BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Various embodiments are shown and described in connection with the following drawings in which:
FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a transmission mode confocal microscope including a light source (A), pinholes (B, F), a sample (D), focusing lenses (C, E) and a detector (G).
FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of a fiber optic image bundle transmitting an image from an input end to an output end.
FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of a portion of a disclosed confocal imaging apparatus.
FIG. 4 is a schematic illustration of drawing image guides with un-isolated fibers (upper image) and isolated fibers (lower image).
FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of an image guide being drawn, the length of the hot zone, X-Y, is constant as points M-N are pulled apart.
FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating a method for etching, drawing, and re-enforcing at least a portion of an image guide.
FIG. 7 is a schematic illustration of a method for acid etching an image guide using a water-dam.
FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of an optical test bench arrangement useable to measure particular disclosed embodiments of image guides.
FIG. 9 presents micro-images (negatives) captured before (top) and after (bottom) two separate IG drawings experiments. Scale bar (bottom right) equals 100 μm.
FIG. 10 is a graph of taper diameter versus location for a disclosed image guide. Taper location represents amount of material removed from the distal face of the image guide by grinding.
FIG. 11 is a graph of a sample PSF curve acquired by translating mirror through focal plane. Intensity has been scaled for clarity.
FIG. 12A and 12 B are graphs of normalized PSF data from the image guides, left and right, respectively, shown in FIG. 9.
FIG. 13 is a graph of section thickness versus aperture diameter for the image guides of FIG. 9. Open circles represent previously reported data.
FIG. 14 are images (negatives) of the distal ends of two disclosed image guides.
FIG. 15 is a graph of a sample PSF curve between the tapered and untapered assemblies of FIG. 14.
FIG. 16A and 16B are illustrations of single fiber taper assembly profiles constructed from drawing experiments of the, left and right, respectively, image guides of FIG. 14. Dimensions are in mm.
FIG. 17 presents a series of images (negatives) from the assembly of FIG. 16B captured after each grind/polish cycle.
FIGS. 18A and 18B present PSF curves for all apertures created in the assemblies of FIGS. 16A and 16B.
FIG. 19A and 19B present normalized PSF curves for all apertures created in the assemblies of FIGS. 16A and 16B. Arrows indicate half-maximum.
FIG. 20 presents a graph of section thickness versus aperture size for the assemblies of FIGS. 16A and 16B.
FIG. 21 is a schematic illustration of a conscope Zemax model where 1 represents the entrance pupil, 2 the modified image guide, 3 the objective, 4 the front surface mirror, 5 a return path objective, 6 a return path modified image guide, 7 a return path exit stop, and 8 an image plane.
FIG. 22 is a Zemax model of the proximal face of an image guide (upper image) and a photo-micrograph of an actual image guide.
FIG. 23 is a Zemax model of the distal face of an image guide where apertures are represented by smaller circles in each fiber center. Apertures are set to 25 μm.
FIG. 24 is a graph of efficiencies from five ray volume trials. Trials were preformed for 15,000; 25,000; 50,000; 100,000; and 250,000 rays. Error bars indicate±one standard deviation, N=29. Parameters for ray experiments were: (tr)=0.55, (sl)=5 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (sp)=100, (σ)=2.
FIG. 25 is a graph comparing PSF data from 15,000 ray curve (dashed) versus 200,000 ray curve (solid). Model run time for 15,000 was 2 hours. Model run time for 200,000 was 16 hours.
FIG. 26 is a graph of efficiency versus mirror position of IG to objective spacing Zemax experiments. PSF curves from spacing set to 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 mm. Peak focal plane efficiency is indicated by arrow and value. Variable values were: (tr)=0.55, (sl)=1 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (sp)=0, (σ)=0. Shifted upwards for clarity are the 5, 10, 15, and 22 mm curves. Z=0 set to objective face for profile comparisons.
FIG. 27 is a graph of efficiency versus mirror position showing the effect of increasing the percent of rays scattered at the mirror surface. Scattering percentages of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% were investigated. Variables were set to (tr)=0.40, (sl)=5 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (σ)=0.25.
FIG. 28 is a graph of efficiency versus mirror position showing the effect of increasing σ for scattering at the mirror surface. Sigma levels plotted are 0.10, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50. Variables were set to (tr)=0.40, (sl)=5 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (sp)=100.
FIG. 29 presents graphs PSF curves from conscope model taper length/angle experiments. Un-normalized data (top) from lengths of 0.5, 1.0, 3.329, 5.0, and 10.0 mm. Normalized data (bottom) from the same trials highlight curves from 0.5 and 1.0 mm taper lengths. Bottom data normalized in the vertical axis. Variables were set to (tr)=0.55, (sl)=5 μm, (sp)=100, (σ)=0.25.
FIG. 30 presents normalized PSF profile data resulting from blocking successive out rings. Arrows indicated number of rings un-blocked relative to original 91 element hexagonal bundle. Data normalized in the vertical axis. Variables were set to (tr)=0.55, (sl)=5 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (sp)=100, (σ)=0.25.
FIG. 31 presents normalized PSF curves from six largest taper ratio trials. Normalization is in the vertical axis. Variables were set to (sl)=5 μm, (tl)=3.329 mm, (sp)=100, (σ)=0.25.
FIG. 32 presents a graph of normalized efficiency versus mirror position from all eight taper ratios (distal side of focal plane only). Arrow indicates half-height point for determining section thickness.
FIG. 33 is a graph comparing section thicknesses predicted by the conscope model (triangles) and those measured from optic bench assemblies (squares and circles).
FIG. 34 is a graph of PSF profile data acquired from optical bench measurements with a taper ratio of 0.30. Data was normalized in the vertical axis. Focal plane is indicated by an axial mirror position of zero.
FIG. 35 is a graph of PSF profiles acquired at the optic bench during aperture removal experiments. Non-focal plane signal (<˜−0.05) reduces in magnitude as apertures are removed.
FIG. 36 is a graph of PSF profiles for a TACE taper ratio of 0.25. Data was normalized in the vertical axis.
Patent Application
20070172180
