You are here

human eye analysis

Submitted by angelasalaza on Wed, 09/26/2018 - 19:19

Analyzing the data from lab 2 the experiment requires the use of Planck constant in finding the pattern of the slope between electron energy and frequency of light from the LED emitter. The law of reflection and the reflected angle from the normal is equal to the angle of incidence from the normal. Because the 1:1 ratio is a constant based off θreflection=θincidence, the slope hypothesis is 1, and the intercept hypothesis 0. The graph compared the recorded Reflection (°) vs Incidence (°), the slope is 0.9485714286 and the intercept is 3.8. The pattern between the refracted angle and the angle of incident is directly proportional. As the angle of incidence increases, refraction increases as well. A 1:1 ratio is not demonstrated because the angle of incidence and angle of reflection presents a higher slope. The graph looks linear but is not linear because of the small angle approximation. The small angle approximation, sinθ is approximate θ if θ is small. In the smaller angle region, the linear portion between sinθ and θ is not linear.



In your sentence where you say "Because technically it should be a 1:1 ration..", I think you should be more specific on what "it" is because there isn't a lot of explanation on what should be a 1:1 ration. Also, I think the word "technically" is unnecessary because it should be a 1:1 ration, however due to errors in lab it is not always exactly a 1:1 ratio. 

This paragraph is well written and accurately conveys the informtion you would like to communicate. There are a few grammatical errors. Your sentence structure is a little choppy, making it hard for the reader to easily comprehend the information.