Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>*Date*: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:05:38 -0700

"sounds good" to me

Of course it is a "point" (requires beam of no diameter), otherwise no movement (because it's symmetrical) , but it will cause initial convergence (+ lens).

bc

alex brown wrote:

So you're treating the lens as something that transform the light (It has a tranformation matrix) and you have found the point on the lens where the beam does not get transformed... Or atleast the transformation is that of space. I think I understand that...cut

So you then say that there should be something equivalent in an optical system this is because you can treat it as a black box with a single transformation matrix. This single matrix is determined by the transformation matrices of its component parts. There will be a point on the input lens which will be equivelent to when there is no optical system present at all... Thinking in terms of matrices.... like a unit matrix with one along its matrix...

Is this the correct way to thjink of it?...

Thanks for the interesting post

ALex

John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

On 06/11/2007 05:24 PM, alex brown wrote:

What principles did you use to find the optical centre of the lens

**References**:**Re: [Phys-l] optical center : real-life physics***From:*alex brown <aesbrown77@yahoo.co.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] optical center : real-life physics** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] optical center : real-life physics** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] optical center : real-life physics** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] optical center : real-life physics** - Index(es):