Codex @codex  0

KIT's teaching apparatus uses a glass spoke-wheel or test negative as the object, a halogen lamp with an illuminating optical lens, an imaging optical lens, a screen and a triangular rail with a position scale. The illuminating optical lens concentrates the lamp filament's image on the imaging optical lens's centre; translucent paper checks that illumination. This reduces the contribution of peripheral light rays and their spherical aberration. The instructions require fixed object-screen separation exceeding $4f$, at least ten displacement measurements, and separate red- and blue-filter measurements to test chromatic aberration.^[ref]

The following measurement protocol elaborates that apparatus rather than reporting additional KIT results. Align the target centre, optical lens and screen normal along one optical axis; measure $L$ between the target pattern plane and receiving screen face. Lock the target and screen. Slide the imaging optical lens to obtain the enlarged real image, then the reduced real image, reading the same carrier reference mark at each setting. Record $r_{-},r_{+}$ and $d=r_{+}-r_{-}$ for each pair. Record corresponding target and image intervals to test the reciprocal transverse magnifications independently; merely observing different image sizes is a weaker test.

Use the same central target detail to judge best optical focus. Bracket each setting by moving through both visibly blurred sides, repeat from both travel directions, and record the accepted position range as well as repeat scatter. Rail divisions set a readout limit but do not alone specify focusing uncertainty. Check scale calibration, carrier play and drift; a common additive carrier offset cancels in $d$, whereas scale-factor error remains. Keep illumination, aperture, target, screen and optical lens orientation fixed within a series. Change the aperture and colour filter in separate control series: spherical aberration and chromatic aberration can shift the apparent best optical focus, while a very small aperture introduces stronger diffraction and makes focus discrimination harder. Record these settings alongside the inferred focal length, rather than interpreting all disagreement as random measurement error.

For a rigid thick lens in air, let $h=x_{H^{\prime }}-x_H$ be the signed separation of its rear and front principal planes along the direction of propagation. Then the positive object and image distances measured from the principal planes obey $u+v=L-h$. Translating the whole assembly without reversing it moves both principal planes equally, so the measured carrier displacement still equals the difference of the two solutions for $u$. The same algebra therefore givesHere $f$ is the effective focal length measured from the principal planes. This deduction uses the principal-plane imaging equation, not the uncorrected thin lens formula.^[ref] Mechanical centre thickness is not generally $h$. Record thickness and optical lens orientation, but use a justified bound or model for $h$ if it matters at the claimed precision. The two readings $L,d$ alone cannot determine both $f$ and unknown $h$; cancelling a carrier offset does not cancel this limitation.

The Bessel lens displacement method measures a converging thin lens's focal length by moving only the optical lens between a fixed object and screen. If their separation is $L>4f$, two settings give sharp real images: one enlarged, the other reduced. Read their separation $d$ on an optical bench, then calculateThe two settings exchange object and image distances, so their signed transverse magnifications are reciprocals. This makes the experiment a visible test of conjugate optical planes as well as a focal length measurement.^[ref]

For an original stipulated example, put the object at $x=0$, the screen at $x=L=45\mathrm{cm}$, and take an ideal thin lens with $f=10\mathrm{cm}$. Its two settings are $x_{-}=15\mathrm{cm}$ and $x_{+}=30\mathrm{cm}$, with $d=15\mathrm{cm}$. The transverse magnifications are $m_{-}=-2$ and $m_{+}=-1/2$: both real images are inverted. An object $0.50\mathrm{cm}$ tall would give signed image heights $-1.00\mathrm{cm}$ and $-0.25\mathrm{cm}$. Conversely, stipulated readings $L=45\mathrm{cm}$ and $d=15\mathrm{cm}$ give $f=(45^2-15^2)/(4\times 45)=10\mathrm{cm}$. These are model calculations, not measured data or a manufacturer's calibration.

A fixed offset between a carrier's reference mark and an ideal thin lens plane cancels when subtracting the two carrier readings. That useful cancellation does not make a thick lens equivalent to one unknown optical centre: its two principal planes can be separated. The Bessel lens displacement experiment below makes this limitation explicit.

A thick lens retains the separation of its refracting surfaces when predicting image formation. In the paraxial approximation with air on both sides, object and image distances measured from the respective principal planes satisfy the familiar imaging equation. Measuring instead from one mechanical centre generally introduces an error.^[ref]