Aspheric optics: smoothing the ripples with semi-flexible tools
Abstract
A well-known fabrication problem with aspheric optical surfaces lies in high-frequency surface irregularities inherent in the figuring process. Optical grinding and polishing tools can smooth these ripples, yet retain the flexibility required to fit the aspheric surface. An f/0.52, paraboloidal, 17-in. convex surface is produced with conventional rigid tools. A transmission ronchigram is obtained showing high- spatial-frequency errors of large magnitude. After four hours of grinding with a semi-flexible multiple-segment ring tool, almost all high-frequency error is removed. This shows good potential for smoothing finished aspheric optics. Flexible tools can also be involved in the figuring process itself.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The general approach to minimizing MSF errors in the final workpiece during fabrication is to develop processes that minimize the creation of MSF errors during surface figure correction and/or to reduce MSF errors post surface figure correction using a smoothing polishing process.
“The general approach to minimizing MRF errors in the final workpiece during fabrication is to: 1) develop processes that minimize the creation of MSF errors during surface figure correction (such as optimized rastering patterns[12-14], tool size selection, and tool process parameters[15, 16]); and/or 2) reduce MSF errors post surface figure correction using a smoothing polishing process[17-20].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing
Suratwala, T., Tham, G., Steele, R., Wong, L., Menapace, J., Ray, N., & Bauman, B. (2023) · Applied Optics · doi:10.1364/ao.482739 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tuell, M. T., Burge, J. H., & Anderson, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tuell, Michael T.
- Venue
- Optical Engineering
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 2002-07-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 07
- Pages
- 1473-1474
- ISSN
- 0091-3286 (ISSN-L)
- 1560-2303
- OpenAlex
- W2161207065
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 0.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Optical Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced optical system design
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Keywords
- aspheric optics, optical polishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
