measured accommodation is shifted by 0.5 diopters compared to design

  • 15 January 2022
  • 3 replies
  • 96 views

Userlevel 3
Badge

I have a simple lens system that has a fixed distance between a mechanical measurement datum and the sensor. A doublet + 2 windows is designed to accommodate object positions (working length) from 6 to -2 diopters when adjusted within its mechanical travel limits. Layout above is shown at 6 diopters.

I have large data set of measurements where the accommodation is shifted 0.5 diopters (5.5 to -2.5) from what is predicted by the Optics Studio model. I’ve checked with multiple sensors, a different focus lens with same focal length, and double checked all the mechanical dimensions. The focus travel limit position error for the 0.5 diopter shift is on the order of 0.010” and my measurement confidence is ~+/- 0.001”.

I’ve considered error from wavelength, focus criteria, dimensional measurements.

Is there any fundamental reason I shouldn’t expect better agreement between the model and measurements?

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thank you,

John


3 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +3

Hi John,

I know a lot less about measurement systems than you, but I see no fundamental reason for any difference. I’m assuming the OS model includes all filters and windows, as these can provide aberration. One place to look is in the definitions of what the software is computing, versus what your experiment is measuring. Anything in the software with a paraxial reference would be suspect IMHO, and even real rays can be misleading as many definitions are based on a single, infinitely thin ray. Experimentally you have to measure a finite cone, there are no infinitesimal lines.

That said, I wonder how well what you measure experimentally matches up to the definition of the RMS spot size/wavefront error. Just make sure you’re comparing equivalent things.

The last thing I would suggest is simplifying the system or measuring as early in the beam as you can, so you can see at what point any difference occurs.

Hope that helps,

  • Mark
Userlevel 3
Badge

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your all your thoughts and suggestions. In the end, I had one paraxial assumption that was shifting error on one side and a missed mechanical hysteresis that was brining both limits.

 

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +3

Real life is so much harder than software :grinning:

Reply