Spherical glass vs parabolic acrylic

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the suitability of using a spherical glass mirror versus a parabolic acrylic mirror for conducting a Schlieren experiment. Participants explore the implications of material choice, focal lengths, and optical quality on the resulting images, with a focus on affordability and effectiveness rather than laboratory-grade precision.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses interest in using a parabolic acrylic mirror due to cost concerns but questions its ability to produce quality Schlieren images.
  • Another participant suggests experimenting with a convex lens, sharing a personal anecdote about using a vehicle's windshield to achieve a similar effect.
  • A different participant raises a concern about the focal lengths of the mirrors, noting that the acrylic version has a significantly shorter focal length compared to the recommended glass mirror.
  • One participant argues that the acrylic mirror would be inadequate due to its larger spot size at the focal point, which could hinder the clarity of Schlieren images.
  • This participant also provides criteria for evaluating mirrors, emphasizing the importance of the f-number and surface quality in achieving good image resolution.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of shadowgraphy as a related technique, reflecting on the historical context of Schlieren imaging and expressing curiosity about early methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the suitability of the acrylic mirror for Schlieren imaging, with some advocating for its use while others strongly advise against it based on optical quality concerns. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best choice of mirror.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various factors that could affect the performance of the mirrors, including focal length, spot size, and surface quality, but do not reach a consensus on the implications of these factors for the Schlieren experiment.

kylie22
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am trying to buy the parts to perform a Schlieren experiment (see an example here: https://bit.ly/2mwbzkl)

It is suggested to use a Spherical Primary Telescope Mirror (glass), however when i look into getting larger than 160 mm versions, they start to get extremely expensive.

So, as an alternative, I found this parabolic mirror (acrylic) which come in various larger sizes:
https://ebay.to/2mwYKq0

Do you think that the acrylic ones could be good enough to produce some interesting Schlieren images? I am not really looking at lab grade stuff since it's too expensive (if anyone knows a good deal i would be interested), but I would rather have it able to produce "pretty" good images.

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kylie22 said:
Hello,

I am trying to buy the parts to perform a Schlieren experiment (see an example here: https://bit.ly/2mwbzkl)

It is suggested to use a Spherical Primary Telescope Mirror (glass), however when i look into getting larger than 160 mm versions, they start to get extremely expensive.

So, as an alternative, I found this parabolic mirror (acrylic) which come in various larger sizes:
https://ebay.to/2mwYKq0

Do you think that the acrylic ones could be good enough to produce some interesting Schlieren images? I am not really looking at lab grade stuff since it's too expensive (if anyone knows a good deal i would be interested), but I would rather have it able to produce "pretty" good images.

Thanks a lot!
Can't help you with your specific problem of finding a cheap "concave" lens, but you might want to experiment with a "convex" lens.
I discovered last Halloween that a vehicle's windshield produced almost the same effect, when shining into my living room.

Here's what I witnessed when I put an oil lamp in line with the light, and took an image on my living room wall:

pseudo.schlieren.photography.png


Kind of "dollar store-ish". But still, kind of fun.
 

Attachments

  • pseudo.schlieren.photography.png
    pseudo.schlieren.photography.png
    49.6 KB · Views: 1,242
May want to check the focal lengths. The video/demo has a good deal longer focal length (1300mm) than the plastic version (460mm). This shouldn't be an issue from a physics/optics standpoint, but if apparatus crowding is a problem...
 
That acrylic mirror you referenced would be a poor fit for what you want. It has spot size at its focal point of 15mm, 0.6 inches; not good for getting clear Schlieren images, the smaller the spot size the better image you will get.

Here are a couple criteria you can use to help evaluate mirrors:

Look at the f-number, that is the focal length divided by the diameter. That is a limiting factor in the resolution of a lens or mirror. Anything from about 7 or 8 upward for f-number is rather good and above 10 it doesn't matter. The f-number for the acrylic mirror is 2.8, for the telescope mirror it is 8.1.

You also must have a 'good' surface, that is smooth without ripples or un-intended changes in curvature. To see what this can do to spot size, look at the images at the bottom of http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/knowhow/knowhow15.html
Also see the last image on the instructables.com page you referenced. That mirror would be fine for your usage, astronomy people would consider it 'not very good.'

Cheers,
Tom

p.s. The above holds for both mirrors and lenses, a concave mirror does the same thing as a convex lens. The difference is a mirror has the image in 'front' of it and the lense has the image in 'back' of it. Also large mirrors are lower cost than large lenses (only one surface to shape and polish).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff and ChemAir
OmCheeto said:
...
Kind of "dollar store-ish". But still, kind of fun.

It appears that I stumbled across something called "Shadowgraphy".

PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF SCHLIEREN IMAGING SYSTEMS
Amrita Mazumdar
Columbia University, New York, NY
Originally released July 2011

1 Introduction
Exploration within the field of schlieren imaging stagnated in the 1900s, largely due to the precise nature
of constructing a Schlieren system, the exorbitant cost of creating a system large enough to study everyday
objects, and the stationary nature of the system.
Related Systems
4.1 Shadowgraphy
Shadowgraph [wiki]
Shadowgraph is an optical method that reveals non-uniformities in transparent media like air, water, or glass. It is related to, but simpler than, the schlieren and schlieren photography methods that perform a similar function.
Schlieren_photography [wiki]
If a knife edge is not used, the system is generally referred to as a shadowgraph system...

Guessing that it's the "exorbitant cost" that has kept me from studying this further.

But I find it fascinating that REALLY OLD people could do this:

Schlieren [wiki]
History
Schlieren were first observed by Robert Hooke in 1665 using a large concave lens and two candles.

And I'm scratching my head, 353 years later; "How did he do that!"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K