2015
Thompson, Kevin P.; Schiesser, Eric M.; Rolland, Jannick P.
Why are freeform telescopes less alignment sensitive than a traditional unobscured TMA? Conference
Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 9633, no. 963317, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: CeFO, design
@conference{Thomponoptifab15a,
title = {Why are freeform telescopes less alignment sensitive than a traditional unobscured TMA?},
author = {Kevin P. Thompson and Eric M. Schiesser and Jannick P. Rolland},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195784},
doi = {10.1117/12.2195784},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-10-11},
booktitle = {Proceedings of SPIE},
volume = {9633},
number = {963317},
abstract = {As freeform optical systems emerge as interesting and innovative solutions for imaging in 3D packages there is an assumption they are going to be more sensitive particularly at assembly. While it is true that the clocking of the component becomes a relatively weak new tolerance, for the most effective new class of freeform systems the alignment sensitivity is actually lower in most cases than for a comparable traditional unobscured three mirror anastigmatic (TMA) telescope.
Traditional unobscured TMA telescopes, whose designs emerged in the mid-70s and which begin to appear as hardware in the literature in the early 90s, are based on using increasingly offset apertures with otherwise coaxial rotationally symmetric mirrors. The mirrors (typically 3 to correct spherical, coma, and astigmatism) have evolved to contain more high order terms as the designs are pushed to more compact and wider field packages – the NIRCAM camera for the JWST is an excellent example of this [1]. As the higher order terms are added, the mirrors become increasingly sensitive to decenters and tilts.
An emerging class of freeform telescopes that provide wider field of view and/or faster f/numbers than the traditional TMA are based on a strategy where the surface shape remains a low order Zernike-type surface even in compact, unobscured packages. This optical design strategy results in an optical form that is not only higher performance but simultaneously less sensitive to alignment.},
keywords = {CeFO, design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
As freeform optical systems emerge as interesting and innovative solutions for imaging in 3D packages there is an assumption they are going to be more sensitive particularly at assembly. While it is true that the clocking of the component becomes a relatively weak new tolerance, for the most effective new class of freeform systems the alignment sensitivity is actually lower in most cases than for a comparable traditional unobscured three mirror anastigmatic (TMA) telescope.
Traditional unobscured TMA telescopes, whose designs emerged in the mid-70s and which begin to appear as hardware in the literature in the early 90s, are based on using increasingly offset apertures with otherwise coaxial rotationally symmetric mirrors. The mirrors (typically 3 to correct spherical, coma, and astigmatism) have evolved to contain more high order terms as the designs are pushed to more compact and wider field packages – the NIRCAM camera for the JWST is an excellent example of this [1]. As the higher order terms are added, the mirrors become increasingly sensitive to decenters and tilts.
An emerging class of freeform telescopes that provide wider field of view and/or faster f/numbers than the traditional TMA are based on a strategy where the surface shape remains a low order Zernike-type surface even in compact, unobscured packages. This optical design strategy results in an optical form that is not only higher performance but simultaneously less sensitive to alignment.
Traditional unobscured TMA telescopes, whose designs emerged in the mid-70s and which begin to appear as hardware in the literature in the early 90s, are based on using increasingly offset apertures with otherwise coaxial rotationally symmetric mirrors. The mirrors (typically 3 to correct spherical, coma, and astigmatism) have evolved to contain more high order terms as the designs are pushed to more compact and wider field packages – the NIRCAM camera for the JWST is an excellent example of this [1]. As the higher order terms are added, the mirrors become increasingly sensitive to decenters and tilts.
An emerging class of freeform telescopes that provide wider field of view and/or faster f/numbers than the traditional TMA are based on a strategy where the surface shape remains a low order Zernike-type surface even in compact, unobscured packages. This optical design strategy results in an optical form that is not only higher performance but simultaneously less sensitive to alignment.
Gray, R.; Rolland, J. P.
Wavefront aberration function in terms of R.V. Shack’s vector product and Zernike polynomial vectors Journal Article
In: JOSA A, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1836-1847, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: design, related
@article{GRAY15,
title = {Wavefront aberration function in terms of R.V. Shack’s vector product and Zernike polynomial vectors},
author = {Gray, R. and J. P. Rolland},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.32.001836},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-08-18},
urldate = {2015-08-18},
journal = {JOSA A},
volume = {32},
number = {10},
pages = {1836-1847},
abstract = {Previous papers have shown how, for rotationally symmetric optical imaging systems, nodes in the field dependence of the wavefront aberration function develop when a rotationally symmetric optical surface within an imaging optical system is decentered and/or tilted. In this paper, we show how Shack’s vector product (SVP) can be used to express the wavefront aberration function and to define vectors in terms of the Zernike polynomials. The wavefront aberration function is then expressed in terms of the Zernike vectors. It is further shown that SVP fits within the framework of two-dimensional geometric algebra (GA). Within the GA framework, an equation for the third-order node locations for the binodal astigmatism term that emerge in the presence of tilts and decenters is then demonstrated. A computer model of a three-mirror telescope system is used to demonstrate the validity of the mathematical development.},
keywords = {design, related},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Previous papers have shown how, for rotationally symmetric optical imaging systems, nodes in the field dependence of the wavefront aberration function develop when a rotationally symmetric optical surface within an imaging optical system is decentered and/or tilted. In this paper, we show how Shack’s vector product (SVP) can be used to express the wavefront aberration function and to define vectors in terms of the Zernike polynomials. The wavefront aberration function is then expressed in terms of the Zernike vectors. It is further shown that SVP fits within the framework of two-dimensional geometric algebra (GA). Within the GA framework, an equation for the third-order node locations for the binodal astigmatism term that emerge in the presence of tilts and decenters is then demonstrated. A computer model of a three-mirror telescope system is used to demonstrate the validity of the mathematical development.
Chen, Z.
Design and Illumination for a Czerny-Turner Spectrometer Masters Thesis
2015.
@mastersthesis{Chen,
title = {Design and Illumination for a Czerny-Turner Spectrometer},
author = {Chen, Z.},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-07-15},
keywords = {CeFO, design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {mastersthesis}
}
Bauer, A.; Rolland, J. P.
Design Process for an All-Reflective Freeform Electronic Viewfinder Conference
Imaging and Applied Optics 2015 OSA Technical Digest, no. FW3B.2 , 2015, (OSA freeform conference June 8-12).
@conference{Bauerosa,
title = {Design Process for an All-Reflective Freeform Electronic Viewfinder},
author = {Bauer, A. and J. P. Rolland},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-08},
booktitle = {Imaging and Applied Optics 2015 OSA Technical Digest},
number = {FW3B.2 },
note = {OSA freeform conference June 8-12},
keywords = {CeFO, design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
Reimers, Jacob; Schiesser, Eric M.; Thompson, K. P.; Whiteaker, K. L.; Yates, D.; Rolland, J. P.
Comparison of Freeform Imaging Spectrometer Design Forms Using Spectral Full-Field Displays Conference
Imaging and Applied Optics 2015 OSA Technical Digest, no. FM3B.3 , 2015.
@conference{Reimersfreeform15,
title = {Comparison of Freeform Imaging Spectrometer Design Forms Using Spectral Full-Field Displays},
author = {Jacob Reimers and Eric M. Schiesser and K. P. Thompson and K. L. Whiteaker and D. Yates and J. P. Rolland},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-08},
booktitle = {Imaging and Applied Optics 2015 OSA Technical Digest},
number = {FM3B.3 },
keywords = {CeFO, design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
Rolland, J. P.
A Leap Forward in Optical Systems Presentation
05.05.2015, (Keynote Speech at Applied Optics and Photonics China (AOPC2015), 5-7 May 2015, Beijing China.).
BibTeX | Tags: assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing, testing
@misc{ROLLANDa,
title = {A Leap Forward in Optical Systems},
author = {Rolland, J. P.},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-05-05},
note = {Keynote Speech at Applied Optics and Photonics China (AOPC2015), 5-7 May 2015, Beijing China.},
keywords = {assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing, testing},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
Rolland, J. P.
Highlights of a two-parts case study with freeform optics Presentation
23.02.2015, (keynote speech at EPIC workshop Denmark (February 23-24 2015)).
BibTeX | Tags: assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing
@misc{ROLLANDb,
title = {Highlights of a two-parts case study with freeform optics},
author = {Rolland, J. P.},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-02-23},
note = {keynote speech at EPIC workshop Denmark (February 23-24 2015)},
keywords = {assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
2014
Thompson, K. P.; Rolland, J. P.
Cost-driven self-consistent fabrication and assembly tolerance classes Conference
Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 9633, no. 96330U, 2014.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: assembly, design, related
@conference{Thomsponoptifab15b,
title = {Cost-driven self-consistent fabrication and assembly tolerance classes},
author = {Thompson, K.P. and J.P. Rolland},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195783},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-10-11},
urldate = {2014-10-11},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the SPIE},
volume = {9633},
number = {96330U},
abstract = {At the 1994 International Optics Design Conference, a paper was presented by the author that proposed that optics costs are often driven by the fabrication and assembly tolerances. In addition, that these tolerances fall into groups (classes) that for any given shop are set typically by the capital investment in measurement equipment that the shop has access to. The premise is then that it is essential that the optical system tolerances on fabrication, e.g. radii, element thickness, wedge, surface figure, and surface finish and on assembly e.g. component tilt and decenter and spacer thickness and wedge that are assigned by the optical designer be self-consistent with the capabilities of the shops that are solicited to provide a quotation.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.},
keywords = {assembly, design, related},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
At the 1994 International Optics Design Conference, a paper was presented by the author that proposed that optics costs are often driven by the fabrication and assembly tolerances. In addition, that these tolerances fall into groups (classes) that for any given shop are set typically by the capital investment in measurement equipment that the shop has access to. The premise is then that it is essential that the optical system tolerances on fabrication, e.g. radii, element thickness, wedge, surface figure, and surface finish and on assembly e.g. component tilt and decenter and spacer thickness and wedge that are assigned by the optical designer be self-consistent with the capabilities of the shops that are solicited to provide a quotation.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.
In the 1994 paper, five classes of optical fabricators were identified; catalog, regular, select, premium, and ultimate (lithography). For each of these classes, representative minimum tolerances were published along with estimates of the cost increment. An important concept is that if any one tolerance falls into a tighter class, then the optical system must be built in a shop capitalized to provide that one minimum tolerance and as a result all the other tolerances can typically be moved to the tighter class with little cost impact. The primary cost impact then is driven by the class of shop dictated by the minimum tolerance. In this talk, a primary purpose is to revisit the tolerances associated with a given class of shop and update the numbers to reflect advances in the intervening two decades.
Rolland, J. P.
Applications and Challenges with Freeform Optics Presentation
22.06.2014, (Keynote speech at ASPE, (Hawaii, Big Island, 22-26 June 2014)).
BibTeX | Tags: assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing, testing
@misc{ROLLANDc,
title = {Applications and Challenges with Freeform Optics},
author = {Rolland, J. P.},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-06-22},
note = {Keynote speech at ASPE, (Hawaii, Big Island, 22-26 June 2014)},
keywords = {assembly, CeFO, design, manufacturing, testing},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}