Experimental Comparison of Interference and Autocollimating Null Indicators
https://doi.org/10.32603/1993-8985-2023-26-4-149-158
Abstract
Introduction. At present, measurement of angles with high accuracy is an essential task in various scientific and industrial fields. The goniometer is one of the most widespread high-precision angle measuring devices, which can incorporate various types of null indicators. In turn, null indicators (NI) are based on different operating principles and can be sensitive to external factors that contribute to the measurement error.
Aim. Experimental comparison of two NI types: an interference NI with a Koester prism and an autocollimating NI based on a quadrant photodiode.
Materials and methods. An experimental setup was assembled, including two NI that could be connected to one goniometer and measure the accumulated angles of one optical polygon under the same conditions.
Results. As a result of conducting measurements and performing a cross-calibration procedure, four sets of data were obtained. An analysis of the processed data showed that the difference in the errors of the ring laser when using two NI did not exceed 0.06 arc seconds, being within the margin of random error. At the same time, the difference between the deviations of the reflecting faces from the nominal position for the two faces exceeded this limit, which confirms the effect of deviation of the surface from the plane on angular measurements with different types of null indicators.
Conclusion. According to the results obtained, from the random error point of view, the interference null indicator NI showed higher performance, demonstrating the RMS of measured values of 0.02 angular seconds when measured during 25 prism revolutions. At the same time, the autocollimating null indicator NI had an RMS at the level of 0.04 angular seconds when measured during 64 revolutions. Presumably, this may be caused by the installation specifics of NI. It should also be noted that there is no correlation between the statistical characteristics of the reflecting face itself and the difference between its deviations determined by different NI types.
About the Authors
B. Nyamweru
College of Business Education CBE
United Republic of Tanzania
United Republic of Tanzania
Boniface Nyamweru -Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Legal and Industrial Metrology
Bibi Titi Mohamed St., Dar es Salaam 1968
The author of 3 scientific publications. Area of expertise: optical metrology systems.
E. V. Shishalova
Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elizaveta V. Shishalova - Graduate Student of the Department of Laser Measurement and Navigation Systems
5F, Professor Popov St., St Petersburg 197022
The author of 2 scientific publications. Area of expertise: high precision angle measurements.
References
1. Ivanov P. A. Autocollimators and Goniometers. Review of Modern Models. Photonics Russia. 2018, vol. 12, no. 1(69), pp. 66–74. doi: 10.22184/1993-7296.2018.69.1.66.74 (In Russ.)
2. Filatov Yu. V., Loukianov D. P., Probst R. Dynamic Angle Measurement by Means of a Ring Laser. Metrologia. 1997, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 343–351. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/34/4/7
3. Bachish E. A., Pavlov P. A. Laser Dynamic Goniometer Metrological Characteristics. Measurement Techniques. 2009, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 465–471. doi: 10.1007/s11018-009-9305-4
4. Filatov Yu. V., Pavlov P. A., Velikoseltsev A. A., Ulrich Schreiber K. Precision Angle Measurement Systems on the Basis of Ring Laser Gyro. Sensors. 2020, vol. 20, no. 23, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.3390/s20236930
5. Pavlov P. A., Filatov Yu. V. Rezul'taty kalibrovki mnogogrannykh prizm s pomoshch'yu lazernogo goniometra IUP-1L [Calibration Results for Polyhedral Prisms Using the IUP-1L Laser Goniometer]. Izvestiya SPbGETU. 1997, vol. 509, p. 41. (In Russ.)
6. Venedictov V. Yu., Nyamweru B., Larichev R. A., Filatov Yu. V., Shishalova E. V. Optical null-indicators for goniometric systems: a review. Photonics Russia. 2022, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 464–475. doi: 10.22184/1993-7296.FRos.2022.16.6.464.474 (In Russ.)
7. Pavlov P. A. The Error Analysis of an Angular Interference Null-Indicator. Izvestiya SPbGETU LETI. 2008, no. 4, pp. 55–62. (In Russ.)
8. Filatov Yu.V. Analysis of the Operation of an Interference Angular Null Indicator. Opt.-mekh. Prom-st'. 1989, no. 4, pp. 13–17. (In Russ.)
9. Pavlov P. A., Larichev R. A., Filatov Y. V. Digital Autocollimating Null-Indicator for Dynamic Goniometry. Optical Engineering. 2020, vol. 59, no. 10, p. 104103. doi: 10.1117/1.OE.59.10.104103
10. Larichev R. A., Filatov Yu. V. An Autocollimation Null Detector: Development and Use in Dynamic Goniometry. Journal of Optical Technology. 2013, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 554–557. doi: 10.1364/JOT.80.000554
11. Larichev R. A., Filatov Yu. V. The Influence of Reflecting Face Topography on Angular Measurements with Aids of Autocollimator. Izvestiya SPbGETU LETI. 2012, no. 7, pp. 90–96. (In Russ.)
12. Filatov Yu. V., Larichev R. A. Aberration Influence on Accuracy of Angle Measurements by Means of Autocollimator. Proc. of SPIE – The Intern. Society for Optical Engineering. Munich, Germany, 22–25 June 2015, p. 95253O. doi: 10.1117/12.2184726
13. Pavlov P. A. Laser Dynamic Goniometer Measurement Algorithms. Measurement Techniques. 2008, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 22–27. doi: 10.1007/s11018-008-0005-2
14. Filatov Yu. V., Nikolaev M. S., Larichev R. A., Pavlov P. A. Study of Adjustment Influence on the Autocollimating Null-Indicator Accuracy. Proc. of SPIE – The Intern. Society for Optical Engineering. 11–16 Oct. 2020, p. 115520H. doi: 10.1117/12.2573769
15. Pavlov P. A. Aspects of the Cross-Calibration Method in Laser Goniometry. Measurement Techniques. 2015, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 970–974. doi: 10.1007/s11018-015-08
Review
For citations:
Nyamweru B., Shishalova E.V. Experimental Comparison of Interference and Autocollimating Null Indicators. Journal of the Russian Universities. Radioelectronics. 2023;26(4):149-158. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/1993-8985-2023-26-4-149-158
Views:
209
Email this article 