Optimizing Laser Beam Divergence for Spot Size Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0207
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Increasing
AI Thread Summary
A laser beam with a 50 mm diameter and 0.4 mrad divergence is being analyzed for spot size control. The user seeks to achieve a 1 m spot size at 100 m using a diverging lens instead of a beam expander. The calculated focal length for the diverging lens is approximately -4000 mm to achieve the desired spot size, indicating an increase in beam divergence. The original figure of 5335 mm was derived from geometric modeling in Rhino3D but lacks certainty. The user acknowledges that the small divergence would minimally impact the larger spot size goal.
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 ?
 
Physics 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.
 
Back
Top