Galilean beam expander and spherical aberration

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the optimal arrangement of plano-convex and plano-concave lenses in a Galilean beam expander to minimize spherical aberration. The consensus is that the curved face should face the collimated beam while the flat face should face the diverging or converging beam. This arrangement effectively splits the optical power, reducing curvature at each lens face. Confusion arises from conflicting diagrams in Melles Griot's catalog, which some participants argue misrepresent the optimal alignment.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of optical lens types: plano-convex and plano-concave
  • Knowledge of spherical aberration in optics
  • Familiarity with beam expansion and contraction principles
  • Ability to interpret optical diagrams and specifications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of spherical aberration in optical systems
  • Study the design and functionality of Galilean beam expanders
  • Examine detailed optical diagrams from reputable sources like Edmund Optics
  • Learn about the impact of lens arrangement on optical performance
USEFUL FOR

Optical engineers, physicists, and anyone involved in designing or utilizing optical systems that require precise beam manipulation and aberration control.

Shaddyab
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Sorry for posting this post in two different place, I could not decide where is the best place to post it.

I am trying to build a Galilean beam expander/contraction using a plano-convex and plano-convace lenses. My question is how should I arrange them to reduce the spherical aberration?
Should the two plano surfaces face each other (http://www.mellesgriot.com/glossary/imagesDir/Gallilean.gif" ), the two curvatures surfaces facing one another, or some different way.

I need to know that both for a beam expander and beam contraction.

Thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
General rule is 'split the powers' = minimise the amount of curvature at each face.
That is the curved face should face the colimated beam and the flat face - the diverging/converging beam.
 
Thank you for your answer.

What is confusing me is that according to this document from Melles Griot
http://www.mellesgriot.com/pdf/CatalogX/X_01_27-28.pdf"
they should be aligned in a different way ( see figure 1.32 )

So what way reduces the spherical aberration better?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think their catalogue is just showing a diagram, this one has more detail
http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=270
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mgb_phys said:
I think their catalogue is just showing a diagram, this one has more detail
http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=270

I do not think it is only a diagram, they are driving an example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shaddyab said:
Thank you for your answer.

What is confusing me is that according to this document from Melles Griot
http://www.mellesgriot.com/pdf/CatalogX/X_01_27-28.pdf"
they should be aligned in a different way ( see figure 1.32 )

So what way reduces the spherical aberration better?

Thanks

Surpisingly, they are showing it wrong for the negative lens. Note in Fig. 1.31, that arrangement has worse aberration than the other way around (1.069 vs. 0.272)

mgb_phy's link to Edmund has the correct figure at the top of the web page.

The way I remember it is: never have the flat face facing a collimated beam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K