Abstract

Diffraction bands with black minima are produced by means of a single slit ruled in a light-absorbing film. Since these bands are at their best in the region of strong absorption, it is possible to follow with ease the anomalous dispersion of an aniline dye through the absorption band. Application of this procedure to the study of dispersion in gold films is also made.

© 1934 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. After this paper was completed, Professor R. W. Wood called the writer’s attention to the earlier work of G. Quincke on “lamellar diffraction” (Verdet’s Optik Deutsche Bearbeitung1881, Vol.  1, 292; also G. Quincke, Pogg. Annalen 132, 321 (1867). While Quincke unquestionably gave the correct explanation of the type of diffraction discussed in the present work, he used neither absorbing lamellae or spectroscope and hence did not describe the most interesting phenomena observed in connection with this investigation.
  2. Simple calculation showed that this channelled spectrum obeyed the relation (μ−1)t=nλ1λ2/(λ2−λ1) where μ=refractive index of gelatine, t=thickness of gelatine, and n=number of fringes lying between wave-lengths λ1 and λ2. The calculated thickness, assuming μ=1.5, was 0.029 mm, while that actually measured was 0.030 mm.
  3. A. Sommerfeld, Math. Annalen 47, 317 (1895). Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik188 (1900).
    [CrossRef]
  4. Unfortunately, no record was kept of this latter distance, hence an inter-comparison of the various fringe-widths, in general, is precluded. In the following groups: (3, 4) (6, 7) (8, 10, 12, 13) the distance, while varying from group to group, remained constant within any given group.
  5. A. Pfueger, Ann. d. Physik 65, 113 (1898).
  6. Wood and Magnusson, Phil. Mag. 17, 36 (1910).

1910 (1)

Wood and Magnusson, Phil. Mag. 17, 36 (1910).

1898 (1)

A. Pfueger, Ann. d. Physik 65, 113 (1898).

1895 (1)

A. Sommerfeld, Math. Annalen 47, 317 (1895). Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik188 (1900).
[CrossRef]

1881 (1)

After this paper was completed, Professor R. W. Wood called the writer’s attention to the earlier work of G. Quincke on “lamellar diffraction” (Verdet’s Optik Deutsche Bearbeitung1881, Vol.  1, 292; also G. Quincke, Pogg. Annalen 132, 321 (1867). While Quincke unquestionably gave the correct explanation of the type of diffraction discussed in the present work, he used neither absorbing lamellae or spectroscope and hence did not describe the most interesting phenomena observed in connection with this investigation.

Magnusson,

Wood and Magnusson, Phil. Mag. 17, 36 (1910).

Pfueger, A.

A. Pfueger, Ann. d. Physik 65, 113 (1898).

Quincke, G.

After this paper was completed, Professor R. W. Wood called the writer’s attention to the earlier work of G. Quincke on “lamellar diffraction” (Verdet’s Optik Deutsche Bearbeitung1881, Vol.  1, 292; also G. Quincke, Pogg. Annalen 132, 321 (1867). While Quincke unquestionably gave the correct explanation of the type of diffraction discussed in the present work, he used neither absorbing lamellae or spectroscope and hence did not describe the most interesting phenomena observed in connection with this investigation.

Sommerfeld, A.

A. Sommerfeld, Math. Annalen 47, 317 (1895). Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik188 (1900).
[CrossRef]

Wood,

Wood and Magnusson, Phil. Mag. 17, 36 (1910).

Ann. d. Physik (1)

A. Pfueger, Ann. d. Physik 65, 113 (1898).

Math. Annalen (1)

A. Sommerfeld, Math. Annalen 47, 317 (1895). Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik188 (1900).
[CrossRef]

Phil. Mag. (1)

Wood and Magnusson, Phil. Mag. 17, 36 (1910).

Verdet’s Optik Deutsche Bearbeitung (1)

After this paper was completed, Professor R. W. Wood called the writer’s attention to the earlier work of G. Quincke on “lamellar diffraction” (Verdet’s Optik Deutsche Bearbeitung1881, Vol.  1, 292; also G. Quincke, Pogg. Annalen 132, 321 (1867). While Quincke unquestionably gave the correct explanation of the type of diffraction discussed in the present work, he used neither absorbing lamellae or spectroscope and hence did not describe the most interesting phenomena observed in connection with this investigation.

Other (2)

Simple calculation showed that this channelled spectrum obeyed the relation (μ−1)t=nλ1λ2/(λ2−λ1) where μ=refractive index of gelatine, t=thickness of gelatine, and n=number of fringes lying between wave-lengths λ1 and λ2. The calculated thickness, assuming μ=1.5, was 0.029 mm, while that actually measured was 0.030 mm.

Unfortunately, no record was kept of this latter distance, hence an inter-comparison of the various fringe-widths, in general, is precluded. In the following groups: (3, 4) (6, 7) (8, 10, 12, 13) the distance, while varying from group to group, remained constant within any given group.

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (14)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Interference fringes. 2 slits in gray gelatine wide spectroscope slit.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Same as Fig. 1. Narrow spectroscope slit.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Diffraction by single slit in gray gelatine.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Channelled spectrum.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Single slit in grey gelatine acetone. μ=1.36.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Single slit in grey gelatine arochlor. μ=1.62.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Diffraction pattern due to narrow wire.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Single slit in aniline violet. Anomalous dispersion.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Single slit in aniline green. Anomalous dispersion.

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Aniline violet.

Fig. 12
Fig. 12

Single slit in green gold film.

Fig. 13
Fig. 13

Single slit in colloidal gold. Anomalous dispersion.

Fig. 14
Fig. 14

Helium comparison spectrum.