Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

Re: Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by nobo » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:25 pm

kaveh1000 wrote:Kate is right. It is the exact equivalent of the image John was referring to. Attached is better diagram. Wish I had SketchUp in the old days. ;-)

For your info, the original diagram (pre personal computers) was programmed in Fortran, submitted to microfilm (35mm BW film), then printed on photo paper in a darkroom!!
That's so interesting!

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by Jeffrey M » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:45 am

I used the two mirror system exactly as John pictured, but with a flip mirror on top, to switch the beam between two tables. One table had the rotated beam, set for an overhead reference beam mastering table, at Brewster's angle, the other table got the unrotated beam for H1-H2 copies on their sides. No need to ever think about polarization adjustment again, all automatic, no infinitely adjustable angles which you never need anyway. I never reset another cool rotating device after that.
If a holographer can't set a reflection at 90 degrees, get out. Yes, any deviation from right angles rotates out. These mirrors handle your full laser power, so you want great mirrors with little loss.

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Tue May 22, 2012 9:01 am

sorry bob didnt mean to point a finger at you....Dinesh has gone before and came back....so I think he will be back...he can some times, even tho hes very bright and wise his self can get in the way

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by Johnfp » Tue May 22, 2012 8:01 am

My two cents.
I posted something very simple and cost effective that I have used and works. I surely did not know it was going to get all this attention. In fact, after I posted it, Dinesh posted all this garbage about how difficult it was to align and how wouldn't work with HOE's. Well, since most here are display holographers we can forget the second part. As for the first part, not difficult at all, not with a couple of gimbles.
Since I've been put down, demeaned and, despite several pleas for an explanation, ignored. Since I see no end to these repressive behaviours with no sight of any justice from anyone. I don't think that I can contribute anymore. If you all seem to think that I actually don't understand or know holography, and you all seem to think think there is no science in holography but simply hand waving statements and since no one seems to actually seek knowledge, just ego, I'd like to be taken off the membership rolls.

If any of you actually benefited from anything I wrote, I hope I taught or inspired you. I hope you carry forward the idea of rational discussion. I hope I left something of the excitement of new ideas and deep insight into these phenomena. Unfortunately, there are some here who's ego transcends any hope of insight or study. I'm clearly a fish out of water when I question, debate and try to inspire to some to greater heights.
It seems Dinesh wanted us to explain what he alread knew and kept badgering us for the answer. Some of us thought he didnt get it, but I assume he did and was tryign to force us to get it at the physics level. He should have just posted what he wanted to say and let the one that can use that info use it. Then he gets mad and leaves when he was the one playing us. I didn't really see anyone put him down. Oh well.

Back to topic, use a protractor and ruler for table heights and squares.

I personally want to thank Kaveh as this arrangement saved me hundreds of dollar and I had all the parts (a sinlge base and pole, two mounted gimbals with mirrors. DONE!

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Mon May 21, 2012 5:03 pm

holomaker wrote:I really dont understand all this nonsense ! just run a damn 10 minuet test and you will know outcome ............ isnt that what really counts?

Danny based on the reality of this topic isnt it really Kates fault Dinesh left the room?

By the way Kate very good idea and as ive tested it and it works very well , thank you all for the input !
I gess your correct dave....sad day

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Mon May 21, 2012 2:35 pm

holomaker wrote:I really dont understand all this nonsense ! just run a damn 10 minuet test and you will know outcome ............ isnt that what really counts?

Danny based on the reality of this topic isnt it really Kates fault Dinesh left the room?

By the way Kate very good idea and as ive tested it and it works very well , thank you all for the input !
how much math does that take?
yes a simple & workable .. with no math need

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Mon May 21, 2012 2:33 pm

holomaker wrote:I really dont understand all this nonsense ! just run a damn 10 minuet test and tell usthe outcome ............ isnt that what really counts?
amen!!!!!

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by holomaker » Mon May 21, 2012 2:31 pm

I really dont understand all this nonsense ! just run a damn 10 minuet test and you will know outcome ............ isnt that what really counts?

Danny based on the reality of this topic isnt it really Kates fault Dinesh left the room?

By the way Kate very good idea and as ive tested it and it works very well , thank you all for the input !

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Mon May 21, 2012 2:14 pm

dannybee wrote:
BobH wrote:
Dinesh wrote: I'm clearly wrong, but the answer to my mistake (or anyone's mistake) is not to bear down on the mistake and call the person who's made the mistake all kinds of fool and idiot, as you all have done, but explain slowly and carefully why I'm a fool and idiot. If I am a fool and an idiaot, then fair enough! I'll accept the name-calling and the anger. No one on this forum seems to care that insults have been thrown, names have been used insinuations have been made simply because I don;'t know why the polarisation is what it's claimed to be.
I don't recall anyone calling you "all kinds of fool and idiot". Where's the insult and insinuations? I have to tell you the only insinuation I read in this thread is that you know what you're talking about because you're a physicist and everyone else here are "all kinds of fools and idiots" because of their inability to explain the most basic things about holography to your satisfaction and in the language of mathematics. :shock:

Why is it necessary (for example) for a photographer to know the physics of how light interacts with a reflective surface to explain how the mirror in their SLR camera works to someone new to photography? I only questioned the necessity of ten posts of argument about a statement you, the physicist amongst us, made about the polarization state of a beam in a specific drawing. The context of that statement doesn't imply to me that you were playing the "Devil's Advocate" when you made it, or that it was made to stimulate discussion about *why* light reflects off surfaces. :roll:
Bob Dinesh has left the forum :cry:

Rotating Polarization with Mirrors

by dannybee » Mon May 21, 2012 2:13 pm

BobH wrote:
Dinesh wrote: I'm clearly wrong, but the answer to my mistake (or anyone's mistake) is not to bear down on the mistake and call the person who's made the mistake all kinds of fool and idiot, as you all have done, but explain slowly and carefully why I'm a fool and idiot. If I am a fool and an idiaot, then fair enough! I'll accept the name-calling and the anger. No one on this forum seems to care that insults have been thrown, names have been used insinuations have been made simply because I don;'t know why the polarisation is what it's claimed to be.
I don't recall anyone calling you "all kinds of fool and idiot". Where's the insult and insinuations? I have to tell you the only insinuation I read in this thread is that you know what you're talking about because you're a physicist and everyone else here are "all kinds of fools and idiots" because of their inability to explain the most basic things about holography to your satisfaction and in the language of mathematics. :shock:

Why is it necessary (for example) for a photographer to know the physics of how light interacts with a reflective surface to explain how the mirror in their SLR camera works to someone new to photography? I only questioned the necessity of ten posts of argument about a statement you, the physicist amongst us, made about the polarization state of a beam in a specific drawing. The context of that statement doesn't imply to me that you were playing the "Devil's Advocate" when you made it, or that it was made to stimulate discussion about *why* light reflects off surfaces. :roll:
thanks Bob Dineash has left the forum :cry:

Top