Gaussian Beam Focusing: Find A(0) at Beam Waist

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the beam area at the beam waist A(0) for a Gaussian beam focused by a lens of focal length f. The initial approach involved assuming the beam focused like a cone, which raised concerns about accuracy due to potential infinite intensity values when measuring distances close to the beam waist. A more refined expression using the Rayleigh length ZR was proposed, but the lack of knowledge about the beam waist radius w(0) led to confusion and nonsensical results. Participants sought clarification on the geometry and proper methods for calculating the intensity at the beam waist, emphasizing the need for more precise techniques than the cone approximation. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in Gaussian beam optics and the importance of accurate parameters for reliable calculations.
Lemenks
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
A Gaussian beam has an intensity I(r,z), if the beam area at position Z is given by A(Z), then the beam gets focused by a lens of focal length f, what will the area of the beam be at the beam waist A(0) be?

So I have been trying to figure this out for ages, I had to replicate an experiment in which a student simply assumed the beam focused like a cone, in which case you say the beam is 0 at the beam waist and the beam is "close" to the beam waist and choose/measure a distance. This seemed like pretty poor experimental work to me as you can make the intensity become infinitely large by "choosing/measuring" a value closer to the beam waist. In this scenario I have taken position z from the beam waist to be the focal distance f:

A(f)/A(0) = (pi*w(f)^2)/(pi*w(0)^2) = (w(f)/(w(0))^2 = (f/x)^2

x is the distance from the beam waist that a person "chooses" or "measures". To see the above equation, I found it constructive to draw out a cone and put in the values.

I read several Gaussian optics manuals and a better expression seems to be

A(f)/A(0) = (f/ZR)

Where ZR is the Rayleigh length and is given by

ZR = pi*w(0)^2/gamma

However the problem with this is that I don't know w(0). I read a limit for w(0)>/= 2*gamma/pi, however this seems to result is nonsensical answers.

If anyone here knows or works with lasers, perhaps you could help explain it to me?
 
Lemenks said:
A Gaussian beam has an intensity I(r,z), if the beam area at position Z is given by A(Z), then the beam gets focused by a lens of focal length f, what will the area of the beam be at the beam waist A(0) be?

So I have been trying to figure this out for ages, I had to replicate an experiment in which a student simply assumed the beam focused like a cone, in which case you say the beam is 0 at the beam waist and the beam is "close" to the beam waist and choose/measure a distance. This seemed like pretty poor experimental work to me as you can make the intensity become infinitely large by "choosing/measuring" a value closer to the beam waist. In this scenario I have taken position z from the beam waist to be the focal distance f:

A(f)/A(0) = (pi*w(f)^2)/(pi*w(0)^2) = (w(f)/(w(0))^2 = (f/x)^2

x is the distance from the beam waist that a person "chooses" or "measures". To see the above equation, I found it constructive to draw out a cone and put in the values.

I read several Gaussian optics manuals and a better expression seems to be

A(f)/A(0) = (f/ZR)

Where ZR is the Rayleigh length and is given by

ZR = pi*w(0)^2/gamma

However the problem with this is that I don't know w(0). I read a limit for w(0)>/= 2*gamma/pi, however this seems to result is nonsensical answers.

If anyone here knows or works with lasers, perhaps you could help explain it to me?

I'm a little unclear about your geometry: you seem to have a well-specified gaussian beam (do you know I(r,z) or not?) that is focused by a lens placed at a particular z = Z, and then you want to know the properties of the refracted beam?
 
Andy Resnick said:
I'm a little unclear about your geometry: you seem to have a well-specified gaussian beam (do you know I(r,z) or not?) that is focused by a lens placed at a particular z = Z, and then you want to know the properties of the refracted beam?
Yes I know the intensity at I(r,z) and need to calculate it at I(r,0) - sorry if I made it unclear. I was just a little confused as to the proper way of making this calculation, the beam focusing as a cone shape seemed too approximate and also to contain really large errors so I was trying to see if there was a batter method.
 
Lemenks said:
Yes I know the intensity at I(r,z) and need to calculate it at I(r,0) - sorry if I made it unclear. I was just a little confused as to the proper way of making this calculation, the beam focusing as a cone shape seemed too approximate and also to contain really large errors so I was trying to see if there was a batter method.

Not sure what you have tried already- have you used these resources:

http://www.newport.com/Gaussian-Beam-Optics/144899/1033/content.aspx
http://uigelz.eecs.umich.edu/classes/pub/ece355/handouts/example_gaussian_beam_focused_lens.pdf
http://nicadd.niu.edu/~piot/phys_630/Lesson3.pdf
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top