Cut Crystal Tests

Get feedback from others on your works in progress
User avatar
OnoSendai
Developer
Posts: 6244
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Wellington, NZ
Contact:

Post by OnoSendai » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:54 pm

Building some super-realistic glass materials from the Schott data sounds like a cool idea :)

Here's how I recommend you calculate the absorption coefficent (which in general varies with the wavelength) from the given data:

the transmittance when passing a distance d through a uniform (and non-scattering) medium is given by

t = exp(-a*d)

where a is the absorption coefficient (sometimes written as sigma subscript a), d is the distance travelled through the medium, and t is the transmittance.

Let's use units of metres here, so d = distance in meters, and a has units of m^-1.

When using the Schott data, I suggest you use the transmittance value at 25mm instead of the 10mm value, because it will give more precise results considering we only have 3 sig figs.

Lets take the example of the glass N-LAF33, (page 58 ) at 370nm.
The 25mm transmittance is 0.680.

Plugging that into the above equation (using d = 0.025m), rearranged as

a = -ln(t) / d

gives a = 15.426m^-1. You can check that it works for d = 10mm as well.
Note that ln() is the base-e logarithm, not the base 10 logarithm.

So we now have a value for the absorption coefficient at 370nm.

Now the question is how to pass this (wavelength varying) data to Indigo.
The best way would be able to pass in a table of (wavelength, absorption coefficient) pairs. Indigo can't currently accept data like this, but the code exists to handle such tables internally.
So what I'll do is to code in a new spectrum XML type that can handle tabulated data like this.

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:12 pm

Thank you very much for your replies Ono and I am very pleased that you are suportive of this idea. It's going to take my math deficient mind the rest of the weekend to absorb everything you have written here but I will get it eventually ;)

In the mean time I will use the information you have provided to calculate absorption coeficients from 1060nm down to 390nm using the 25mm measurements in preparation for the additions to indigo :)

I will also reformat the spreadsheet in a way that is more conducive with saving out to .xls and next time I upload it it will come with all the formulas and Schott data intact instead of providing a values only version.
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
OnoSendai
Developer
Posts: 6244
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Wellington, NZ
Contact:

Post by OnoSendai » Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:15 pm

btw, since we're only interested in the visible wavelengths, a range of about 350 - 800nm should suffice, but extra values won't hurt.

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:23 pm

wow :D
finally Indigo get's transparent nk's :D:D

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:57 pm

Ok new version of the spreadsheet with all data/formulas intact. Absorption values have been calculated from 1060nm to 350nm with a couple of conditions:
  • Some transmission data was equal to zero, the log function doesn't like zero so all zeroes were replaced with 1^-307 (the smallest possible non-zero number Excel can handle)
  • Not all data was present that low down the spectrum; absent data was replaced with 1^-307. Data created marked with red background in source list
EDIT: Link Removed
Last edited by WytRaven on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:36 pm

what can I use to read the data that's free?

So I guess these will be turned into some form of NK file for future Indigo version?

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:05 pm

Ok IOR and Absorption pairs now. Still uses old Cauchy B calculation until I can figure out a better way to do it.

EDIT: Link removed, see further down for new version.
Last edited by WytRaven on Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:34 pm

not the archive itself, I can unpack it with Winrar just fine, but read the file itself :)

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:46 pm

Here's a chart I just built to compare the Cauchy calculated IOR's vs the meassured IORs. Looks like the current Cauchy B calculation is just fine:

Image
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:47 pm

CoolColJ wrote:not the archive itself, I can unpack it with Winrar just fine, but read the file itself :)
It's jsut a standard Office 97-2003 Excel spreadsheet. If you aren't on windows and/or don't have MS Office then I guess something like Open Office would be a good start?
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
OnoSendai
Developer
Posts: 6244
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Wellington, NZ
Contact:

Post by OnoSendai » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:49 pm

Interesting graph.
Can we see it replotted, with wavelength linearly increasing along the horizontal axis?

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:00 am

selmeyer's is supposed to be correct, even in invisible spectrum, where as caughy's is slowly getting incorrect-ish on the graph's borders :D that's clearly shown in this graph :) (the caughy part, at least... as selmeyer wasn't used, here...

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 am

Linear wavelength:

Image
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
WytRaven
Indigo 100
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Dubbo, Australia
Contact:

Post by WytRaven » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:36 am

Added in Sellmeier, needless to say I am now in the process of recalculating the IOR portion of the n/ɑ pairs using Sellmeier :P

You can't even see the measured data anymore it's that well covered by the Sellmeier :twisted:

Image
:idea: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:43 am

far more exact :D
just as I said
(based on Wikipedia lol)

if you directly compare the results, is there any difference at all?
Hu, if I take a really close look, I think, sellmeier is slightly lower than the measured results :) Am I right?

Post Reply
125 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests