Optimizing Laser Beam Divergence for Spot Size Control

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 0207
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Increasing
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around optimizing laser beam divergence to control spot size, specifically examining the use of a diverging lens in front of a laser aperture. Participants explore the implications of using a diverging lens versus a conventional beam expander, focusing on the desired spot size at a given distance.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the necessary focal length of a diverging lens to achieve a specific spot size of 1 meter at a distance of 100 meters from a laser beam with a divergence of 0.4 mrad.
  • Another participant suggests a focal length of approximately 5335 mm but expresses uncertainty about this calculation.
  • A request for clarification on the calculation method is made, indicating a desire for a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind the suggested focal length.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of a diverging lens in reducing beam divergence, with one participant stating their intention is to increase the spot size rather than reduce divergence.
  • A calculation is presented suggesting that to achieve a 10 mrad divergence (resulting in a 1 meter spot at 100 meters), a focal length of about -4000 mm is required.
  • One participant explains their earlier calculation of 5335 mm was based on geometric modeling in Rhino3D, noting that the small divergence of 0.4 mrad would lead to a larger spot size of 120 mm at 100 meters if not considered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of a diverging lens for achieving the desired spot size and whether it can reduce beam divergence. There is no consensus on the correct focal length needed, with multiple calculations and approaches presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relationship between beam divergence, focal length, and spot size, but these relationships are not universally agreed upon. The calculations provided depend on specific geometric interpretations and may not account for all variables involved.

0207
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
PLease see if you could help me over this..

I have a laser beam emanating from am aperture of 50 mm dia. The beam divergence being 0.4 mrad. If i now choose a situation where say instead of the conventional beam expander design to expand the beam size and reduce the beam divergence, i choose to simply put a diverging lens in front (immediate exit) of the beam aperture. what should be the focal length of this lens to produce a spot size of 1m (say) at 100m ?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Not very sure but might be around 5335 mm ...
 
thanx..
could you please elaborate and explain how did you arrive at this figure?
 
If you only have a diverging lens, why do you think you will reduce the beam divergence?
 
Your output beam divergence is 0.4 mrad. You want a beam divergence of 10 mrad (1 meter at 100 meters). This is an angular magnification of about 25. So the focal length of the diverging lens should be about -4 meters (-4000 mm).
 
Andy Resnick said:
If you only have a diverging lens, why do you think you will reduce the beam divergence?

I don't intend to reduce the beam divergence.. i want 2 increase the spot size .. beam expanders can help me achieve that (bigger spot size )with an additional advantage of a reduced divergence. but m not interested in following that approach.
 
The 5335 mm earlier was a value obtained with geometry in Rhino3D... that is why I'm not 100% about it. Basically I ran a line between a point at 100m with 500mm (half) elevation through a point at 25mm elevation situated at distance 0. the line went further to cross the X axis at -5335 mm. The small value of 0.4 mrad would increase the spot size of the naked laser beam to 120mm at 100m. I've ignored it since it would have made little difference for the diverted 1 m spot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K