it is easy to clean and plastic
can become very dirty easily.

Ray box with filament bulb

To create the image of the filament which would
be projected onto the screen by the lens.

Diagram:

3 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Setting up the equipment.

Set up the equipment as shown in the diagram.
The experiment.
1. Position the lens 20cm away from the bulb and move the screen so that
the image comes into focus. Record the distance from the image to the
lens in the table.
2. Move the lens back 5cm and move the screen so that the image is in focus
again. Record the distance from the image to the lens in the table.
3. Repeat step 2, until there are 10 different results.
4. Repeat step 1, 2 and 3 until there are 5 different results for every
measurement.
5. Find the average value for each length.
6. Next work out the focal length for each different result. To work out the
focal length the equation is 1/v=1/u+1/f, or 1/v-1/u=1/f.
u is the object distance (the distance from the lens to the object, this is
always negative)
v is the image distance (the distance of the screen from the lens when the
image is in focus)
f is the focal length, this is what were trying to find.
Errors.
There could be a random error as to when the image is in focus as it is hard to
tell when an image is in exact focus.
There could be a small systematic error in the distance from the lens as the ruler
only measures in mm, so there could be up to a 0.5mm error.
4 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Risk Assessment:
Risk

To Who

Avoidance

Lens or bulb glass

breaking

Equipment
Me

Be careful when carrying

around and make sure
securely in place when
set up.

Faulty wiring in bulb or

power box.

Equipment
Me

Get teacher to check

wiring.

Light bulb burning hand.

Me
Others

Trip hazard from bags.

Me
Others

Do not touch bulb when

on and wait for it to cool
down after use.
Make sure hazards are
safely put out of the way.

Results:
Distance from the lens to the
object (m) 0.002
-0.200
-0.250
-0.300
-0.350
-0.400
-0.450
-0.500
-0.550
-0.600
-0.650
Date

Distance from the lens to the image

(m) 0.005
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
0.678
0.666
0.649
0.654
0.668
0.406
0.408
0.588
0.397
0.401
0.311
0.318
0.302
0.309
0.305
0.264
0.273
0.264
0.271
0.266
0.249
0.249
0.252
0.244
0.247
0.231
0.226
0.229
0.230
0.231
0.220
0.219
0.217
0.215
0.218
0.210
0.211
0.209
0.208
0.209
0.209
0.202
0.202
0.201
0.211
0.196
0.198
0.195
0.196
0.193
10/02/20
14

10/02/20
14

11/02/20
14

11/02/20
14

11/02/20
14

5 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

This clearly shows that test 3 for the -0.250 distance from the lens to the object
was anomalous and should therefore not be used for in any calculations. The rest
of the data is concordent with each other and is therefore valid to use.

Error Analysis

Distance from the

lens to the object
(m) 0.002

Distance from the lens to the

image (m)
0.005
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
1
2
3
4
5

-0.200

0.678

0.666

0.649

0.654

0.668

-0.250

0.406

0.408

0.588

0.397

0.401

-0.300

0.311

0.318

0.302

0.309

0.305

-0.350

0.264

0.273

0.264

0.271

0.266

-0.400

0.249

0.249

0.252

0.244

0.247

-0.450

0.231

0.226

0.229

0.230

0.231

-0.500

0.220

0.219

0.217

0.215

0.218

-0.550

0.210

0.211

0.209

0.208

0.209

Avera
ge
0.663
0.403
0.309
0.268
0.248
0.229
0.218
0.209

Ran
ge
0.02
9
0.01
1
0.01
6
0.00
9
0.00
8
0.00
5
0.00
5
0.00

Spre
ad
0.014
5
0.005
5
0.008
0.004
5
0.004
0.002
5
0.002
5
0.001

6 | Page

%
2.
2
1.
4
2.
6
1.
7
1.
6
1.
1
1.
1
0.

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke
3

-0.600
-0.650

0.209

0.202

0.202

0.201

0.211

0.01
0.00
0.196 0.198 0.195 0.196 0.193
0.196
5
(Formula for percentage error: ((max-min)/average) x 100)
1/Distance from the
lens to the object (m1
) 0.002

-5.000
-4.000
-3.333
-2.857
-2.500
-2.222
-2.000
-1.818
-1.667
-1.538

0.205

5
0.005
0.002
5

1/Distance from the

lens to the image
(m-1) 0.005
1.580
2.481
3.236
3.731
4.032
4.367
4.587
4.785
4.878
5.102

Graphs:
Focal length of a lens: Initial
experiment

7 | Page

7
2.
4
1.
3

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

y=1.0166x+6.6162
Y Intercept= 6.6162 0.29 (4.38%)
(m-1)
X Intercept= -6.5082 0.15 (2.30%)
(m-1)
Average Intercept = 6.5622 0.22

On graph:

y
x
y
x

plots are 1/image distance

plots are 1/object distance
intercept is 1/positive focal length
intercept is 1/negative focal length

Anomalies and Errors:

Equipment suitability and calibration: My equipment used was fairly
accurate, as there was no major systematic error. The only noticeable systematic
was due to the imperfect curvature of the lens. To calibrate my equipment I had
to record where the object was on the ruler as there was no way to make it
exactly zero. To account for this I simply removed the value of where the object
8 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

was from the value for where the distance where the lens was, this made sure
there wasnt a systematic error from the ruler.
Anomalies: I had one anomalous result. It was the third test when the distance
from the lens to the object was -0.25 m.
Errors: My data is clearly repeatable as the maximum percentage error is only
2.6%. This means that, although not perfect, my data was largely consistent and
is repeatable. My gradient is not one (this is what it should be) however it is only
0.02 off. It is off because the image of the filament is not clear and therefore
difficult to tell when it exactly in focus. Also it could be off due to the fact that
the lens might not be perfectly curved. The curvature to the lens is a systematic
error, as is the clarity of when the image is in focus. The clarity of the image was
my biggest error.

Analysis:
My graph shows that the y intercept is 6.6162 and the x intercept of -6.0582.
This gives an average focal length of 6.5622 with a percentage error of 3.35%.
This is 1/Focal length, so the focal length is 1/6.5622 or 0.15 with the same
percentage error.
Focal Length of lens: 0.15m 3.35%

Cross Checking of results:

Instead of using the graph to find the focal length it is possible to use the
equation 1/v=1/u+1/f. Using the data collected I can change the equation to
1/f=1/0.663-1/-0.2. This gives me a value of 0.154 for the focal length. I can do

9 | Page

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

this for each different length and work out an average. This is found in the table
below.
1/v-1/u
6.508

Focal Length
0.154

6.481

0.154

6.570

0.152

6.594

0.152

6.529

0.153

6.581

0.152

6.591

0.152

6.594

0.152

6.545

0.153

6.651

0.150

This gives a focal length of 0.152. This matches the value found from the graph.
Another way of checking the results is to use both intercepts on the graph. This
also gave me the result 0.15; this shows my results were valid.

Conclusion:
From this data I can find that it was fairly precise as my percentage error was all
very low, with the highest at only 2.6%. There was only one anomalous result,
this shows that the data was fairly consistent as well. When the graph was
plotted the gradient was meant to be 1 however it was 1.0166 0.006. This
means that there was a small error; this could be due to the lens not being
perfectly curved or the image of the filament being difficult to tell when it is in
focus. My data clearly showed that the equation is effective as each piece of data
10 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

gave the same result for the focal length; this means that the data was very
consistent. This result also matches the result given on from my graph showing
that there is a clear link between the equation and the graph produced.
As mentioned earlier, there are 2 main errors, the lack of perfect curvature and
the difficulty of telling when the image is in focus. This could have affected my
results by up to 4.38%, this is fairly high, and therefore should be reduced.
Overall the data obtained was fairly precise but could be made a lot better. It
showed a high similarity to the equation 1/v=1/u+1/f and the graph linked to
this strongly. The main source of error was the systematic error from the
curvature of the lens. This is a problem as the light would enter the lens and be
bent in slightly different ways in each part of the lens, this would affect where
the focal length is and also mean that the focal length might be different for
different parts of the lens. To improve the experiment the systematic error should
be reduced, this would show a greater likeness the equation and be much closer
to the true value.

Improvements:
Initial experiment errors
For my initial experiment I found that my largest errors were a systematic error
and a random error. The systematic error was caused because the lens wasnt
perfectly curved so the light wouldnt focus in the same way each time. The
11 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

random error was caused because the image of the filament was hard to tell
when it was in focus.

Reducing the errors

For the systematic error I covered part of the lens with tape so that only the
centre let any light through. This would mean that the curvature of the lens
would be much more even as there would only be a portion of it showing.
For the random error I used the head of a pin instead of a filament bulb as the
pin has much more detail and therefore is a lot easier to tell when the image is in
focus.
Doing this brings the error of the distance from the lens to the image down to
0.002m.

New method
Equipment:
Meter ruler
Glass Convex Lens
Tape
12 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Cork
Pin
Desk lamp
Adjustable block
Fixed block
Diagram:

Setting up the equipment.

Set up the equipment as shown in the diagram.
The experiment.
1. Put the tape on the lens so only a 2cm diameter section lets light through
in the centre of the lens.
2. Position the lens 20cm away from the pin and move the screen so that the
image comes into focus. Record the distance from the image to the lens in
the table.
13 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

3. Move the lens back 5cm and move the screen so that the image is in focus
again. Record the distance from the image to the lens in the table.
4. Repeat step 2, until there are 10 different results.
5. Repeat step 1, 2 and 3 until there are 5 different results for every
measurement.
6. Find the average value for each length.
7. Next work out the focal length for each different result. To work out the
focal length the equation is 1/v=1/u+1/f, or 1/v-1/u=1/f.
u is the object distance (the distance from the lens to the object, this is
always negative)
v is the image distance (the distance of the screen from the lens when the
image is in focus)
f is the focal length, this is what were trying to find.

Errors.
There could be a small systematic error in the distance from the lens as the ruler
only measures in mm, so there could be up to a 0.5mm error.

Results:
Distance from the lens to the
object (m) 0.001
-0.200
-0.250
-0.300
-0.350
-0.400
-0.450

Distance from the lens to the image

(m) 0.002
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
0.676
0.685
0.677
0.680
0.683
0.401
0.397
0.404
0.401
0.403
0.322
0.319
0.323
0.323
0.321
0.281
0.277
0.280
0.280
0.279
0.255
0.254
0.251
0.254
0.252
0.235
0.238
0.237
0.238
0.239
14 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

-0.500
-0.550
-0.600
-0.650

0.227
0.217
0.210
0.203

0.225
0.217
0.209
0.205

0.226
0.214
0.208
0.204

0.224
0.216
0.211
0.205

0.225
0.216
0.210
0.204

Date

14/02/20
14

14/02/20
14

14/02/20
14

14/02/20
14

14/02/20
14

This clearly shows that there were no anomalous results as all the data is
concordent with each other.

Error analysis

Distance from the

lens to the object
(m) 0.002

Distance from the lens to the

image (m)
0.005
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
1
2
3
4
5

-0.200

0.676

0.685

0.677

0.680

0.683

-0.250

0.401

0.397

0.404

0.401

0.403

-0.300

0.322

0.319

0.323

0.323

0.321

Avera
ge
0.680
0.401
0.322

Ran
ge
0.00
9
0.00
6
0.00
4

Spre
ad
0.004
5
0.003
0.002

15 | P a g e

%
0.
7
0.
7
0.
6

23/02/14

-0.350
-0.400
-0.450
-0.500
-0.550
-0.600
-0.650

Django Trueman-Greinke
0.00
4
0.00
0.255 0.254 0.251 0.254 0.252 0.253
4
0.00
0.235 0.238 0.237 0.238 0.239 0.237
4
0.00
0.227 0.225 0.226 0.224 0.225 0.225
3
0.00
0.217 0.217 0.214 0.216 0.216 0.216
3
0.00
0.210 0.209 0.208 0.211 0.210 0.210
3
0.00
0.203 0.205 0.204 0.205 0.204 0.204
2
(Formula for percentage error: ((max-min)/average) x 100)

0.281

0.277

0.280

1/Distance from the

lens to the object (m1
) 0.002

-5.000
-4.000
-3.333
-2.857
-2.500
-2.222
-2.000
-1.818
-1.667
-1.538

0.280

0.279

0.279

0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
5
0.001
5
0.001
5
0.001

1/Distance from the

lens to the image
(m-1) 0.005
1.471
2.439
3.106
3.584
3.953
4.219
4.444
4.630
4.762
4.902

16 | P a g e

0.
7
0.
8
0.
8
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
5

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

Graphs:

y=0.994x+6.4287
Y Intercept= 6.4287 0.05 (0.7%) (m-1)
X Intercept= -6.4975 0.1 (1.5%) (m-1)
Average Intercept = 6.4631 0.075
(1.16%) (m-1)
Focal Length =0.155 0.002 (1.16%) (m)

On graph:

y
x
y
x

plots are 1/image distance

plots are 1/object distance
intercept is 1/positive focal length
intercept is 1/negative focal length

Anomalies and Errors:

Anomalies: I had no anomalous results.
Errors: My data is clearly repeatable as the maximum percentage error is only
0.8%. This means that my data is very consistent and is repeatable. My gradient
17 | P a g e

23/02/14

Django Trueman-Greinke

is not one (this is what it should be) however it is only 0.006 off. This is negligible
and would not affect the result in a fundamental way.

Analysis:
My graph shows that the y intersect is 6.4287 and my x intersect is -6.4975. This
gives me an average value for 1/f of 6.4613 with a percentage error of 0.01%.
This means that the focal length is 1/6.4287 or 0.1556 with the same percentage
error.
Focal Length of lens: 0.1556m 0.01%

Conclusion:
Overall I found that my second experiment greatly improved upon the initial
experiment as the percentage error reduced by 4.09% and the results were
much more consistent with each other. It clearly shows that the focal length is
related to the distance between the object and the lens, and the lens and the
object; this allowed me to calculate the focal length of the lens very accurately
with minimal error. In the table below the two experiments are compared, the
gradient for both lines should be 1, the gradient for the second experiment is
only 0.006 off, whereas the first experiment experiment was 0.017 off which
means that the second experiment massively improved on the first. My
plus/minus error also reduced by over 50% from the first to the second
experiment.
Experiment

Focal Length

Gradient

Experiment 1

0.152 0.005

1.017 0.02

Experiment 2

0.1556 0.002

0.994 0.005

18 | P a g e