Table of Contents

## Fraunhofer Diffraction Explained | 최고의 음악 웹 사이트

[penci_button link=”#” icon=”” icon_position=”left” text_color=”#313131″]아래 비디오보기[/penci_button]

여기에서 더 많은 새롭고 업데이트 된 음악을 볼 수 있습니다.: 여기에서 신곡보기

## 주제와 관련된 이미지 Fraunhofer Diffraction Explained

## 주제에 대한 정보 프라운호퍼 회절

If you want to see more of these videos, or would like to say thanks for this one, the best way you can do that is by becoming a patron – see the link above :). And a huge thank you to all my existing patrons – you make these videos possible.

In this video, I describe the process of Fraunhofer diffraction (also known as far-field diffraction) in terms of the Fourier Transform and Fourier Optics. I go over the assumptions that underlie Fraunhoffer diffraction (both the paraxial approximation and the small-aperture approximation), and give the mathematical form that it takes.

This is part of my graduate series on optoelectronics / photonics, and is based primarily on Coldren’s book on Lasers as well as graduate-level coursework I have taken in the EECS department at UC Berkeley.

Hope you found this video helpful, please post in the comments below anything I can do to improve future videos, or suggestions you have for future videos.

>>https:// music.zcongnghe.com우리가 제공하는 정보가 귀하에게 매우 중요하기를 바랍니다. 이 정보를 확인해 주셔서 감사합니다.

## 관련 검색 프라운호퍼 회절.

#Fraunhofer #Diffraction #Explained

electrical engineering,circuits,education,eecs 170a,eecs 174,semiconductor physics and devices,semiconductor physics,electronics,optoelectronics,photonics,fraunhofer diffraction,fraunhofer diffraction explained,fourier optics,fourier optics introduction,fresnel diffraction

Fraunhofer Diffraction Explained

프라운호퍼 회절.

Thanks for sharing your insights. My only questions is: when you're Fourier Transforming a function of time, you get a function of Frequency. Here we're Transforming a function of position getting a function of what? Wave Vector?

Great video. Where can I find more info on that e^(-jkrt)/r you introduce at the beginning? I've never seen that and I don't know where to look

The older songs were better

Sir, please I don't understand how you arrive at:

Kx= K Xs ÷ d

Hi Jordan, nice video!. Could you share which software and tablet are you using? Planning to do similar videos on maths

Excellent work on explaining Jordan, keep up the good work

In summary, from 10:24 on you made a real mess of it, Jordan.

Let me tell you, teaching is a profession (not a YouTube-hobby).

Professional!… thanks

It took me rewatching several times to figure out why the aperture equation comes out of nowhere at the end, so here is the explanation. The aperture equation is assumed to be a decimal representation of the percentage of light that can go through. 1 being 100% and .5 being 50%, as an example. It essentially represents the density (intensity) of point sources at the plane of diffraction, because it is a proportional multiplier on the point source at the infinitely small point in the integral.

Thanks alot for the video. Sadly there are some gaps in between that leave out probably simple stuff but in the end after 1 or 2 minutes are skipped it just makes the overall very good video a little fishy. I assume for the last part kx you too the paraxial approximation where the sin(theta) = kx / k and tan(theta) = xs / d, and sin ~ tan so kx/k ~ xs/d so kx = k*xs/d.

Lost me in the first few secs but had to watch the whole thing anyway😂. Happy to see that those integrals i had to learn in school seem to have some use somewhere👍🏻😱😂😂😂

Hi Jordan, thanks again for your great lecture. I would like to encourage you to do a series on using mathematica for modeling optics and electrodynamics. I think this is an area that is not well covered in a pedagogical way online.

If the structure is truly a slit, then you don’t want points, but here rather cylinders with differential cross sections. The field from each goes ~ 1/r^(1/2), and not ~1/r.

which software do u use to create such videos

Great video, my professor really left me hanging because he didn't bother to explain how he came up with the fourier part. Thanks for helping

It feels like the fragment on 10:25 – 10:40 is falling from the general story line. Can you explain the connection in this sudden jump between trigonometrical derivation of kx, Fresnel integral and further assumption you've made afterwards. I really struggle to see the connection.

Thank you for the well explained video but ı m kinda new in that so could u explain why the exp term has negative power instead of positive?

How about the idea that different entities and spiritual bodies are real and can only be perceived within different spectrums of light that we humans can't even receive?….. This ties into CERN and parapsychology as well. Or do you just think thats just preposterous??….. Curious about this hypothesis. Ty.

,,/

This is a really great video. If I am not mistaken, starting from 10:24, there should be a factor 1/2 in the power of exp outside of the diffraction integral.

Great video, thanks. But after 12:23, you have directly included g(x) in the equation. If you can explain that how you included g(x) it would be helpful. Thanks

Great video, my only suggestion would be to try and be a bit more organized? It's still comprehendible nonetheless.