Beam Expansion: Distance between 2 lenses in a Keplerian beam expander

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the optimal distance between two lenses in a Keplerian beam expander, as outlined in the "Exercise In Fundamentals of Photonics" book. The user has established that the distance from the first lens (z1) should equal its focal length (f1). They attempted to substitute variables in their equations to derive the distance for the second lens (z2) and sought to maximize the output distance (z') by setting its derivative to zero. However, they encountered a problem, realizing that z' does not reach a maximum and tends towards infinity. Clarification is requested on the reasoning behind this outcome.
tanhanhbi
Messages
9
Reaction score
3
Homework Statement
Determine the optical distance d between the lenses such that the distance z′ to the waist of the final beam is as large as possible.
Relevant Equations
Gaussian beam
1694753568777.png

Basically this is the Exercise In Fundamentals of Photonics book.
We also need to use these two equation (1) and (2)
1694757157317.png

As we all know, in order to make the z' as far as possible, we must place 2 lens with this distance
1694754359557.png

I already figure that thank to the initial condition of the first lens position
1694754562581.png

So that the z1 must equal to f1
1694754616697.png

For the z2, I tried to replace zo in (2) onto (1), then take the derivative of z' with respect to z2. My initial though that let the derivative of z' equal to 0, we can find the maximal of z'. But actually after finish the derivative thing, z' do not have maximal and I already always infinity ?
1694757110830.png

So I am not sure what wrong with my thinking. If someone could give me a clue, I really appreciate it.
 

Attachments

  • 1694754075958.png
    1694754075958.png
    3.2 KB · Views: 97
  • 1694754132747.png
    1694754132747.png
    3.9 KB · Views: 108
So is there some elegant way to do this or am I just supposed to follow my nose and sub the Taylor expansions for terms in the two boost matrices under the assumption ##v,w\ll 1##, then do three ugly matrix multiplications and get some horrifying kludge for ##R## and show that the product of ##R## and its transpose is the identity matrix with det(R)=1? Without loss of generality I made ##\mathbf{v}## point along the x-axis and since ##\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w} = 0## I set ##w_1 = 0## to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
26K