Talk:Gradient-index optics

Glass High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

A more detailed description of the different methods and technologies on how to make these index gradients, and what results can be expected by someone familiar with the subject would be much appreciated - Thanks. --Palleas 09:39 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More detail required[edit]

GRIN's CAN be flat. Many are not. Spin coating is also a common method for producing GRINS --65.202.227.151 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Theory section abuses notation[edit]

The notation in the theory section implies that L=n*(S-S_0) for the case where n=const. This is not correct if S is also supposed to be the length of the curve and if S_0 is nonzero. It's probably better to use an actual path integral sign and either change the S in the limits of the integral or to not state that S is the arc length of the curve. 2001:16B8:22BE:1200:E441:AA70:34E0:E518 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 2001:16B8:22BE:1200:E441:AA70:34E0:E518 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous reference in section History (now corrected)[edit]

Hi everyone,

It looks like the reference mentioned in this sentence is not correct:

In 1854, J C Maxwell suggested a lens whose refractive index distribution would allow for every region of space to be sharply imaged. Known as the Maxwell fisheye lens, it involves a spherical index function and would be expected to be spherical in shape as well.(Maxwell, J C (1854). Cambridge and Dublin Math. J. 8, 188)

This reference is used in a number other publications, too, and probably it has been as often unchecked re-cited, but when looking for the actual source I could not find anything related in the digitized volumes of The Cambridge and Dublin mathematical journal of that time.

Among the list of all of Maxwell's publications, I thought this one could be the right match:

J. C. Maxwell, "On the general laws of optical instruments", In: Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 2 (1858): 232–46 ( = Scientific Papers 1, 271–285.)[1]

Would it make sense citing this reference? --Tosi F (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I think I figured it out.

In "Problems (3)", The Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal 8 (October 1853), 188–189, someone is raising the question, and later, in Volume 9 there are the "Solutions of problems", which were published in early 1854. The publication is anonymous but the author of these solutions must be J. C. Maxwell. A draft written by him does exist with nearly identical content.[2] Unfortunately the reference in the reprint[3] is slightly misleading and this way causing the confusion. As a consequence I am going the update that reference to: J. C. Maxwell, "Solutions of problems: (prob. 3, vol. VIII. p. 188)" The Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal 9: 9–11 (1854), and this should be fine, right?

--Tosi F (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC); — done.[4] Tosi F (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]