[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ATM] Attempted Parametrization of a Petzval Design
Monday, January 9, 2006, 12:00:26 PM, you wrote:
RFLRS> Attila Schné wrote:
>>
>>Dou you use Zemax to design these lenses? Can you give me suggestion
>>how can I use the optimisation function in Zemax?
>>
>>I have not to much knowledge about it.
>>
RFLRS> Actually, I used the GSUM tool to design the doublet. Then I used
RFLRS> ZEMAX to test the Petzval design.
RFLRS> I want to preface the rest with the note that I don't think I've
RFLRS> found two people who agree on merit functions. Many will
RFLRS> totally disagree with mine. Also, you should really read the
RFLRS> optimization chapter in the User's Guide. You may also have to
RFLRS> go back to previous chapters to get the background for the
RFLRS> optimization discussions.
RFLRS> In April 2000, George Anderson sent us Roland Christen's 11 inch
RFLRS> Petzval Design. That design consists of two air-spaced N-K5/F2
RFLRS> doublets. Each doublet has isoconvex crown element and mating
RFLRS> inner radii. Attempting to parametrize that design in ZEMAX:
RFLRS> First, the desired effective focal length had to provide a
RFLRS> given f/#:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 2 CONS 7.50000E+000 0
RFLRS> 3 EPDI 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 4 PROD 3 2 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 5 EFFL 6 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 6 DIFF 5 4 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 7 CONS 1.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 8 PROD 7 6 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Second, the desired doublet to doublet separation had to be a
RFLRS> given fraction of the focal length:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 10 CONS 8.77745E-001 0
RFLRS> 11 PROD 10 5 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 12 TTHI 5 5 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 13 ETVA 5 0 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 14 MINN 12 13 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 15 DIFF 14 11 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 16 CONS 1.00000E-001 0
RFLRS> 17 PROD 16 15 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> I need to calculate semi-diameters (ZEMAX supplies diameters):
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 19 CONS 5.00000E-001 0
RFLRS> ZEMAX does not allow specification of isoconvexity and
RFLRS> fixed edge thickness. Consistent with the design of the
RFLRS> GSUM tool, I specify the minimum thickness as a fraction
RFLRS> of the semi-diameter, but with different values for convex
RFLRS> and concave lenses; I know this gives a discontinuity at
RFLRS> the boundary, but ...
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 21 CONS 1.25000E-001 0
RFLRS> 22 CONS 1.50000E-001 0
RFLRS> Semi-diameter of the first doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 24 DMVA 2 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 25 PROD 24 19 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> Edge thickness of the convex lens in the first doublet.
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 27 ETVA 2 0 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 28 DIVI 27 25 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 29 DIFF 28 21 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 30 CONS 5.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 31 PROD 30 29 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Central thickness of the concave lens in the first doublet.
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 33 TTHI 4 4 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 34 DIVI 33 25 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 35 DIFF 34 22 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 36 CONS 5.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 37 PROD 36 35 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Semi-diameter of the second doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 39 DMVA 6 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 40 PROD 39 19 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> Edge thickness of the convex lens in the second doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 42 ETVA 6 0 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 43 DIVI 42 40 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 44 DIFF 43 21 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 45 CONS 5.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 46 PROD 45 44 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Central thickness of the concave lens in the second doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 48 TTHI 8 8 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 49 DIVI 48 40 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 50 DIFF 49 22 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 51 CONS 5.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 52 PROD 51 50 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> A small air-space in the first doublet may yield ghosts.
RFLRS> This will have to be checked later. Absolute thickness
RFLRS> constraint on the air-space in the first doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 54 CONS 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 55 TTHI 3 3 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 56 ETVA 3 0 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 57 MINN 55 56 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 58 DIFF 57 54 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 59 OPGT 58 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 60 CONS 1.00000E-001 0
RFLRS> 61 PROD 60 59 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Absolute thickness constraint on the air-space in the
RFLRS> second doublet:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 63 CONS 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 64 TTHI 7 7 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 65 ETVA 7 0 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 66 MINN 64 65 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 67 DIFF 66 63 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 68 OPGT 67 0.00000E+000 0
RFLRS> 69 CONS 1.00000E-001 0
RFLRS> 70 PROD 69 68 0.00000E+000 1
RFLRS> Optical performance:
RFLRS> Num Type Int1 Int2 Target Weight
RFLRS> 72 DMFS
RFLRS> I selected the lens diameters, f/#, separation ratio,
RFLRS> wavelengths and field. After freezing the thicknesses and
RFLRS> radii (manual intervention):
RFLRS> Surf Radius Thickness Glass Diameter
RFLRS> STO Infinity -6.652961 290
RFLRS> 2 1583.45 33 N-K5 300
RFLRS> 3 -1583.45 5.55 300
RFLRS> 4 -1583.45 22.5 F2 300
RFLRS> 5 49432.3 1909.1 300
RFLRS> 6 1017.51 22.4 N-K5 200
RFLRS> 7 -1017.51 0 200
RFLRS> 8 -1017.51 15 F2 200
RFLRS> 9 61956.2 1046.915 200
RFLRS> IMA -3055.721 42.27809
RFLRS> The only bad ghost detected by ZEMAX is the reflection
RFLRS> between the lenses of the second doublet;-)
RFLRS> _______________________________________________
RFLRS> ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
Hello Richard,
Thank's for the lot of information!
I need time to interpret them. Maybe I will find some solution for my
difficulties.
Clear skies!
--
Üdv:
Attila Schné
mailto:yolo@chello.hu
_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/