Galilean beam expander and spherical aberration

AI Thread Summary
To build a Galilean beam expander or contraction with plano-convex and plano-concave lenses, the arrangement of the lenses is crucial for minimizing spherical aberration. The recommended configuration is to have the curved face of the lens facing the collimated beam and the flat face facing the diverging or converging beam. Confusion arises from differing diagrams in various sources, particularly from Melles Griot, which may not accurately represent optimal alignment. A reliable reference is provided by Edmund Optics, which clarifies the correct arrangement. Proper lens alignment is essential for achieving the best optical performance and reducing aberrations.
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:
Physics 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:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top