emulsion thickness

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: emulsion thickness

Re: emulsion thickness

by admin_jsfisher » Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:22 pm

Several posts to this thread that were directed more at each other and not the topic at hand have been moved to "The Dump". Please, let's just let the matter die there.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Din » Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:54 pm

Martin wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:50 am
Din wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:59 am
If the recording medium is thin, then there are fewer Bragg planes, and the variation of the spacing from the mean may be high (large standard deviation), resulting in a broad range of wavelengths. As the medium gets thicker, the variation from the mean gets smaller (the standard deviation drops), and the resulting wavelength range gets smaller. But 1 - 2 mm (1000 - 2000u) may be a bit excessive however. Bear in mind that the reason the Bragg planes form at all is the absorption of the medium to certain wavelengths. If the medium gets very thick, then the recording beams themselves lose intensity as they travel through the medium.
Right. Finding a recording material adequate for such thick layers isn't trivial. The volume holographic gratings for commercial laser systems are based on photo-thermo-refractive glass. Incidentally and interestingly, some of these systems rely on silver-halide doped glass. It's probably safe to say that such technology is out of reach to the average holographer. These VHGs provide extremely narrow bandwidths, For quite some time I was wondering whether the photo-thermo-refractive glass could be replaced by a slightly more "consumer-friendly" recording material.
It really depends on the bandwidth you want for the application. You're probably right about finding consumer materials for extremely narrow bandwidths for lasers. You can get about 2 or 3 nm with DCG. In the 80's at POC and, before that, at NTS, where I was working on HUDs and laser protection goggles, DCG was considered the material with the highest efficiency (at POC, I got an OD of 4.5, and someone got an OD of 5) and the most flexible material in terms of the ability to tune to any vis wavelength, and control bandwidth up to a point. At Triple take, we did have to get a DCG hologram in the ~5 nm, and I think I could have got it lower. But, getting linewidths on the order of a KHz or so is probably not possible. However, many companies are abandoning DCG for medical reasons, so it no longer seems to be a "consumer-friendly" material.

Now, everyone seems to be using Covestro. Considering that the bandwidth of a hologram results from differential swelling in wet processing, Covestro should be extremely narrow band, since there's no wet processing. But Covestro material does swell a little, so extremely narrow band is probably not possible.

The other problem, as I mentioned earlier, is that the extremely thick materials with a chemical actinic reaction, will absorb, and so the ratio changes along the depth of the material. Therefore, any such material must have an actinic process that does not involve absorption, such as, perhaps, charge transfer. For some years I have considered magneto optical materials.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Martin » Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:50 am

Din wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:59 am
If the recording medium is thin, then there are fewer Bragg planes, and the variation of the spacing from the mean may be high (large standard deviation), resulting in a broad range of wavelengths. As the medium gets thicker, the variation from the mean gets smaller (the standard deviation drops), and the resulting wavelength range gets smaller. But 1 - 2 mm (1000 - 2000u) may be a bit excessive however. Bear in mind that the reason the Bragg planes form at all is the absorption of the medium to certain wavelengths. If the medium gets very thick, then the recording beams themselves lose intensity as they travel through the medium.
Right. Finding a recording material adequate for such thick layers isn't trivial. The volume holographic gratings for commercial laser systems are based on photo-thermo-refractive glass. Incidentally and interestingly, some of these systems rely on silver-halide doped glass. It's probably safe to say that such technology is out of reach to the average holographer. These VHGs provide extremely narrow bandwidths, For quite some time I was wondering whether the photo-thermo-refractive glass could be replaced by a slightly more "consumer-friendly" recording material.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Din » Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:59 am

Martin wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:21 am
Martin wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:19 am So if you aim at very narrow bandwidth, you'd need a thick (I think ~ 1 - 2um or so) recording medium. Volume gratings e.g. currently used to run compact ECL laser diodes at single frequency (see Ondax, now Coherent I believe) would come to my mind.
Sorry for the typo. I meant 1 - 2mm thick recording layers.
Yes, true.

The reason is that the diffracted wavelengths are a function of the Bragg spacing. If the recording medium is thin, then there are fewer Bragg planes, and the variation of the spacing from the mean may be high (large standard deviation), resulting in a broad range of wavelengths. As the medium gets thicker, the variation from the mean gets smaller (the standard deviation drops), and the resulting wavelength range gets smaller. But 1 - 2 mm (1000 - 2000u) may be a bit excessive however. Bear in mind that the reason the Bragg planes form at all is the absorption of the medium to certain wavelengths. If the medium gets very thick, then the recording beams themselves lose intensity as they travel through the medium. This means that the ratio diminishes and the efficiency decreases. I believe you had this issue with one of Polygramma's polymers at one time. This also happened to one of our clients who had a 1mm cube made to get an extremely narrow bandwidth, the result was a very weak efficiency. I have got a 5nm bandwidth with an emulsion of 100u on DCG.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Martin » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:21 am

Martin wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:19 am So if you aim at very narrow bandwidth, you'd need a thick (I think ~ 1 - 2um or so) recording medium. Volume gratings e.g. currently used to run compact ECL laser diodes at single frequency (see Ondax, now Coherent I believe) would come to my mind.
Sorry for the typo. I meant 1 - 2mm thick recording layers.

Re: emulsion thickness

by BobH » Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:21 pm

I expect Mr. Pratheep can ask for clarification himself, if necessary after reading the linked information in my response. I used an Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometer at Digilens for the measurement, and still do today.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Joe Farina » Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:42 am

Din wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:04 pmYou may be able to get one at some university 'sales'. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) has a so-called 'surplus sale', where equipment is bought for some project or study. Once the study is over, the equipment is put up for sale or auction. Here is the UCSD site, and you may be able to have them ship some item: https://surplus.ucsd.edu/. It's possible that other universities do the same. At any rate, we (Triple Take) got our traveling microscope from a UCSD surplus sale.
Thanks for the info and link. I'm surprised at the variety of equipment they have.

I have a spectrophotometer, which incorporates a spectrometer, so I would be interested in knowing how a spectrometer can be used to measure an air gap.

Noticed this (claiming 0.1micron resolution) for $339 (?):

https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Sub-Mic ... B07K358Q3W

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWRWw4Rz2qA

Re: emulsion thickness

by Din » Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:57 am

BobH wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:28 am Regardless, it will work fine as I used the technique for many years while at Digilens.
Perhaps you could explain to Mr Pratheep, who asked the question, how you actually conduct the experiment, assuming you know this. Since he asked the question, I think that he deserves to get details of your method. Simply saying "Use a spectrometer" and adding no further details is a little like intellectual strutting. How do you 'use' a spectrometer? How do you translate the results on the spectrometer into a measurement of emulsion depth? What did you use it for? An emulsion depth measurement, or some other displacement? What was the error? Were these errors taken into consideration? Were they random errors? Was there any statistical analysis at all at Digilens? Did Digilens publish results? Do you have a reference? Do you have a theoretical basis, or any calculations? Perhaps you could point Mr Pratheep to someone at Digilens to discuss their results? I think Mr Pratheep needs a little more than intellectual posing for the fan base.

Whatever you did, or did not do at, Digilens, without details of method and/or a reference and/or some theory, the 'spectrometer method' seems of no value to Mr Pratheep. It also depends on the application; for most applications, emulsion depth to an error of 10% or even more is acceptable and that may be the reason for the Digilens result, assuming there was one. Since the rms (Did you take account of the rms at Digilens?) is usually below this, a certain inaccuracy is acceptible.However, for different applications, an rms of 10% may be disastrous. For example, an rms of 10% in a high speed communication channel with an FBG would lower the bandwidth, perhaps considerably

Re: emulsion thickness

by BobH » Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:28 am

Din wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:57 pm
BobH wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:33 pm I'd remove some of the emulsion, clamp another plate of glass to the emulsion surface, and use the spectrometer to measure the air gap over the area removed.
This method assumes an rms of zero, which it cannot be.
Regardless, it will work fine as I used the technique for many years while at Digilens.

Re: emulsion thickness

by Martin » Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:19 am

Din wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:04 pm
Typically, AgX emulsions are ~ 8 u. The micrometer you link to states a resolution of 0.001 mm, or 1u. Thus, it can measure an 8u thickness, but, with a resolution of 1u, the error is 8 +/- 1 or 1/8, or 12.5%. This is too inaccurate for technical work, but is not a problem for display. Agx has typical efficiencies in the display area of ~25 - 30%, but the brightness is far more important. However, the brightness depends on the bandwidth of the spatial frequencies recorded, and, with only 8u, there is not enough width to support a large number of frequencies. Therefore, AgX is a narrow band material. DCG has a typical emulsion thickness of about 10 - 15u, and so has a greater ability to share different frequencies. Thus DCG has an increased bandwidth and hence is brighter for display work.

[I thought common (holographic) wisdom suggested: the thinner the recording layer the broader the bandwidth of the reconstructed hologram. So if you aim at very narrow bandwidth, you'd need a thick (I think ~ 1 - 2um or so) recording medium. Volume gratings e.g. currently used to run compact ECL laser diodes at single frequency (see Ondax, now Coherent I believe) would come to my mind.

With commercial AgX emulsions (7-8 um) you can get large broadband reconstruction (~200nm) through colloidal processing - let alone SHSG.

As for DCG, FEG, diazo gelatin, monomer sensitized gelatin etc. bandwidth may not only depend on layer thickness but also on the specific processing scheme. My somewhat unqualified guess would be that if you have a large size distribution of scattering particles/voids, you'll get large bandwidths.

Top