ANALYSIS

Mirrors reflect light regularly and can form images There are three kinds of

mirrors: plane, concave and convex mirrors. A concave mirror is also called a

converging mirror because it reflects light rays such that they encourage in front of

the mirror. A concave mirror can form real and virtual images depending on the

object distance. A convex mirror is also called a diverging mirror because it reflected

light rays are diverging. A convex mirror can only form virtual images that are erect,

smaller than the object, and located behind the mirror.

Spherical Mirrors

A spherical mirror is a mirror which has the shape of a piece cut out of a

spherical surface. There are two types of spherical mirrors: concave, and convex.

These are illustrated in Fig. 68. The most commonly occurring examples of concave

mirrors are shaving mirrors and makeup mirrors. As is well-known, these types of

mirrors magnify objects placed close to them. The most commonly occurring

examples of convex mirrors are the passenger-side wing mirrors of cars. These types

of mirrors have wider fields of view than equivalent flat mirrors, but objects which

appear in them generally look smaller (and, therefore, farther away) than they

actually are.
 Figure 1a. Concave Mirror

Figure 1b. Convex Mirror

The mirror is assumed to be rotationally symmetric about this axis. Hence, we

can represent a three-dimensional mirror in a two-dimensional diagram, without loss

of generality. The point “V” at which the principal axis touches the surface of the

mirror is called the vertex. The point “C”, on the principal axis, which is equidistant

from all points on the reflecting surface of the mirror is called the center of curvature.

The distance along the principal axis from point “C” to point “V” is called the radius

of curvature of the mirror and is denoted “R”. It is found experimentally that rays
striking a concave mirror parallel to its principal axis, and not too far away from this

axis, are reflected by the mirror such that they all pass through the same point “F”

on the principal axis. This point, which is lies between the center of curvature and

the vertex, is called the focal point, or focus, of the mirror. The distance along the

principal axis from the focus to the vertex is called the focal length of the mirror,

and is denoted f.

In our study of concave mirrors, we are going to assume that all light-rays

which strike a mirror parallel to its principal axis (e.g., all rays emanating from a

distant object) are brought to a focus at the same point “F”. Of course, as mentioned

above, this is only an approximation. It turns out that as rays from a distant object

depart further from the principal axis of a concave mirror, they are brought to a focus

ever closer to the mirror, this lack of perfect focusing of a spherical mirror is called

spherical aberration. The approximation in which we neglect spherical aberration is

called the paraxial approximation. Likewise, the study of image formation under this

approximation is known as paraxial optics. This field of optics was first investigated

systematically by the famous German mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss in 1841.

It can be demonstrated, by geometry, that the only type of mirror which does

not suffer from spherical aberration is a parabolic mirror (i.e., a mirror whose

reflecting surface is the surface of revolution of a parabola). Thus, a ray traveling

parallel to the principal axis of a parabolic mirror is brought to a focus at the same
point $F$, no matter how far the ray is from the axis. Since the path of a light-ray is

completely reversible, it follows that a light source placed at the focus “F” of a

parabolic mirror yields a perfectly parallel beam of light, after the light has reflected

off the surface of the mirror. Parabolic mirrors are more difficult, and, therefore,

more expensive, to make than spherical mirrors. Thus, parabolic mirrors are only

used in situations where the spherical aberration of a conventional spherical mirror

would be a serious problem. The receiving dishes of radio telescopes are generally

parabolic. They reflect the incoming radio waves from (very) distant astronomical

sources and sbring them to a focus at a single point, where a detector is placed. In

this case, since the sources are extremely faint, it is imperative to avoid the signal

losses which would be associated with spherical aberration. A car headlight consists

of a light-bulb placed at the focus of a parabolic reflector. The use of a parabolic

reflector enables the headlight to cast a very straight beam of light ahead of the car.

The beam would be nowhere near as well-focused were a spherical reflector used

instead.

In this activity, a theory was given to us and we need to prove it through this

experiment. The theory states that the center of the surface of a spherical mirror is

called the vertex. The distance from the vertex to the center of the sphere from where

the mirror is cut is the radius R of the mirror. Halfway between the vertex and the

center of the mirror is the focal point F or focus. The distance from the focal point
to the vertex is called the focal length of the mirror. The focal length is half of the

radius. The focal length is related to the magnifying capacity of the mirror. The

mirror equation relates the object the distances, the image distance s’, and the focal

length f.

1 1 1
= +
𝑓 𝑠 𝑠′

(Equation 1)

The magnification M is the comparison of the image size and the object size.

ℎ𝑖
𝑀=
ℎ𝑜

(Equation 2)

The magnification M is also the ratio of the image distance and object

distance.

𝑠′
𝑀= −
𝑠

(Equation 3)

The negative sign is for the orientation of the image. If the magnification is

positive, the image is erect. The image is inverted if the magnification is negative.
 For the first part of the activity, we set up the apparatus in a way that a

projection screen is placed between the light source and a movable concave mirror

like in the figure shown in the module. We adjusted the concave mirror’s position

until a clear image of the candle is formed on the screen.

We then measured the distance from the candle to the mirror (object distance)

and the distance from the screen to the mirror (image distance). Compute the focal

length of the concave mirror using the first equation given. We repeated the

procedure for two more trials in each case increasing the object distance.

For the second part of the activity, we repeated procedures 1 and 2 but this

time, the candle is between the screen and the concave mirror as in the figure

illustrated in the module. We computed the focal length of the concave mirror using

the first equation given and repeated it for three trials.

 For the last part of the activity, we repeated procedure 1 and 2 but this time,

the candle is by side with the screen as in the figure shown in the guide. We adjusted

the distance of the concave mirror until a sharp image is formed on the screen. We

computed the focal length of the concave mirror using the same equation used on

the previous step, equation 1.

Based from the experiment done, the following result were gathered. Table 1

shows the data when the object distance is greater than the image distance. From the

result gathered, after conducting three trials, the computed average focal length is

9.3821 cm. From this value, the percentage error computed was 15.9026 % which

depicts that the value obtained is precise.

TABLE 1. Object Distance Greater than Image Distance

TRIAL Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 24 cm 15 cm 9.23 cm

2 32 cm 14 cm 9.74 cm

3 39 cm 12 cm 9.18 cm

Average focal Length 9.3821 cm

Focal Length from Table 3 8.0 cm

Percentage Difference 15.9026%

 Moreover, Table 2 shows the data when the image distance is greater than the

object distance. By conducting the activity with three trials, the following result were

obtained. Based from the results, the average focal length is 8.91 cm. It has a

computed percentage error of 10.73 % which can be said to be acceptable and can

be considered as precise.

TABLE 2. Image Distance Greater than Object Distance

TRIAL Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 14.4 cm 23.5 cm 8.93 cm

2 13.2 cm 30.7 cm 9.23 cm

3 11.0 cm 38.6 cm 8.56 cm

Average focal Length 8.91 cm

Focal Length from Table 3 8.0 cm

Percentage Difference 10.73 %

As for the last part of the activity, Table 3 showcases results if the image

distance is equal to the object distance. From this activity, both the object distance

as well as the image distance are at the same magnitude of 16.0 cm respectively. The

focal length on this table became the basis for the focal length used from the previous

tables.
 TABLE 3. Image Distance Equal to Object Distance

TRIAL Object Distance Image Distance Focal Length

1 16.0 cm 16.0 cm 8.0 cm

From this activity, it can be said that the focal length of an object can be

computed through reciprocating the sum of the reciprocal of the object distance and

the reciprocal of the image distance.

 CONCLUSION
In the light of the conduct of the experimentation, the following conclusions

were made possible.

The significant deviation in the findings may have resulted from numerous

errors that affected the accuracy of the measurements made. One of which is the

inaccurate measurement of the distances. With the mirror being held by hand, its

exact position could not be accurately determined. To compensate for this, the mirror

could be mounted to hold the mirror in place as to would allow for more precise

measurements. Another source of error is that there are a certain range of positions

whose generated image could be considered sharp. The limitations for what an

observer may consider as sharp are too broad such that it has affected the results of

the experiment. A proper way or tool to measure the sharpness of the image may be

employed to correct this. Lastly, the tilt required for the mirror in order for the light

from the candle behind the plate to be reflected was also a notable source. This tilt

caused the principal axis to not pass through both the candle and the section of the

plate where the image was generated.

From this activity, it can be said that the focal length of an object can be

computed through reciprocating the sum of the reciprocal of the object distance and

the reciprocal of the image distance.

 Results show that the following values gathered were precise garnering an

average of 15.9026% and 10.73% respectively. This results also depicts that the

value and theory stated above are both true.

DATA SHEET