In Zemax, is there an analysis option that gives me what the NA of the system is? How do I know/calculate the NA for my system in Zemax?
Hello.
Formula - wavelength = (Aperture Size*SinΓΈ) / n
My aperture size is 0.06mm... Theta(angle) = 0.6 and I believe N = refractive index = 1
Therefore 0.06*Sin(0.6) / 1
I am meant to get ~ 600 but I get 6x10-4.
Iβm not sure what Iβm putting in wrong so need help thanks
Imagine you have a square fiber. No big deal, NA = sqrt(ncore^2 -ncladding^2). But thats if your fiber has an input and output that are parallel.
Now imagine the input face is slanted with an angle theta. How does the NA change as a function of theta?
Background: The focal ratio or 'f-number' of a simple optical system (say, a telescope) is given by the ratio of its focal length to the diameter of the aperture (which in the case of a telescope is the lens or primary mirror). 'Fast' optics typically have a focal ratio of f/5 or less, and the term 'fast' comes from the ability to use a short shutter time during photography.
Questions: Why is it that two optical systems with the same diameter aperture will allow you to collect more light per unit time? It seems to me the focal ratio is a measure of how narrow or shallow the rays converge toward the focal point (related to the optic's numerical aperture). I would expect the amount of light collected in a given time to depend only on the diameter of the optic and not on how shallow the rays converge.
I'll be the first to say that f# and numerical aperture (NA) have always confused me because they seem to describe the same thing - how sharply a lens focuses light. Any clarification between these two quantities would be appreciated.
please no ELI15 answers, go into as much detail as you like :)
Have you folks ever had to explain NA and resolution limits to non-science oriented people? I seem to find myself in situations where I have to explain over and over why it is really impractical to measure something that is 4 microns with a 500x lens with a NA of .5. Anyone have thoughts?
I just bought the Portal 2 mod Aperture Tag and I can't launch it. When I launch it, it takes about 10 seconds and then comes up with this error box (https://imgur.com/a/az9YzEj), and won't load after that point. I tried a solution to a similar problem, though it was for Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2 runs on Source, whether Aperture Tag & Portal 2 runs on what SquidNoot calls "the portal engine". So that didn't work, does anyone else know what to do?
It's not perfect and no substitute for glasses but is certainly a neat trick.
So, I have to do some kind of practise work in my numerical methods class, and I got an thought of maybe simulating a rocket launch(?), but I'm not really sure where to begin or if it's even an doable idea. Suggestions(what part could I even numerically simulate?) / ideas please! :)
Itβs fine printing βnickelβ or Dimeβ on them but if youβre a foreigner then youβve got no idea how much you actually have in your pocket!
BONUS: If you press the key combination again, the app will be minimized / maximized.
Extra BONUS: If you add Shift key to the combination, it will open a new instance / window.
I just finished teaching my Numerical Analysis class for the Fall. Grades are in, and so I can sit back for a bit.
I always feel that the class gets a bit rushed at the very end. I spend a lot of time on polynomial approximation when I teach the class, and then I view the rest of the class as applications of polynomial approximations. This includes Newton's method, Integration and Differentiation, and the solution to initial value problems.
I felt that my presentation to my students was a bit slap dash for IVPs. So I wrapped up Runge Kutta methods into this video here, if anyone is curious: https://youtu.be/t48a2M27kjM
If you taught a class this semester, how did it go for you? There was such a shuffle working around COVID and the possibility of shutting down all semester, and I feel it took longer than usual to hit a stride. Did you feel you rushed anything at the end?
If you are a student, how was the flip side of all of this?
Quran, the greatest book in existence. When you read it, it leaves no doubt that there was no way it could've been written by a human. Just look at the various miracles it presents. I'm gonna be presenting you with one set of those kinds of miracles, numerical miracles. Hope this helps change the way you look at the Quran
There's 6666 or 6236 Ayahs in the quran.
6666- 666 is the devils number. So 6666 means 6 times devil. This may be a hint that the Quran was written by 6 devils or someone 6 times more evil than the devil.
6236- 6(2+3)6, 656, 6(5+1,as in 1 true god)6, 666. Devils number.
There are 118 Surahs in the Quran, (1+1)8, (2)8, since the position of 2 is behind 8 it will subtract from the 8. So 8-2=6. And there are 30 parts of the Quran, 0 has no value so let's take the 3. The previously derived 6 repeats 3 times. 666.
There are 86 Makki surahs. 8 sixes, 66666666, 28 madani surahs, so 8-2 6. Add this 6 to the previous 8 sixes and we'll get three 666.
If you're still not convinced that the writer of Quran was not a mere man, but it was the devil/devils then you're delusional.
If this wasn't obvious I made this post as a rant against Muslims showering me with bullshit numerical miracles.
I fully understand why things like grades and number scores are a thing since they are an easy (or at least easier) way of communicating what someone thinks and feels about a particular piece of media. Communication as it is today is all about shorthand in one way or another after all.
My issue is that not only do I feel it is incredibly strange to quantify things that are so abstract (though again I realize that it is an inherent compromise), it is even stranger when I see people talk about objective scores or needing to dock points for what something did it didn't do as if it were a test. And to go on a slight tangent, objectivity in the way people often talk about it and fetishize it is incredibly bizzare since art is inherently subjective.
What especially irritates me would be when I see arbitrary categories that are applied to everything when, surprisingly enough, stories often aim for different things. Dan Olson made an entire video poking fun at this, and this tendency is just one of many things I personally find irritating about how we talk about media.
