Finding Object Distance for Upright Image with Magnification +1.51 for Concave Mirror

AI Thread Summary
To find the object distance for an upright image with a magnification of +1.51 for a concave mirror with a radius of curvature of 5.0 cm, the focal length is calculated as f = R/2, resulting in f = 0.025 m. The equations used include 1/Do + 1/Di = 1/f and m = -Di/Do. Substituting Di in terms of Do and simplifying the equations is recommended for easier calculations. Some participants suggest working in centimeters for simplicity. The original attempt at solving the problem contained errors in substitution and simplification, leading to an incorrect object distance.
longcatislong
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose the radius of curvature of a concave mirror is 5.0 cm
a) Find the object distance that gives an upright image with a magnification of +1.51.


Homework Equations



1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

m=-di/do=hi/ho


The Attempt at a Solution



First i convered all cm into m.

f=R/2, so .05/2 = .025.
1/.025=40

then I used m=-Di/Do. Since don't know Do or Di, I substituted for the unknowns using 1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

I came up with...
m=-[40-(1/Do)]/[40-1/(40-1/Do)] and solved for Do.

I got Do=.02506m.

Online HW says it's wrong.

Any help is GREATLY appreciated. What I did makes sense to me but obviously there's an error or just some major concept I don't understand. Thank you so much for taking the time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
longcatislong said:

Homework Statement



Suppose the radius of curvature of a concave mirror is 5.0 cm
a) Find the object distance that gives an upright image with a magnification of +1.51.

Homework Equations



1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f

m=-di/do=hi/ho

The Attempt at a Solution



First i convered all cm into m.

f=R/2, so .05/2 = .025.
Okay, everything seems right so far. :approve:
1/.025=40
I'm not sure why you would want to invert that at this point in the process, but okay.
then I used m=-Di/Do. Since don't know Do or Di, I substituted for the unknowns using 1/Do + 1/Di= 1/f
Substitution is the right idea. :approve:
I came up with...
m=-[40-(1/Do)]/[40-1/(40-1/Do)] and solved for Do.
Now you've lost me. :rolleyes:

So far, you've already figured out
\frac{1}{D_o} + \frac{1}{D_i} = \frac{1}{f}
and
m = -\frac{D_i}{D_o}.
Rather than going the other way around, try substituting D_i = -mD_0 into the first equation. Also substitute f = R/2 into the first equation. It might make it a little easier to solve for D_o that way. (Hint: then find a common denominator for the left side of the equation :wink:)
 
Oh god that's SO much simpler than what I was trying to do. Thanks a million!
 
Glad it worked out. By the way, I find it easier to work in cm rather than meters for this problem. For example, "1/2.5" is easier (for me) to work with than "1/0.025". In the end you get the same answer, of course.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Struggling to make relation between elastic force and height'
Hello guys this is what I tried so far. I used the UTS to calculate the force it needs when the rope tears. My idea was to make a relationship/ function that would give me the force depending on height. Yeah i couldnt find a way to solve it. I also thought about how I could use hooks law (how it was given to me in my script) with the thought of instead of having two part of a rope id have one singular rope from the middle to the top where I could find the difference in height. But the...
Back
Top