|
|
1.EARLY OPTIMAXOptimax[1] was founded in 1991 on the premise of utilizing Computer-Numerically-Controlled (CNC) machining for precision optics. This innovation enabled delivery times for custom optical components to be reduced from 16 weeks to 1 week. Founded with the commitment to use advanced manufacturing technology, the third OptiCam[2] machine OptiPro Systems[3] (CNC Systems in 1991) was installed at Optimax. At the time, Optimax relied on test plates for power and surface figure testing. This lack of metrology regularly limited what was required for verification in those early days. Wyko let Optimax borrorw their 6” interferometer – a memory from Mike Mandina “Not only did I like it, but I found having that instrument was necessary in order to secure orders. Interferometry became indispensable for Optimax. Within a short period, I ordered a new 6000 interferometer. However, as Wyko was engaged in its own growth, they had a long lead time. They could have left me hanging by taking back the trial unit and making my wait for my order, essentially leave me hanging…. This would have gravely impacted Optimax’s ability to ship and book new orders. Wyko made a decision that I have not forgotten and will never forget, they allowed me to keep their interferometer at no charge for over 6 months while mine was being built. This free access to this capability during a critical time in the history of Optimax was truly a godsend. I did not need to layout the cash and I was able to build the business into a stronger financial position to better absorb the cost. I did not have a plan B, and Wyko came through for me. I don’t know if Jim Wyant was directly responsible for the decisions that allowed Optimax to use their instrument, but if nothing else, it demonstrates the humanity of the culture that existed at Wyko, which in no small way was a reflection of Jim himself.” - MPM 2.LEAN MANUFACTURINGIn 1994 Optimax began to market “Prototype Optics in One Week”. A combination of manufacturing and testing capabilities created opportunities for Optimax to support prominent customers, such as the lithography market, NASA, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). As Optimax continued to grow, they transitioned to lean manufacturing[4] which required everyone to learn to manufacture and test their own surfaces. Instead of “throwing the optic over the wall” to the next department (ex. grinding to polishing), each optician learned one-piece-flow and was able to take the raw material all the way through the process to the finished product. This process is illustrated in Figure 1. 3.ASPHERE METROLOGYBy early 2000 industry demand for aspheres required more metrology options and capabilities.[5-7] In asphere manufacturing, historically the gating item is the metrology, as metrology enables deterministic correction. This yields the adage and the title of this presentation “if you can’t measure it, you can’t make it”. During this time of growth Optimax was quickly growing its metrology capabilities in order to keep up industry demand. With additional capabilities and capacity Optimax developed an asphere decision tree to help promote better communication with customers about asphere metrology. This decision tree is shown as Figure 2. 4.FREEFORM METROLOGY AND TOTAL ERRORFreeform optics manufacturing is similar to manufacturing high departure and complex aspheres.[8-14] The freeform shape is typically initiated in generation and measurement is also a gating item. In addition to surface irregularity form error, total error is important for freeforms.[15] As depicted in Figure 3, total error is the combination of surface irregularity, surface texture and positioning errors. Positioning or errors in locating a freeform in space lead to measurement errors. Alignment errors in measurement can manifest as surface shape errors. For spherical surfaces the alignment error would be tip or tilt, aspheric surfaces the error is coma, but for freeform errors it could be almost anything. The freeform errors depend on the shape of the freeform surface and the type of misalignment. An example of a biconic surface with 0.5° rotational offset is showing in Figure 4 where the rotational alignment error causes astigmatism and higher order terms. The best way to control positioning error in freeform measurements is to measure the position relative to fiducials or a global coordinate system.[16] This shows a major advantage of including a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) into the optical manufacturing and testing process for freeforms. Multiple instruments are required for full spatial frequency measurement coverage for freeforms. Optimax is continuously searching for additional metrology tools capable of measuring total error to sub-wave precision on freeforms. REFERENCESNovak, R., Lens Blocking Method for Opticam.Optical Fabrication and Testing Workshop., Optical Society of America, Boston, MA
(1992). Google Scholar
Liker, J.K.,
“The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer,”
McGraw-Hill, New York
(2004). Google Scholar
Dumas, P.,
“Complete sub-aperture pre-polishing and finishing solution to improve speed and determism in asphere manufacture,”
Optical Manufacturing and Testing VII, SPIE, San Diego, CA
(2007). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.734684 Google Scholar
Forbes, G.W.,
“Robust, efficient computational methods for axially symmetric optical aspheres,”
Optics Express, 18
(19), 19700
–19712
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.019700 Google Scholar
Greivenkamp, J.E., Testing aspheric surfaces, 25
–27 OPN,1990). Google Scholar
Brooks, D.,
“Manufacturing of a large, extreme freeform, conformal window with robotic polishing,”
SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications, 10742 SPIE.2018). Google Scholar
Kim, D.W. and J.H. Burge,
“Rigid conformal polishing tool using non-linear visco-elastic effect,”
Optics Express, 18
(3), 2242
–2257
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.002242 Google Scholar
Kordonski, W.I., A.B. Shorey, and M. Tricard,
“Magnetorheological jet (MR Jet (TM)) finishing technology,”
Journal of Fluids Engineering-Transactions of the Asme, 128
(1), 20
–26
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2140802 Google Scholar
Nelson, J.D.,
“The evolution of freeform fabrication and testing: lessons learned and the roadmap to higher precision,”
E.P.I.C. (EPIC), Editor. 2019:Google Scholar
Powers, S., M. Brunelle, and M. Novak,
“Design and Manufacturing Considerations for Freeform Optical Surfaces,”
Optical Design and Fabrication 2019 (Freeform, OFT), Optical Society of America, Washington, DC
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1364/FREEFORM.2019.JW1A.2 Google Scholar
Walker, D.D., New results extending the Precessions process to smoothing ground aspheres and producing freeform parts, SPIE, San Diego
(2005). Google Scholar
Wolfs, F., Freeform grinding and polishing with PROSurf, 9633 SPIE OptifabSPIE. Vol.2015). Google Scholar
DeGroote Nelson, J.,
“Using total error measurements of freeforms during manufacturing to aid in alignment,”
SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, 11451 SPIE.2020). Google Scholar
Brunelle, M., Importance of fiducials on freeform opticsSPIE Optifab, 9633 SPIE.2015). Google Scholar
|