Help Needed: Calculating Wavefront Error from PV Measurement

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the Wavefront Error (WFE) from a Peak-to-Valley (PV) surface error measurement of 1 micrometer (um) for a mirror. The formula used is WFE = 2 * SFE, leading to a WFE of 2 um PV. Participants highlight the ambiguity in converting PV to Root Mean Square (RMS) values, noting that common conversion factors range from 3 to 5, depending on the type of surface aberration. The lack of specific context regarding the type of aberration in the problem statement adds to the confusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of optical engineering principles
  • Familiarity with Wavefront Error (WFE) and Peak-to-Valley (PV) measurements
  • Knowledge of Root Mean Square (RMS) calculations in optics
  • Basic grasp of surface aberrations and their impact on optical performance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the relationship between Peak-to-Valley (PV) and Root Mean Square (RMS) values in optical measurements
  • Study different types of surface aberrations and their characteristics
  • Learn about optical engineering standards and best practices for WFE calculations
  • Explore software tools for simulating optical surfaces and analyzing wavefront errors
USEFUL FOR

Optical engineers, physics students, and anyone involved in the design and analysis of optical systems will benefit from this discussion.

AaronBurr
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Thank you all for any help or advice you can give.

1. Homework Statement

What is the fabrication Wavefront error (WFE) of a mirror with a PV surface error of 1 um? Express your answer in terms of RMS waves at lambda = 0.633 um

Homework Equations


WFE=2*SFE

The Attempt at a Solution


I know to start by calculating the WFE. I know the SFE=1um
WFE=2*1um
WFE=2um PV

I don't know how to convert PV into RMS. Everything I've read says there is no set ratio between PV and RMS measurements. But that values from 3-5 are commonly used depending on the surface error. So I'm a little confused.

Thank you again for any help you can offer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know much about optics, but to me it seems like the problem statement is missing some context.

There isn't any mention of a specific type of surface aberration, or perhaps some kind of approximation based on some assumptions you've discussed in your course?
 
Thank you for the response.
I feel the same way that's why I was asking. There is no mention of specific type of aberration in the question, and as far as I can tell from the reading you can use any number between 3-5 depending on the different aberration you are dealing with. I was hoping someone was familiar with optical engineering and could let me know what I'm missing. Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K