Development of optimal grinding and polishing tools for aspheric surfaces:
Abstract
The ability to grind and polish steep aspheric surfaces to high quality is limited by the tools used for working the surface. The optician prefers to use large, stiff tools to get good natural smoothing, avoiding small scale surface errors. This is difficult for steep aspheres because the tools must have sufficient compliance to fit the aspheric surface, yet we wish the tools to be stiff so they wear down high regions on the surface. This paper presents a toolkit for designing optimal tools that provide large scale compliance to fit the aspheric surface, yet maintain small scale stiffness for efficient polishing.
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 smoothing mechanism is based on the workpiece-lap (or workpiece-tool) mismatch and the convergence concept, where greater pressure (and hence material removal) occurs at the taller surface height locations on the workpiece relative to the lower surface height locations, resulting in a reduction of overall height variations with polishing.
“The smoothing mechanism is based on the workpiece-lap (or workpiece-tool) mismatch and the convergence concept, where greater pressure (and hence material removal) occurs at the taller surface height locations on the workpiece relative to the lower surface height locations resulting in a reduction of overall height variations with polishing[21-24].”
From Smoothing tool design and performance during subaperture glass polishing (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
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
- Burge, J. H., Anderson, B., Benjamin, S., Cho, M. K., Smith, K. Z., & Valente, M. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- SPIE Proceedings
- Publisher
- SPIE
- Published
- 2001-12-27
- Volume
- 4451
- Pages
- 153-164
- ISSN
- 0277-786X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088654000
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.11
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Surface Polishing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced optical system design
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Keywords
- aspheric surfaces, grinding tools, polishing tools, tool design, compliance, stiffness, surface error, optical fabrication
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
