What is the boundary surface of a collimator?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the boundary surface of a collimator, specifically the shape of the boundary line f(x) between two mediums that collimates rays from a point light source. Participants explore the relationship between the slope of the boundary line and the polar angle of the rays, as well as the implications of boundary conditions on the function f(x).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to determine the function φ(x) necessary to calculate the boundary line f(x) based on the slope m(φ) and given boundary conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that a sketch would aid in understanding the definitions of the variables involved.
  • A later reply introduces the function r(φ) derived from the refraction condition, proposing it as a useful intermediate step to relate to f(x).
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to connect the slopes provided by Snell's law to the intercepts needed for constructing f(x), noting that they only have information about the slopes of the tangents.
  • Another participant mentions that while Snell's law provides a differential equation, it can be solved numerically, suggesting a method of calculating f(x) in small increments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to derive the function f(x) from the given information, and multiple approaches and uncertainties remain in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge, particularly regarding the connection between slopes and intercepts, and the absence of an analytic solution for m(φ).

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!
 
Science 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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K