Got a question?
Can't find the answer you need? Ask your peers!
- 2,001 Topics
- 5,515 Replies
Marginal Ray solve function
Hi,Following Zemax tutorial, I add Marginal Ray Solve for my paraxial lens? What does it mean in practice? Also, my spot diagram has changed.I am sorry if my questions sound very basic, but I a very new to Zemax. Could you also suggest some easy-to-understand materials that would helps in making a sense out of analysing graphs and diagrams produced by Zemax?
Bug in Layout, Layout 3D and Shaded Modeling
This has been a bug in Zemax for going on decades now. Say I have a lens with three lenses between object and image. I view it with Layout, Layout 3D and/or Shaded Model. It draws fine.I then insert a new surface right after the object. Invariably, the lens viewing routines do not recognize this surface and now begin plotting at surface 2. The new surface 1 is totally ignored. I have to go back to layout settings and update the surface range to see the new surface.Why? This is such a simple thing to ask of Zemax lens viewing routines, to always plot all surfaces in the LDE. Why does this continue to be a bug?
Objective lens implementation from patent
Hi everyone, Our lab is using a Zeiss 20X water immersion lens (Item no.: 421452-9800-000) in a custom light-sheet microscope, and I was trying to perform some simulations of the point spread function (PSF).I searched for the patent of this lens, and potentially found something relevant at the German patent office (Application No. 10 2005 051 025.6). In this patent, Table 3 describes a 20X water-immersion objective lens with a 1.0 NA and 2.149 mm working distance. I’m copying this table here for your reference:Surface number Radius Thickness Nd Vd 0 Water immersion 1 -9.039 4.80 1.519 64.0 2 -19.248 4.61 1.597 35.0 3 -9.576 0.40 4 -101.598 5.00 1.440 94.6 5 -14.227 0.10 6 64.011 5.50 1.440 94.6 7 -21.754 0.50 8 58.715 7.00 1.530 76.6 9 -15.181 1.50 1.641 42.2 10 14.227 6.80 1.440 94.6 11 -53.084 0.10 12 14.539 7.10 1.440 94.6 13 -68.788 1.77
Can OpticStudio sequential mode be used to model long distance free-space Gaussian laser beam propagation?
Hello everyone,There are 3 tools in OpticStudio sequential mode to model Gaussian laser beam propagation, ray-based approach, Paraxial Gaussian Beam analysis, and Physical Optics Propagation. In the knowledgebase articles (https://www.zemax.com/blogs/free-tutorials/modeling-laser-beam-propagation-in-opticstudio), the beam has been analyzed through the optical system as it propagates to 100 mm. It also recommends to use Paraxial or Physical Optics Propagation tool when the propagation length is long and beam is collimated.Will it be right to use Paraxial or POP if the propagation length is some hundred meters between transmitter and detector (as is in the case of free space optics FSO links) or there any limit on distance?Thank you for the reply!
OpticStudio Tolerancing : step size of compensator.
Hi there, In OpticStudio, during tolerancing, is there a way to request for the compensator to take specific step sizes within the designated range. For example for the comp range from -0.26mm to +0.26 mm, can we designate it to take 0.0125mm steps?thanks in adv, Phil
Tolerancing the input beam when using POP
Hello!I’m working on a system in which I evaluate physical optics propagation (POP) for beams of several different sizes in the merit function. The way I change the beam size within POP is using a little macro I wrote (see snippet below). This code works well when I’m optimizing or playing with values in the LDE, but it does not yield consistent results when I run a tolerance analysis. I suspect this is because of how .cfg files are handled during tolerancing.Is there a better way to modify the POP parameters so that they are modified appropriately during tolerancing? path$ = $PATHNAME() + "\"lensFilename$ = $FILENAME()lengthFilename = SLEN(lensFilename$)shortenFilename$ = $LEFTSTRING(lensFilename$, lengthFilename-3)cfgFilename$ = path$ + shortenFilename$ + "CFG"w0_in = PVHX() # read in the HX parameter. "PV" is a mnenomic for "pass value"! change the beam waist of the light coming from the fiberMODIFYSETTINGS cfgFilename$, POP_PARAM1, w0_in # Waist X of beam definition tabMODIFYSETTI
Why my paraxial lens stopped focusing after adding scan mirror?
Hi,I am using paraxial lens as an objective to focus scanned light beam. Before I added mirror to the system, the paraxial lens was focusing, but after mirror was added, the light was defocused. I thought “quick focus” may help, but instead I got negative focus. What I am doing wrong? Regards,Marzanna
Tolerancing for fiber coupling
Dear Experts,I have an optical system (refractive telescope + some lenses) to couple a laser beam into a single-mode fiber. I currently want to tolerance my system, so that the coupling efficiency does not drop below a threshold.Currently, I use as a tolerancing criterion RMS Wavefront or RMS Spot Radius with a Paraxial Focus compensator. This works fine, but I have the feeling that those criteria don’t model the fiber coupling very well. Fiber coupling efficiency drops sharply if the focus spot moves from the center position, even if I compensate the shift with “Align Receiver to Chief Ray” feature in the Fiber Coupling tool.I have tried to use the Merit function with a FICL operator, but this makes tolerancing really slow and FICL does not allow “Align Receiver to Chief Ray” I.e. sometime a smaller (better) RMS Spot Radius has a worse fiber coupling efficiency.Maybe somebody has an idea, how to model fiber coupling more efficient to make the right decisions in the tolerancing process
CodeV to Zemax
Hi, A colleague converted a CodeV file to a Zemax file. I am a Zemax user, the file won’t trace rays in Zemax . I get an error statement - “error in target, can’t lunch rays”. I went ahead to set vignetting in the field editor and try to trace rays again and now I get the statement - “error in target, missed surface 52”. since rays can’t be traced, no analysis can be done. What can I do to fix these errors? could this be a conversion problem from CodeV to Zemax ? Assuming the problem is from the conversion, how do I fix this? Thank you.
How to Evaluate Zernike Values with Multiple-Configs in Tolerancing
Hello, I’d like to know how to output a set of Zernike values when running Tolerancing when I have two separate configurations?Setup: There are two wavefronts being evaluated in each configuration. Tolerancing is setup to run a User Tolerance Script. The TSC loads a merit function with criterion for both configurations. There is a setting under Tolerancing→ Criterion that allows for the configuration to be set to “All”, “1/2” and “2/2”. The TSC computes the standard Zernike terms within and reports them to an output TXT file.Issue: Running in any CFG mode produces the nominal system output and only one evaluation of the MIN/MAX tolerance. If running in “All” mode, the Zernike values for CFG 1 are reported, same as running in “1/2” mode. Running in “2/2” modes, the Zernike values expected for CFG 2 are reported. Question: Is there a trigger for the TSC or a setting such that Zernike values for both configs are output during a single tolerancing run? Given the TSC is called at each itera
Export non sequential mode file into CAD with solid beam pattern
Hello everyone,I was wondering if there is some way to convert a non sequential mode zemax file into a CAD fileusing the solid beam ray pattern instead of a XY fan ray pattern (by default before non sequential mode conversion).This way, rays would not be lines anymore, but solids, and would be way easier to use in Solidworks.Thank you!Best regards,David.
NSC Surface to object
I’m trying to model an anamorphic lens in non-sequential mode. The lens is planar on the incident side, and aspherical on the output side, with different asphere equations for x and y coordinates. The ‘Aspheric Surface 2’ seems to offer what I need in terms of the ability to specify different conic coefficients for x and y, but I cannot figure out how to create a volume from this. The format used in sequential mode, where the surface is preceded by a standard surface where the material is specified doesn’t work.Presumably the solution will be the same for any of the surface geometries offered in NSC mode, but all the examples and knowledgebase articles I can find apply mirror coatings to these surfaces, so they are modelled as infinitely thin shells.Any help would be greatly appreciated.
how to get the beam size and divergence at different FW for as non Gaussian beam
Dear all, I noticed that zemax gives the beam size and divergence at 1/e^2 FW (full width) (13.5% FW) but, I would like to have it at 10%. Does anyone know whether there is a way in zemax to get the beam size and divergence at other FW. My beam is not Gaussian so, I cannot simply convert the 13.5%, the zemax output, to 10% using the intensity distribution. Thanks in advance,Maryam
sagittal and tangential MTF values are far different
Hi everyone,Do you have an idea on why the sagittal and tangential MTF values are far by this much as shown below?Some details about the System: Off-axis mirror set, curved mirrors involved.Red arrow: sagittalYellow arrow: tangentialLooking forward
Nonsquanial GRIN lens modeling
Hi, I am trying to develop a GRIN lens model for my optical design. However, the profile of the beam output is not correct. I would like to learn how I can fix it. Below is a screenshot of the result I have from Zemax 13. As we can see, the beam only focuses on one axis (y-axis). The width in the z-axis reminds the same. I tried to run the simulation using OpticStudio 22.3, but the result reminds the same. I followed this thread to start my work. The GRIN lens I use is from Edmund #64-541. (https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/10mm-dia-810nm-dwl-00mm-wd-nir-coated-grin-lens/19253/) I imported the .step file downloaded from the website and assigned the index based on what I got from the sequential mode. I feel this issue comes from the .step file. I tried to draw a solid cylinder with 1 mm in diameter and 2.38 mm in length (the same as the dimension of the GRIN lens), but it did not work… Maybe I should not draw a solid cylinder directly. Or it was actually caused by other issues.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.