I What is the boundary surface of a collimator?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the boundary line f(x) between two mediums that collimates rays from a point light source, focusing on determining the polar angle φ(x) necessary for this calculation. The user has derived the slope m(φ) for rays at angles less than a critical angle φc but is uncertain how to transition from m(φ) to m(x) without knowing φ(x). They specify boundary conditions, including the minimum distance from the source to the boundary and the radius R of the lens, to aid in the calculation. Suggestions include using the refraction condition to derive an intermediate function r(φ) and employing numerical methods to compute f(x) incrementally. The conversation highlights the challenges of deriving intercepts from known slopes and emphasizes the potential for numerical solutions in the absence of analytical expressions.
kubenun
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,

I’m trying to calculate the shape of a boundary line f(x) between two mediums that collimates rays from a point light source. This requires the rays to hit the boundary line under a certain angle, so I calculated the slope m(φ) of the boundary line for a ray with polar angle φ (φ is less than a known critical angle φc). Now in order to get from m(φ) to m(x), I need φ(x). But how do I get it?

Specifying the boundary conditions:
i) Since I will calculate the boundary line by integrating m(x), specifying f(x=0) – i.e. the minimum distance between source and boundary line – determines the constant of integration.
ii) From a physical point of view, I can further specify the radius R of the “lens.” This means x ≤ R and phi(x=R) = φc.

So what is φ(x)? Or, in general terms, how can I construct a function f(x) if I know the slope as a function of the polar angle φ (with given f(x=0) and R)?

It sounds easy but I’m stuck nonetheless. Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A sketch would help to understand how your variables are defined.
 
r(φ) could be a useful intermediate function. You get it from the refraction condition and an integral, afterwards there are standard ways to convert that to a function f(x) (not always in an analytical way, however).
 
Interesting idea! I'm assuming r denotes the distance the ray has traveled when hitting the boundary, right? Getting from r(φ) to f(φ) is easy once I've got r(φ), which is somehow smoothly connected to f(x=0), but it is the same story as before: Snell's law tells me the slopes of the tangents only, not the intercepts.

Geometrically speaking, all tangent lines envelope f, but all I know is the slopes, not the intercepts. If I knew those, too, I could just Legendre transform the tangents to get f(x).

By the way, I don't need an analytic solution to this, since there is no analytic expression for m(φ) either. :)
 
kubenun said:
I'm assuming r denotes the distance the ray has traveled when hitting the boundary, right?
Sure.
kubenun said:
Snell's law tells me the slopes of the tangents only, not the intercepts.
It gives you a differential equation, but this time as r'(φ) = r f(φ) not as something much more complicated. Easy to solve numerically.

If you have to use numerical methods only, where would be the problem with calculating f(x) in small steps of x, calculating f'(x) at every point?
 
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...
Back
Top