Wavefronts and Construction Tolerances for a Cat's-Eye Retroreflector

Reinhard Beer and Darwin Marjaniemi

A retroreflector (a device that reflects an incident beam of light through exactly 1800) constructed from a primary concave mirror and a small secondary mirror near its paraxial focus, the so-called cat's-eye retroreflector, has been investigated. Ray-tracing of systems with both spherical and parabolic primaries suggests that the latter are considerably superior to the former and comparable to a cube-corner retroreflector. The investigation has also enabled mechanical tolerances for the construction of a cat's-eye retroreflector to be deduced. The predicted tolerances may be much easier to attain than those for a cube-corner retroreflector.

1.

Introduction

As part of this laboratory's program of the development of Fourier spectroscopy, an investigation has been made of a retroreflector constructed from a con-

eye reflector (CER) has only two elements against the three required for a purely reflecting cube-corner re-

flector (CCR); (2) intuitively, it is obvious that the

CER has only one major source of misalignment-the spacing of the two elements. The CCR, on the other hand, has six-two rotational axes for each element; (3) following directly from (1) and (2), the construction costs of the CCR, to interferometric standards, are likely to be much greater than for the CER; (4) a completed CER is probably physically much larger than the equivalent CCR. This could create problems in suspension and movement, since in a Fourier spectrometer one of the elements must be moved with great precision; (5) the CCR, in proper adjustment, is limited only by the optical quality of its individual surfaces and by diffraction. An otherwise perfect

cave primary mirror with a small secondary at its

focus-the so-called cat's-eye retroreflector-for use as an interferometric element. Figure 1 shows a sketch of such a system. An ideal retroreflector bends all incident rays through exactly 1800. Consequently, incident plane waves are reflected as plane waves parallel to those incident. Use can also be made of a second property of many such systems: if the incident radiation is restricted to onehalf of the aperture, the radiation emerges from the other half, and it can be operated upon without ob-

structing the incident beam.

Retroreflectors can be constructed from three plane

CER is limited by optical aberrations, the effects of

which are the subject of this article. 11. The Problem Before any meaningful computations can be performed, some criterion of excellence must be established. An obvious criterion is that, assuming incident plane waves, the departures of the emergent wavefronts from an arbitrary reference plane should be minimal. A second, less obvious criterion, is that the derivative of the function describing the emergent wavefronts should be a minimum. This second criterion was the one actually used for the following reason: the Fourier spectrometer for which these retroreflectors have been investigated employs a thick beam splitter. Consequently, there is a lateral shear between the two beams. If the wavefronts are plane, parallel, and normal to the axis, there is no effect on the path difference. On

surfaces-the

well-known cube-corner reflector-or

from a lens with a mirror in its focal plane, or, as in this case, from a concave mirror with a secondary at its focus. However, our interest lies in purely reflecting systems, restricting us to either a cube-corner reflector or a cat's-eye reflector. Both types have been used in successful Fourier spectrometers;' but to our knowledge, the geometrical optical properties of the cat's-eye retroreflector have never been investigated. The obvious advantages and disadvantages of the two systems may be laid out this way: (1) the cat'sBoth authors were with California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Division of Space Sciences, Pasadena, California 91103 when this work was done; D. Marjaniemi is presently with the Department of Astronomy, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Received 3 March 1966.

the other hand, if the wavefronts are not plane, there

will be a variation in path difference across the aperture
July 1966 / Vol. 5, No. 7 / APPLIED OPTICS 1191

no computations were made for aspheric secondaries.

Four parameters were employed-(1) aperture: pri-

SECONDARYI REFLECTOR2A
PRIMARYFOCALLENGTHFl
PRIMARY REFLECTOR SECONDARYLIES IN FOCAL PLANE OF PRIMARY (NOMINALLY)

APERTURE

Fig. 1. The cat's-eye retroreflector. Within the limitations of Gaussian optics, emergent rays are parallel to those incident.

Fig. 2. Illustrations of the interference between two identical and X0

(a)

parallel, but sheared and distorted,

wavefronts. It is clear that in order to keep the variation in path dif- I ference across the interfering region i minimal, the derivative of the wave- ] l
(b)

mary focal ratios down tof/2.5 were considered for the parabolic primary case and down tof/5 for the spherical primary; (2) angle of incidence: two basic variants, a wide-angle (10) case and a narrow-angle (10) case were considered; (3) secondary curvature: curvatures from convex through plane to concave were investigated. Only concave secondaries gave satisfactory results, however, so only these are presented; (4) spacing between primary and secondary. This was inserted as a deviation from the paraxial focal point. Other parameters, such as tilt and lateral displacements, were not introduced because, to a sufficient accuracy, they may be resolved into axial shifts (parameter 4) and changes in curvature (parameter 3). Vignetting was also ignored since it is a difficult subject upon which to generalize.

The wavefronts were computed at twenty points

across the aperture, insufficient to give very accurate renditions of the wavefronts, but sufficient for our purpose, which was to show trends. All the calculations were performed, using standard techniques, on an IBM 1620 computer. The results are presented in graphical form in the succeeding sections. The ordinates are normalized to

front function, as well as its absolute. value, should be a minimum. (a): X

Wavefronts plane parallel, no shear.: 1:
-

|
d c

Path difference = x across entire aperture. (b) Wavefronts plane parallel, shear = S introduced. Path difference = o across inter-,
fering region. (c) Wavefronts:

,X x 1

parallel, distorted by maximum: value = d, shear = S introduced.

Path difference variable fereaice

X
X2

(d)

the semiaperture X 10-4. In other words, multiplying the ordinate by the semiaperture in centimeters gives,
in microns, the (approximate) departure of the wavefront from a plane defined by the horizontal axis. The abscissae are given both as relative semiaperture and as over-all focal ratio. Negative values of the abscissae may be interpreted either as a beam with a positive angle of incidence striking the opposite half of the

terfering region and mean path dif-l

across in- x
I

. l

xo.

(d)

Wavefronts

parallel, distorted by maximum: value = d with steeper slope than in I (c), shear = S introduced. Path:
difference more strongly variable l across interfering region than in l

INTERFERING
I REGION

SHEAR

SHEAR

s l
OVERALL APERTURE

(c) but mean path difference almost:

unchanged.
F/2.50
I I

F/4.17
I I I

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO F/12.5 0 F112.5

I I I I I I I I

F/4.17
I I I

F2.50
1

+0.002

-R

=-2.IO5FI -2.083FI

R2 =-2.105F, -2.083Fj -2.062F,

-2.041 F

and a change in the mean path difference. The magnitude of these effects is a function of the shear, but, while the change in mean path difference is largely a function of the deviation of the wavefront from an ideal plane wave, the variation across the aperture is a function of the derivative. This fact is illustrated in Fig. 2. In our Fourier spectrometers, position control is effected interferometrically through the same optical system as the spectrometer, so that changes in mean path difference are compensated automatically. Changes across the aperture, however, could be troublesome. In practice, the conditions for a minimum derivative are not far removed from conditions for minimum departures from planarity, but as noted in succeeding sections, there are differences. Two systems were studied: (1) a parabolic primary with a plane/spherical secondary and (2) a spherical primary with a plane/spherical secondary. Since the dependence on the curvature of the secondary is minor,
1192 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 5, No. 7 / July 1966

-2.062F,
0

w
I

~0.001

-2.041 F

z /-2.020F 1 _ /---2.000FI
-0.001

--

-2.020FI -2.000FI

-1.0

-0.6

-0.2 0 +0.2 +0.6 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

+1.0

Fig. 3. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of changing the curvature of the secondary, narrow angle
(10 field) case. Parameter Ax = 0.

OVERALL

FOCAL RATIO

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO

F/12.5 0 F/12.5

-2.O62FI.
Id

+0.1-208F
0.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R =-2.105F,
2

-2.041F 1

~
8I i

~
' l
-0.2

~
l
tb

~ ~ ~
l l
+a -2.02

20
1

FI-./

-02 N | | F
-. 0 2
0

l -2.062
-2.041IF 1
1

,6

.F

+0.0002A 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

+O.0002AI

-2.000F

-0.1

-2 .000FI
-0.1

+0004A,
-0.2 -0
I

+0.0004A,

~ -0.6 ~

'

-0.2 RELATIVE

+0.2

+0.6

+1.0 / II I -0.6 I I I I -0.2 I 0 I I +0.2 I +0.6 1 +1.0

SEMI-APERTURE -1.0

Fig. 4. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of changing the curvature of the secondary, wide angle
(100 field) case. Parameter x = 0.

RELATIVESEMI-APERTURE

Fig. 5. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of displacing the secondary from the primary focal point, narrow angle (10 field) case. Parameter R 2 = -2.062FI.
F/2.50
I I I

CER, in which case the wavefronts are complete, or as beams with a negative angle of incidence striking the same half of the CER, in which case the negative side should be reflected about the vertical axis in order to compare it to the positive half. The slopes of the wavefronts are, of course, directly related to the deviations from an ideal retroreflector.

F/4.17
I l

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO F/12.5 0 F/12.5

I I II

F/4.17
I

F/2.50

+0.3

x= 0.0004AI
-0.0002AI

In fact,

+0.2

Lwavefront

slope as readI X 102 directly from the figuresj

ray deviation

cc 0 a:

Linmicroradians]
a.
0 N

/+0.0004AI
+01-0.0002AI

lxl=l-l

.00 4A

The displacements from the paraxial focus are also normalized to the semiaperture (directly), positive and negative values indicating displacements away and

+0.0002A,
+0.0002A1

cc

+0.0004AI

toward the primary mirror. The radius of curvature

of the secondary is normalized to the paraxial focal length of the primary, positive and negative values indicating convexity and concavity. The following nomenclature is employed throughout: paraxial focal length of primary mirror, F; semiapsecondary mirror, R 2; semiaperture of secondary mirror, A2 ; axial displacement of secondary mirror from paraxial focal point, .

-0.1 0
0O.0004A,

-0.1

erture of primary mirror, A; radius of curvature of

-1.0

-0.6

-0.2 0 +0.2 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

+0.6

+ 1.0

Fig. 6. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of displacing the secondary from the primary focal point, wide-angle (10 field) case. Parameter 2 = -2.062F 1 .
July 1966/ Vol. 5, No. 7 / APPLIED OPTICS 1193

OVERALL

FOCAL RATIO

/4.17

F/2.5O WFFF

axis the distortions are no greater than a change in

of 0.0002 A,. 4. Summnary

IWide angle ( O) case. It is quite clear that, if a wide angular coverage for the system is desired, some degradation of the performance from what could be accomplished must be tolerated. However, it is worth
cc
0

noting that, even at extreme angle and aperture, the

cc
0 a. 0

cc
0

angular deviation from an ideal retroreflector never exceeds 6 see of arc. On the basis of roughly 100% error in the departure of the wavefront from a plane wave, these tolerances result: R 2 = - (2.06 i 0.04) X = (0.0000 i F1, minimum derivative criterion; 0.00002) X Al, minimum derivative criterion; R 2 = - (2.02 i 0.04) X F 1 ,, minimum departure criterion; = +(0.0004 -t 0.0002) X Al, minimum departure

0.50

criterion.

0.25

| I
-10
-06 -0 2 RELATIVE .0.2 0 SEMI-APERTURE

+0.6

+O.IO

Fig. 7. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary.

for angles of incidence 00 to 1 and parameters and ax = 0.

Wavefronts

Narrow angle (10) case. When the field of view is limited to 10 and the focal ratio to f/5, for instance, the wavefront should not depart from a plane by more than about 2 X 10-1 X Al. However, the system is now extremely sensitive to the primary-secondary spacing. The same error basis gives (for 100% wavefront departure): R 2 = - (2.06 i 0.01)X F1, minimumderivative criterion; R 2 = -(2.02 -4 0.01) X F1, minimum departure criterion; ax = (0 i 0.000002) X Al, both

Rt' =

-2.062Fi

criteria.
If we This tolerance on a is unreasonable. of radius the Al, 0.0001 to up allow the tolerance to go

curvature Ill.
A.

Results
Parabolic Primary, Spherical Secon dary

1. Effect of Secondary Curvature (R2) (Figs. 3 and 4) R an_ *\lrl Figures 3 and 4 were computed for 0.5 cidence, respectively. In both cases, the pole of the secondary was held at the focal point. Both sets of curves show similar trends, and on the basis of the minimum derivative criterion, a radius of -2 2.062 F was chosen as the optimum. A minimum d eparture criterion would suggest -2.020 F1 as an opti mum.
IulU dj 11-

maximum wavefront error becomes about 1 X 10-6 X Al. On a 10-cm aperture system, this corresponds to as 0.05 g, or roughly tenth-wave (visible)-probably allow, would surfaces optical many of good as the quality anyway. The corresponding spacing tolerance is 0 i
OVERALL FOCAL RATIO F/12.5 0 F/12.5

R2

becomes almost irrelevant and the

5 /, a small quantity, but still about 100 times greater

F/2.50 F/4.17 F/4.17 F/2.50

2. Effect of Secondary Displacement (3z) (I 'igs. 5 and 6) Again, the values of 0.50 and 50 inciden ce were used together with a secondary curvature of -2.062 Fl. Predictably, the effects of displacement ar e much more dramatic than the effects of curvature. A Idisplacement of A: = 0 gives the best result on our criterion, but oddly enough, in the wide angle case, it cloes not give a minimum departure. The condition folr this is 6 =

it

+0.1

cc

c:
as 0.

I N

+0.0004 A,.
3. Resultant Wavefronts as a Function of Angle (Figs.
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0 +0.2 +0.6 +1.0
RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

7 and 8)

Under the ideal conditions of R 2 = - 2.062 F and ravefronts at = 0, we have plotted the resultant N various angles between 00 and 5. Pre dictably, the distortions increase with angle. But ev(tn at 5 off1194 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 5, No. 7 / July 1966

Fig. 8. Parabolic primary, spherical secondary.

for angles of incidence 00 to 50 and parameters and ax = 0.
R
2

Wavefronts
=

-2.062F 1

than the tolerances on each of the six axes of the equivalent cube-corner reflector. B. Spherical Primary, Spherical Secondary 1. Effect of Secondary Curvature (R2) (Figs. 9 and 10) Figures 9 and 10 were computed for 0.50 and 3.8. 3.8O was employed instead of 5 because it was discovered that the optimum value of 6,, as discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, was a function of the off-axis angle; therefore, to accommodate a range of angles from -5 to +50, it was necessary to choose a compromise angle for these illustrations. In the small angle case, it is clear that the wavefront is essentially in-

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO

cc 0 cc cc

0 4: 0

cc

dependent of the curvature of the secondary. In the

wide angle case,

timum, although the wavefront is strongly distorted.

12)

- 1.000 F gives close to an op-

2. Effect of SecondaryDisplacement (%)(Figs. 1i and The optimum values found (

The same angles were used for these computations.

small angle case, 8 = 0.0252 A in the wide angle case) were employed in Sec. III.B.1. Conversely, the curvatures from that section were used here, the two sets being found by a process of successive approximations. No attempt was made to find the condition for minimum departure, in either case, because the severe distortion of the wavefronts makes the task meaningless. 3. Resultant Wavefronts as a Function of Angle (Figs. 13 and 14) Using the parameters for 0.50 and 3.80, Figs. 13 and 14 were deduced. In the small angle case, the wavefront is distorted severely, but it is reasonably independent of the angle. This is far from true in the wide angle case, but it is again notable that the extreme deviations from a true retroreflector do not exceed 480
see of arc.

= -0.0036 A in the
-0.2 0 +0.2 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

Fig. 9. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of changing the curvature of the secondary, narrow angle (10 field) case. Parameter ax = -. 0036A,.

OVERALL F/25.0 +0.8

FOCAL RATIO 0 F/25.0

+0.7

+0.6

+0.5

4. Optimum SecondaryDisplacement () as a Function

of Angle of Incidence (Fig. 15) These curves were computed for our minimum derivative criterion at two values of over-all focal ratio: f/5 and f/10. The optimum displacement is a strong function of angle in both cases; therefore, the choice of a compromise position for a given field of view is problematical. Our two choices were made after extensive computation, but the decision is by no means clear0 cr

cc +0.A
o a:

+03

s4 0

+0.2

+0.2

cut.

5. Summary It is quite obvious that the substitution of a spherical primary mirror results in a serious degradation of the performance. Nevertheless, where accuracies of about 480 see of arc suffice, the lower cost of this approach

-0.1

-0.2 -1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0 +0.2 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE +0.2 +1.0

might be attractive.

the position of the secondary are significantly looser. The values quoted are for our minimum derivative criterion, but the tolerances should not be very differ-

Furthermore, the tolerances on

Fig. 10. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of changing the curvature of the secondary, compromise wide angle (7.60 field) case. July 1966 Parameter x = -0.025Aj.

Vol. 5, No. 7 / APPLIED OPTICS 1195

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO

OVERALL FOCAL RATIO

cc+1.0
00

-.00056Al

+0.2

-00036A 1

-0.0016A

cc II

> 4

- 1.0

-10

I+0.0164A, 0.06A

1.0

-0.6

+0.2 0 -0.2 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

+0.6

+1.0

Fig. 11. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of displacing the secondary about its optimum position, narrow angle (10 field) case. Parameter R2 = -1.00F
1.

RELATIVESEMI-APERTURE

Fig. 13. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Wavefronts -.001, for angles of incidence 0 and 0.5 and parameters R2

ax = -0.+036A0.

ent from any other criterion if the specific values can be established. The tolerances are: secondary curvature R2 = - (1.00 0.02) X Fj; secondary position (measured from paraxial focal point): Ax = - (0.0036 0.002) X A,, narrow-angle (10 field) case; a = 4 0.002) X Al, wide-angle (100 field) case. -(0.025 Using the same numerical example as before (10-cm aperture, f/5 over-all focal ratio), the tolerance on 3,
OVERALL FOCAL RATIO

becomes 4 100 ,u, an order of magnitude coarser than with a parabolic primary. C. Tilts and Lateral Shifts of the Elements We need only briefly consider these effects. It is obvious that tilts and lateral shifts of the primary can be regarded as changes in incidence and as movements of the secondary. We consider the effects for only our most critical case: the case of anf/5 parabolic primary, with a spherical secondary, and a 10 field of view. The apparent change in angle of incidence is almost irrelevant. However, a tilt of the primary with respect to the axis will shift the image on the secondary. Using our usual numerical value of A1 = 5 cm, then F = 50 cm, R 2 = 100 cm (approximate), and A 2 = 0.45 cm (approximate). A criterion of 17 displacement of the beam on the secondary becomes 20 see of arc at the primary and similarly for the tilt of the secondary. Tilting the secondary also introduces an apparent error in R2, but it is simple to show that, from this standpoint, the tolerances on the value of R 2 allow enormous tilts without harm. Much more important is the possible vignetting caused by the beam from the secondary being displaced on the primary. Lateral shift of the mirrors can be reduced to a shift of the secondary and a shift of the position of incidence. Again, vignetting is the greatest problem. The error in 5, introduced by a lateral shift of the secondary is neglig ble until the shift becomes comparable to the size of the secondary.

F/5.00

F/8.33
I I I

F/25.0 0
I I

F/25.0

F/8.33
I I I

F/5.00
1

+2.0

=-0.0452A, 1

-0.0452A 8 =

cc + 1.0
cc 0 N

-O.0272A

-0.0272A

0-O.22I-O03A

+0.0052A

+0.0052AI

-1.0
/I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-1.0

-0.6

+0.2 0 -0.2 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE

+0.6

+1.0

Fig. 12. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Effect on wavefronts of displacing the secondary about its optimum
position, compromise wide angle (7.60 field) case. Parameter
R2

=- 1.00F1 .

1196 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 5, No. 7 / July 1966

IV.

Conclusion

-0.0010

While our calculations show that the cat's-eye system in the forms investigated cannot produce a perfect retroreflector, nevertheless, they do demonstrate that a system having a parabolic primary with a spherical secondary can give performances, even with a 10-cm aperature, adequate for two-beam interferometry in the visible region. Systems giving wavefronts flat to 1T wavelength (visible) over a 1 field of view can be constructed if the primary-secondary spacing (50 cm in our example) can be adjusted and held to 5 . Although it is severe, such a tolerance is not impractical and is considerably easier to attain than the requisite 0.05 ,u (roughly) for the equivalent cube-corner retroreflector. Even as a fraction of the physical dimensions of the device, there is still an order of magnitude in favor of the cat's eye.
OVERALL FOCAL RATIO F/25.0 0 F/25.0

z 0

-0.01
z

00

ANGLE +2.0

OF INCIDENCE,

deg

Fig. 15. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Optimum secondary displacement against angle of incidence for f5 and f/10 over-all focal ratios.
0
W 4 In
-

+1.1

0
a:

The combination of two spherical mirrors has been shown to be much less satisfactory, even though the positional tolerances are relatively crude. It is possible or microwave region. But unless reasonably large focal ratios are employed, it is difficult to envisage its

that the system might find application in the far ir

utility at short wavelengths.

-1.0

carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California

Institute of Technology, under a contract sponsored by
-0.2 0 +0.2 +0.6 RELATIVE SEMI-APERTURE +1.0

This paper presents the results of one phase of work

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

References
1. P. Connes (private communication). 2. P. Fellgett, J. Phys. Rad. 19, 237 (1958).

Fig. 14. Spherical primary, spherical secondary. Wavefronts for angles of incidence 0 to 5 and parameters R2 = -1.00F1, a = -. 025A. This report concerns itself with these papers of especial interest to this reporter. The keynote session contained some excellent papers, including one on C02 laser applications and the huge nonlinear coefficient (4000 X that of KDP) and phase matchability of tellurium. This was followed by three summaries of the state-of-the-laser art: (long lived) ring discharge ion laser, continuous (1 W) Nd: temperature cw ruby lasers (single-mode oscillation obtainable without spiking). A large number of papers were devoted to the understanding of the C02 laser and to the question of what should be considered the
foreign gas. A cw power of some 800 W was reported. YAG laser (capable of 3 X 10-11 sec pulsing), and analysis of room Meeting Reportscontinued from page 1190

Another important paper described frequency locking of two laser oscillators purely by optical coupling (no servo feedback). The beam from one was injected (through a Faraday isolator) into the other, resulting in frequency locking adequate to obtain stationary fringes. Self-trapping (self-focusing) of intense light beams took up an entire session. It is still unclear whether Kerr effect, electro-

striation, or saturation effects are responsible, although evidence was presented that the particular effect depends on the medium. The developers of the 337 - C2H5CNlaser described its use for semiconductor cyclotron resonance measurements. Such studies are presently made with microwaves and are restricted to materials of extremely high purity. By scaling up the frequency (and the magnetic field to state-of-the-art limits) one can study commensurately impure semiconductors (with greater Landau level separations). Toward the end of the program, as fatigue was setting in, the conference received a surprise shot in the arm thanks to Professor Rawson's color movie illustrating runners, bouncers and hoppers (radiation pressure propelled dust) to be found inside visible laser resonators. This presentation was received with a resounding ovation and provided Peter Franken with a tough act to follow. Franken admirably rose to the occasion by presenting his preliminary results on CAT-sensing with laser radar. Results of 1300 flights indicate that laser radar often, though not always, sees CAT. There are some false alarms, but this technique shows sufficient promise to justify the work now in progress.
July 1966/ Vol. 5, No. 7 / APPLIED OPTICS 1197

Ring modes in ion lasers (also seen under high current density and transient conditions) were described in a paper concluding that these are probably caused by large radial variation in
gain.

Enhanced total internal reflection described the operation of

high-index glass core, Nearly all the light emerged from the core,

fiber lasers comprised of an unamplifying, doped cladding.

in the methods of relaying weather data from one station to another and in the methods of displaying them. There was no official banquet, but a Sipposium was held with cocktails available at popular prices. Apparently the AMS is not blessed, as is the OSA, with the luxury of prosperous exhibitors who are willing to provide free cocktails.

surrounded by a low-index (not necessarily homogeneous) Ndindicating internal reflectivities greater than 100%. Work on pulsed laser holography was reported showing how interferometry applications can be extended to the realm of transient phenomena, and how to use a diffusing screen to improve spatial matching. Finally, a post deadline paper described how the Naval Research Laboratory plasma section dumped virtually all of 250 J into a tiny tube of pure nitrogen in 3 nsec to obtain a MW laser pulse at 3371 A. A program of the meeting appeared in IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics QE-2, No. 4, April (1966), and it is planned to

Fiftieth Anniversary Meeting of the Optical Society of America, 15-18

March 1966, Washington, D.C.
Reported by L. F. Drummeter, Jr., Naval Research Laboratory

publish the conference papers in a future issue of that journal.

Sixth Conference on Applied Meteorology (Aerospace Meteorology) of the American Meteorological Society with American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics 28-31 March, 1966, Los Angeles,

California
Reported by D. E. Burch, Philco Corporation-Aeronutronic Division

The Conference was held at the beautiful Statler Hilton Hotel with
more than 300 registrants, and approximately 70 papers were pre-

The Fiftieth Anniversary Meeting Program of the Optical Society of America was large, inspired, and frustrating. It set a record registration-1300-and probably in in number of days-four-in the number of papers presented. It had an inspired exhibit and program. It was frustrating for one person to attempt to be in three places simultaneously; it was frustrating that some of the invited papers never quite jelled; and it was frustrating that some of the meeting mechanics were arranged awkwardly. The exhibit of historical optical equipment interlaced with tutorial photographic essays on technical subjects was the most fascinating and delightful exhibit that I have seen. Judging from the attendance and overheard remarks, many of the other attendees experienced similar feelings. I particularly enjoyed John Strong's arrangement to pack up the Rowland ruling engine plus Wilbur Perry and have them both functioning at the exhibit. Other memorabilia that appealed to me included a 1789 Achromat, the 1907 NBS Fabry-Perot used by Priest, Barne's ranging back to a seventeenth-century glass and including the famous 1920scope, and Lyman's vacuum tiv spectrograph.
1934 wire diffraction grating, the Zeiss exhibit of microscopes

sented with double sessions during 1- days of the 3- day meeting. This suggests that the Conference has already passed its optimum size. In general, it appeared that sufficient time was allowed for the presentation of the papers and for discussion. As one who had not attended any of the previous meetings of this group, the writer was interested in finding out the types of problems being dealt with by meteorologists these days. As in
most fields of science and engineering, the influence of the space The increasing role of the meteorologist age is being felt strongly. As an example, designers of aerospace vehicles and instruments. designers of supersonic aircraft need answers to many questions

Continued on page 1202

is indicated by the requirements for data which were regarded as unimportant a few years ago, but are now desperately needed by regarding clear air turbulence. Meteorologists are trying to determine what causes it, how bad it is, where and how often it occurs, and how to detect it in time for an aircraft to avoid it. The importance of the problem is indicated by the title of one of the papers: High Altitude Clear Air Turbulence-(HICAT)-Menace
to the Aerial Highway.

One session dealt with Atmospheric Pollution Due to Aerospace Operations. Problems considered included the diffusion of toxic gases from rocket exhausts and of ablation particles. Although there was no session dealing with smog-a problem of air pollution more important to many of the local residents-it was the one most talked about in the halls. Visitors from other parts of the country learned the meaning of a word understood best by residents of the Los Angeles area: smog-alert. In spite of a smog content described locally as causing "moderate to heavy eye irritation", the visitors enjoyed some warm, sunny weather. Approximately ten exhibitors displayed a variety of instruments, some of which are quite sophisticated, incorporating many of the advancements in data recording, analysis, and display. Modern digitalizing techniques have been adapted to recording of such basic meteorological quantities as rainfall, wind velocity, temperature, etc. Great progress has also been made
1198 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 5, No. 7 / July 1966

photo Mitchell Valentine

The Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society of London: H. W. Thompson Oxford.