Effect of distance in collimated space. NOT for homework.

  • Thread starter Thread starter bdg2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homework Space
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion regarding the effect of distance d4 in a collimated optical setup involving a cell phone camera and two lenses. The user has set the camera to focus on infinity, with a known focal length, but is uncertain about how the distance d4 affects magnification. They initially believed that magnification could be calculated simply by the ratio of the focal lengths of the lenses, but have observed that varying d4 significantly alters the captured image. The consensus is that while collimated light should theoretically remain unchanged with distance, practical setup issues may be influencing the results. Clarification on the impact of d4 on magnification is sought, indicating a need for further understanding of optical principles in this context.
bdg2
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi All,
I apologize in advance for the elementary nature of my question, but I have made a genuine effort to understand what is going on using a couple of optics textbooks and remain confused. My background is not in optics but I definitely am just missing something basic.

I have an optical set up I posted here: http://i.imgur.com/XUH0w.png . I am using a cell phone as my imaging device, shown on the far left of the diagram. It has a lens with focal length of 4.6 mm and I have set it to focus on infinity, so the lens and CMOS should be separated by a distance of 4.6 mm. I understand the system for the most part except for the distance I have labeled d4 and similarly the distance I have labeled d1. d1 I basically make as small as possible -- I have an aspheric lens pressed right about against my cell phone and I'm not planning on changing that distance. However, I'm not understanding the effect of measurement d4 on the system's overall magnification. The linear magnification I get from the combination of the first two lenses, or at least what I thought it was, was just (focal length lens 3)/(focal length lens 4), or about 8. However, I notice in my system that the distance d4 changes the image I capture. If I have distance d4 very small, I can fill my cmos sensor with the image of my intended object (my object is actually an image coming out of a fiber bundle).

Anyway, can someone help me to understand the effect on the systems magnification of the distance in collimated space between my "objective" (aspheric lens) and "tube lens" (30 mm achromatic lens). Thanks and again apologies for asking such a rudimentary question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would not expect any influence from d4. The light is parallel and nothing changes with distance, neglecting possible nonlinear effects in your setup.
 
Yeah that's what I would expect too. It's causing quite a big difference, so I must be doing something wrong in setting it up. Thanks
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top