Hello everyone,In order to be more precise in my question, I want to show you the design I did.The magnification that I wanted to reach was -0.5, focal f1= -291mm, focal f2=138mm, focal f3=80mm. distance between the first and second lens=100mm, distance between the second and third lens=295mm.First, I modelled the system with paraxial lenses only (capture1). I also set a gaussian beam illumination. As you can see, the system works pretty well, and gives a magnification of -0.509.However, when I try the same thing but adding 2 optotunes (liquid lenses), the magnification of ~ -0.5 cannot be reached (capture2)! I don’t know if I did something wrong in the setting of the gaussian beam, or if it is the use of adaptative surfaces that can set the whole system out of paraxial condition for the operand PMAG to work correctly…What would you change in order to reach a good magnification?
Hi Mark,I just tried this, but it looks like the operation gives the same result as the magnification calculation with PMAG…(see capture)Do you think adaptative surfaces have a strange behaviors when using paraxial operands with it?Best regards,Marie.
Hello again,I finally found my mistake: I didn’t set the correct radius of curvature in order to get the good focal. That is why the system was not working.Thank you for your help!
Capture 1
Capture 2
Capture 3
Hello mark, thank you for your help. Placing the lenses before placing the mirror into the system was effective!Best regards,Marie.
Hello David, Thank you for your answer. Actually I found the problem: the detector had to be in ABSORB mode in order to be inside the components (like in the oil or in the cover glass of the specimen). So now it works and I can receive the flux on my detector.Best regards,Marie.
Hi Csilla, how did you calculate the thickness of your KDP component? I used Sellmeier's formulas to get the ordinary and extraordinary indices for KDP at the 500nm wavelength you used. I then used the following formula to obtain the thickness: PHI=(2*PI()*e*(ne-no))/lambda. PHI is the phase difference between the ordinary and extraordinary axis of the waveplate, which is PI() in the case of a half waveplate and PI()/2 in the case of a quarter waveplate. e is the thickness, ne is the extraordinary index (from the previous Sellmeier application), and no is the ordinary index (also from the previous Sellmeier application). I can't get the same value of 5.94E-3 you got. My goal is to be able to model a quarter waveplate and a half waveplate in non sequential modeBest regards,Marie.
Hello Csilla, thanks a lot!I didn’t know that the built-in Dispersion Diagram existed.Now it will be easier.Best regards,Marie.
Hello Sandrine,Thanks a lot!Best regards,Marie.
Thank you for the advice Mark.Finally I found the problem of the absorbed flux: in order to work properly in absorbed flux mode, the detector volume must contain an object such as a lens. That is why it didn’t work.Best regards,Marie.
Hello everyone, I finally understood why the system was not working. This is simply because the detector viewer polarisation mode (parameter 16) was not on. My problem now is that the software doesn’t take into account the interactions between the different polarization sources. For instance, if we select the polarization flag number 4 (for the detector rectangle) with Jx=1 for the first source and Jy=1 for the second source the interferences are still here. But in theory, 2 sources of polarization state orthogonal to each other should not produces any interference! So maybe I didn't set another parameter, or maybe this is just the way Zemax deals with interferences and polarization?Can you help me with that?Thanks a lot!Best regards,Marie
Ok, thank you Mark
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.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.