Aop 10 2 484

484 Vol. 10, No.
2 / June 2018 / Advances in Optics and Photonics Tutorial
Nonimaging optics: a tutorial

ROLAND WINSTON LUN JIANG* AND MELISSA RICKETTS
University of California, Merced, 5200 N Lake Rd, Merced, California 95343, USA
*Corresponding author: Ljiang2@ucmerced.edu
Received February 21, 2018; revised April 27, 2018; accepted April 30, 2018; published May 24, 2018 (Doc.
ID 306663)
Nonimaging optics is the theory of thermodynamically efficient optics and as such, de-
pends more on thermodynamics than on optics. Historically, nonimaging optics that work
as ideal concentrators have been discovered through such heuristic ideas as “edge
ray involutes,” “string method,” “simultaneous multiple surface,” and “tailored edge ray
concentrator,” without a consistent theoretical definition of what “ideal” means. In this
tutorial, we provide a thermodynamic perspective of nonimaging optical designs to shine
light on the commonality of all these designing ideas, or what “ideal” nonimaging
design means. Hence, in this paper, a condition for the “best” design is proposed based
purely on thermodynamic arguments, which we believe have profound consequences.
Thermodynamics may also be the most intuitive way for a reader who is new to this subject
to understand or study it within a certain framework, instead of learning from sporadic
designing methodologies. This way of looking at the problem of efficient concentration
and illumination depends on probabilities, the ingredients of entropy, and information
theory, while “optics” in the conventional sense recedes into the background. We attempt
to link the key concept of nonimaging optics, étendue, with the radiative heat transfer
concept of view factor, which may be more familiar to some readers. However, we do
not want to limit the readers to a single thermodynamic understanding of this subject.
Therefore, two alternative perspectives of nonimaging optics will also be introduced
and used throughout the tutorial: the definition of a nonimaging optics design according
to the Hilbert integral, and the phase space analysis of the ideal design. The tutorial will be
organized as follows: Section 1 highlights the difference between nonimaging and
imaging optics, Section 2 describes the thermodynamic understanding of nonimaging op-
tics, Section 3 presents the alternative phase space representation of nonimaging optics,
Section 4 describes the most basic nonimaging designs using Hottel’s strings, Section 5
discusses the geometric flow line designing method, and Section 6 summarizes the various
concepts of nonimaging optics. © 2018 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (080.4295) Nonimaging optical systems; (080.4298) Nonimaging
optics; (220.4298) Nonimaging optics; (080.2175) Etendue; (000.6850)
Thermodynamics; (010.5620) Radiative transfer
https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.10.000484
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
1.1. Sphere Ellipse Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
2. Thermodynamic Origin of Nonimaging Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
2.1. Maximize Radiation Flux at the Absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
Tutorial Vol. 10, No. 2 / June 2018 / Advances in Optics and Photonics 485
2.2. Maximize the Optical Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

2.3. Maximum Concentration Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
2.4. Nonimaging Concentrator for Infinitely Far Away Source . . . . . . . . 489
2.5. Discussion of Étendue within Thermodynamic Framework . . . . . . . . 490
3. Phase Space Representation of Nonimaging Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
3.1. Definition of Étendue within the Phase Space Framework . . . . . . . . 492
3.2. Maximum Concentration Ratio under Phase Space Representation. . . 493
3.3. Flux Density of Nonimaging Optics in Directional Cosine Space . . . 494
4. Constructing a Nonimaging Optics System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
4.1. Compound Parabolic Concentrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
4.1a. Basic Nonimaging Optics Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
4.2. Concentration Ratio of the CPC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
4.3. Phase Space Analysis of the CPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
4.4. Understanding the Maximum Concentration Based on Phase Space . . 498
4.5. Edge Ray Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
4.6. Nonimaging Concentrator with Convex Shaped Absorber. . . . . . . . . 500
4.7. Asymmetric CEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
5. Flow Line Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
5.1. Flow Line in the Context of Radiative Heat Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . 502
5.2. Using Flow Line Design to Construct the CPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
5.2a. Flow Line Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
5.2b. Flow Line Design as an Alternative Way of Generating
Nonimaging Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
5.2c. Flow Line as a Tool to Calculate Concentration Ratio . . . . . . . 505
5.3. Generalizing the Flow Line Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
5.4. Flow Line Method and Its Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
Appendix A: Fermi Proof of Étendue Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
486 Vol. 10, No. 2 / June 2018 / Advances in Optics and Photonics Tutorial
Nonimaging optics: a tutorial

ROLAND WINSTON, LUN JIANG, AND MELISSA RICKETTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Nomenclature
px optical momentum according to axis x
L directional cosine x
M directional cosine y
N directional cosine z
E étendue
Pij probability of ray from i arrives at j
C concentration ratio
J~ geometric flux vector.
The difference between imaging optics and nonimaging optics depends on whether
ray sources are treated as points or extended objects. The latter have temperature and
entropy and therefore we can apply thermodynamics, while point sources do not
because they do not possess any internal degrees of freedom.
Conventional imaging optics is most concerned with the idea of point to point
mapping of an optical system. A point from the object space is ideally mapped
via an optical device to a corresponding point in the image space. For example, a
Gaussian optical system starts with mapping the center point of the object to its image
on the optical axis, and then the aberrations of the off-axis points are minimized by
optimization. Figure 1 shows a comparison between imaging (left) and nonimaging
(right) optics. A “perfect” concentrating imaging system free from aberration cannot
be achieved without infinite degrees of design freedom ([1], Appendix B).
Nonimaging optics, however, starts with the idea of energy transfer. For this purpose,
only the boundary of the object must be considered for the designing process. The
mapping of points inside such a boundary is not required. In a sense, nonimaging
optics design only guarantees that the edge rays, or the boundary consisting of ex-
treme positions or directions, is carried over. The contents within the edge rays, or the
rays of the positions and directions in between, can be scrambled.
Figure 1
Comparison between imaging (left) and nonimaging (right) optics.

1.1. Sphere Ellipse Paradox

Because imaging optics treats the source and its destination (sink) of light rays as
points, it processes the sources and sinks by simplifying them. In other words, the
analysis of the optical system is based on point to point mapping through rays.
Although such an underlying assumption works very well, it fails to address the
thermodynamic rules that the optical sources or sinks with extended surfaces are
required to observe. This can lead to paradoxes.
One classical example [2] is the paradox of an elliptical spherical chamber, as shown
in Fig. 2, where the assumption that radiation source and sink can be simple points
will create a dilemma that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Consider a
spherical-ellipsoid chamber with perfect reflectivity for its inner walls. The point
object A is positioned at the center of a spherical reflecting cavity, and it is also
at the focus of an elliptical reflecting cavity; the point object B is at the other focus.
If we start A and B at the same temperature, the probability of radiation from B reach-
ing A is clearly higher than A reaching B, as shown by the arrows. One can easily
validate such a result with ray tracing. So we conclude that A warms up while B cools
off, despite starting at the same temperature, resulting in a violation of the second law
of thermodynamics (heat only flows from higher temperature to lower temperature).
The paradox is resolved by making A and B extended objects, no matter how small.
In fact, a physical object with temperature has many internal degrees of freedom and
cannot be point-like.
Obviously in such an example the geometrical principle of rays being reflected from
one focus to the other focus for ellipses, and from the central point of a spherical
mirror and back for spheres, is not at fault. Rather, it is the assumption that we
can treat optical objects as simple points, producing a result that does not exist in
reality. Simple points can neither produce rays nor receive rays in radiation heat trans-
fer. Their usage can help to conceptualize and analyze an optical system. However, in
many cases, the over-simplification of point-like sources and sinks for radiation heat
transfer produces self-conflicting results, such as those of the sphere-ellipse paradox.
The solution is not to fully give up on ray tracing. Instead, in addition to using rays and
points to help guide the optical designing process, we must also consider thermody-
namics as one of the fundamental principles that cannot be violated through such a
designing process. Nonimaging optics at its core addresses such a challenge.
2. THERMODYNAMIC ORIGIN OF NONIMAGING OPTICS

To connect thermodynamics with real-world applications, we demonstrate the under-
lying thought process of nonimaging optics with a realistic problem: concentrator
designs. In order to simplify the model, we assume that the designing process is
pure geometric. In other words, effects such as wavelength shifts and polarization,
Figure 2
Elliptical paradox where the imaging optics fails.

which will have impacts on the thermodynamics of the system, are not our concern.
For the readers who are interested in a more general analysis for effects such as
luminescent concentrators, please refer to [3]. Compared to imaging optics, a non-
imaging concentrator is concerned with transferring energy from the source to the
absorber (sink) within the theoretical limit of thermodynamics. Instead of designing
an optical system based on fine tuning and engineering light rays, we first need to
look at the maximum concentration ratio allowed by the fundamental laws of physics.
To do so, we must enter the regime of geometrical optics and probability.
The general setup of a concentrating system requires three components, as shown in
Fig. 3: the source of radiation, the aperture of the concentrator, and the absorber (sink)
of the radiation. We define the geometric concentration ratio as C Area Area of the aperture
of the absorber.
To explore the thermodynamic limitations of a concentrator design using geometrical
optics, we assume that the source and absorber are perfect Lambertian surfaces
(blackbody).
The probability of radiation leaving one surface and arriving at another surface is
defined as
radiation from i to j
Pij : (1)
total radiation emitted from i
Starting from this simple concept, we will describe nonimaging optics with two
thermodynamic arguments.
2.1. Maximize Radiation Flux at the Absorber

Now we shall discuss the first thermodynamic argument, which can be used indepen-
dent of the second argument. The probability defined in Eq. (1) can be readily utilized
within the context of thermodynamics to provide the maximum concentration ratio of
an optical device. For a configuration described in Fig. 3, according to the Stefan–
Boltzmann law, the radiation from a blackbody source to a blackbody absorber is
Q13 A1 σT 41 P13 , (2)
where A1 is the area of the source, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, and T is

the temperature of the source. With the principle of reciprocity, which is a direct
consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, we have
Figure 3
Typical setup of a concentrator.

σT 4 A1 P13 σT 4 A3 P31 , A1 P13 A3 P31 : (3)
Equation (3) represents a fundamental concept: given two blackbodies at the same
temperature, the radiative power from one to the other is equivalent.
From here, we derive the radiative heat flux at the surface of the absorber:
Q13 A1 P13 4
q13 σT 1 P31 σT 41 : (4)
A3 A3
Because P31 ≤ 1, q13 reaches a maximum radiative flux equal to that of the source,
which is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics:
q13 σT 41 if and only if P31 1: (5)
2.2. Maximize the Optical Efficiency

Now we can discuss the second thermodynamic argument. Ideally, a concentrator de-
sign has a geometrical optical efficiency equal to one. In other words, for a configu-
ration shown in Fig. 3 the energy from the radiation source passing through the
aperture will all arrive at the absorber (for nonideal system, refer to [4])
Q12 Q13 , σT 41 A1 P12 σT 41 A1 P13 , A1 P12 A1 P13 : (6)
Equation (6) provides the limit of concentration given the additional requirement that
the optical efficiency of the device is also ideal. Such a requirement is not always
enforced in the real-world application; theoretically, however, providing a device with
the ideal design is at least an option to be considered.
2.3. Maximum Concentration Ratio

Using the principle of reciprocity once more, we have
A1 P12 A2 P21 : (7)
Combining Eqs. (3), (6), and (7), we conclude that

A2 P13 1
C ≤ : (8)
A3 P21 P21
Equation (8) demonstrates the design principle of an ideal nonimaging concentrator.

Impose the following requirements: (1) maximize the concentrated flux at the
absorber, and (2) maximize the optical efficiency of the concentrator. Then the con-
centration ratio of such a device is 1∕P21 . Equation (8) also shows that such a design
is achieved when P13 1, according to Eq. (5). The thermodynamic approach of
maximizing the absorber temperature such that it is equivalent to the radiation source,
or, P31 1, serves as the underlying principle for most nonimaging designs.
2.4. Nonimaging Concentrator for Infinitely Far Away Source

Hoyt Hottel, an MIT engineer working on the theory of furnaces [5,6], showed a con-
venient method for calculating radiation transfer between walls in a furnace using
“strings.” In order to calculate the P21 from Eq. (8), we use the Hottel’s strings
on the radiation source 1 and aperture 2, as shown in Fig. 4:
AD BC − AC BD

P21 : (9)
2CD
As the source AB approaches infinity, Δθ approaches 0 and AC AE. If the setup is

kept symmetric, i.e., AD BC and AC BD, then
2AD − AC DE 1 1
P21 sinθ, C max : (10)
2CD CD P21 sinθ
Equation (10) gives the maximum ratio of concentration within the framework of
thermodynamics, for an infinitely far away radiation source in 2D. One can easily
generalize this limit to 3D:
1 1
C max ,3D : (11)
P21 sin2 θ
2.5. Discussion of Étendue within Thermodynamic Framework

In this section we explain the concept of étendue based on conventional radiative heat
transfer. This might be particularly helpful for readers who are familiar with such a
background. And it can provide the reader with a clearer view of the connections
between heat transfer and nonimaging optics. In the context of radiative heat transfer,
the geometric setup is described using view factors [5]. Similar to [7], a probability
concept can be established to describe the geometric capability for a radiative heat
transfer device, even though the source and absorber may not have a direct view
of each other:
ZZ
1 cos β1 cos β2
P12 dA1 dA2 : (12)
πA1 A1 A2 r2
Here dA1 , dA2 are two infinitely small areas on the surfaces of two objects undergoing
radiative heat transfer (Fig. 5). Variables β1 and β2 are the angles formed between the
direction connecting them and the norms of the specific surface, and r is the distance
between them. Because we are in a geometric optical setup, some of the rays from the
source of radiation to the sink can be reflected or refracted. Probability P instead of
view factor F is used to include these rays. In other words, compared to the definition
of view factor F, which only describes geometric configurations without considering
optical devices, probability P is a more general description of radiative heat transfer
which includes ray paths that connect the source and the absorber through optical
devices such as mirrors and lenses.
Figure 4
Hottel’s strings can be used to solve for P21.

From Eq. (12), the étendue ([8, 9], Eq. (3.11)) is

ZZ
cos β1 cos β2
E 12 dA1 dA2 : (13)
A1 A2 r2
Compare Eqs. (12) and (13), we conclude
E 12 πA1 P12 : (14)
This result connects the étendue with view factor analysis, which is an important con-
cept in radiative heat transfer studies, and its tabulated analytical results are widely
available in the literature [5]. Notice that for nonimaging optical system designed in
2D, E 12 2A1 P12 due to the integral in Eqs. (12) and (13) being limited in 2D.
The second law of thermodynamics forbids a colder body to transfer heat to a hotter
body. Therefore [also from Eq. (12)], this can be described from the étendue perspec-
tive as
E12 πP12 A1 πP21 A2 E 21 : (15)
Or, for any two surfaces we can conclude that
E ij πPij A1 πPji Aj Eji : (16)
We can implement Eq. (16) with Eqs. (6) and (7) and conclude that the shorthand
expression of the two important thermodynamic arguments for nonimaging optics
is [10]
E 12 E13 πA3 : (17)
Equation (17) shows that the ideal nonimaging optical designs are geometrically
étendue matching devices. If we treat étendue as the ensemble of all the rays connect-
ing two objects (such as radiation source, aperture, or absorber), then we can observe
that for the nonimaging geometric optical design that achieved maximum concentra-
tion ratio with theoretical 100% optical efficiency, Eq. (17) is required from a thermo-
dynamic point of view.
Figure 5
Radiative heat transfer between areas 1 and 2.

3. PHASE SPACE REPRESENTATION OF NONIMAGING OPTICS

Now we will introduce the second perspective of designing and understanding non-
imaging optics, i.e., interpreting nonimaging optics under the phase space framework.
To understand the phase space of geometric optics, we use the simple example shown in
Fig. 6. A source at z 0 emits light rays which subtend a half angle of 30 deg. Here
we define the optical axis as the z axis. Figure 6(a) shows how we can discretize both
the position x and the angle of such rays [11]. We pick four equally spaced x positions
and use seven equally spaced angles to represent all the rays from the screen. In Fig. 6(b)
we plot these rays as points according to their x positions and their directions as they
intercept a screen at various z positions, which are represented as the vertical lines
in Fig. 6(a). However, instead of plotting the ray’s direction as angles, we plot the
direction according to the sine of the incident angle, or px n sinangle. px is also
called optical momentum under Hamiltonian optics [12], which is equal to directional
cosine when the refractive index is 1. Because such angles are between 30 and
−30 deg, the representations of the rays are also between 0.5 and −0.5 on the px axis.
The screen starts at z 0, or when the screen is right against the source, the “” mark-
ers occupy a rectangular shape. The four corners of this rectangle represent the four
extreme rays −5, − sin30, −5, sin30, 5, − sin30, and 5, sin30. Next,
we move the screen to position z 5 to intercept these rays, and we plot the rays again
in phase space with the “o” markers. Now the extreme rays with positive directions
drift toward the x direction, and the extreme rays with negative directions drift toward
the −x direction. The rays incident on the screen occupy the shape of a parallelogram.
As the screen takes on further positions such as z 6, 7, 8…10, we see that the par-
allelogram becomes more skewed. This can be seen more clearly as we increase the
density of the rays (Fig. 7). In Fig. 7 it is shown that such parallelograms occupy
the same area. Without giving further detailed proof ([5]), we state that without any
loss or generation of rays, the phase space volume is always conserved.
3.1. Definition of Étendue within the Phase Space Framework

Here we reintroduce the concept of étendue under the phase space framework. We
observe in Fig. 7(b) that the area in the phase space occupied by the rays remains
the same. This area corresponds to the value of étendue ([7], page 75), or the “spread”
of the rays in both positions and directions. We can express this as
Z
dpx dx constant ≔ étendue: (18)
The conservation of étendue can be derived from Hamiltonian optics; other forms of
proofs have also been offered ([8], Appendix A.2, A.3). In Appendix A we also offer
Figure 6
Discrete representation of the phase space.

a proof due to Fermi (Appendix A, or [13], page 34). For a system described in Fig. 7,
it can be visualized as follows. First, we choose an arbitrary position on the z axis.
The rays of an optical system that intersect a screen at this position [Fig. 7(a)] can be
represented, one to one, as points in a phase space with x, px coordinates [Fig. 7(b)].
As we move the screen along the z axis, the boundary of such a phase space repre-
sentation of all the rays in the optical system will also shift its shape. However, the
area, or étendue, within this boundary will remain constant. In an analogy, if we treat z,
or the position of the screen as time, then as we move away from the screen (changing
the time z), the étendue of the system is like the volume of a noncompressible fluid.
As the fluid takes on different shapes, its volume will remain the same.
3.2. Maximum Concentration Ratio under Phase Space Representation

If we are given a concentrator design task in air (n 1), with a specified profile of
aperture phase space as shown in Fig. 8(a). All the rays coming into the aperture (−aa)
subtending half acceptance angle (notice Fig. 6 simply consists of the reversed rays,
with θ 30, a 5), which is typical for a far-away radiation source, then we can
draw its phase space representation in Fig. 8(b). To fit the phase space volume (area
in 2D), or étendue, into the smallest absorber area, the following limitation exists: the
phase space volume cannot extend above L 1 or below L −1. This limitation
exists because directional cosine exceeding 1 is nonphysical. Thus, we arrive at a
rectangular phase space volume, as shown in Fig. 9(a).
Consider the following proof. If the phase space volume of the absorber takes on a
shape other than the rectangular area with vertical boundaries, as shown in Fig. 9(b),
the absorber phase space area is the parallelogram outlined by the black dotted–dashed
Figure 7
Dense representation of the phase space.
Figure 8
(a) Configuration of an aperture of a concentrator. (b) The phase space representation

of an aperture.
lines. Then we can always find a new boundary with vertical line x x0 (blue dashed
line) that allows part of the phase space area outside the new boundary to be folded
inside, resulting in a smaller absorber area, where the new physical size of the absorber
starts with x x0 . In other words, having a nonvertical boundary for phase space
volume means that certain small areas on the absorber are under-utilized. Or, some
of the angles for such small areas are not being used to receive incoming radiation.
In such a situation, one ends up “wasting” the phase space volume that the absorber
has for accepting incoming light.
A quick calculation shows that the size of the new absorber is 2a sinθ; therefore, the
ideal concentration ratio is 1∕ sinθ, which agrees with Eq. (10):
1
C max : (19)
sinθ
3.3. Flux Density of Nonimaging Optics in Directional Cosine Space

It is easy to pictorially describe the phase space concept of a 2D system; however, this
is not the case for a 3D system. In a 2D system we can use x and directional xpx to
uniquely identify a ray, as we have shown in Fig. 6. In order to describe the 3D rays in
the phase space geometrically, we need four unique parameters instead of two: x, y,
directional xpx , and directional ypy . This four-dimensional space is no longer
readily intuitive for us but we can still observe its properties in its projections.
When we project it into the x, y space it takes on the unit of watts∕m2 , which is
represented as the typical radiation intensity for a screen; but if we instead project
into the directional cosine spaces px , py it becomes watts/sr. Later on we will discuss
how an ideal nonimaging system behaves under such a projection.
First, we can expand the same phase space representation of étendue into 3D con-
figurations. The étendue is defined as
Z
dpx dpy dxdy étendue: (20)
Here the phase space “volume” is calculated based on the four-dimensional coordi-
nates x, y, px , py . For any point x, y, the set of rays coming from the source looks
the same:
dE dxdydpx dpy : (21)
Figure 9
(a) Phase space representation of the absorber achieving maximum concentration.

(b) The phase space example that does not achieve maximum concentration.
The full étendue is

Z
étendue dpx dpy dxdy: (22)
When the aperture is illuminated with identical pencil rays, in other words, px , py are
independent according to x, y [e.g., Fig. 10(a)],
Z Z Z Z Z
étendue dpx dpy dxdy dpx dpy dxdy A dpx dpy n2 A dLdM:
(23)
Here A is the area of the aperture. L and M are directional cosine x and directional
cosine y, respectively.
As we mentioned before, although it is hard to visualize such a four-dimensional
volume, for certain configurations, such a calculation can be greatly simplified.
For example, given an aperture receiving light from an infinitely far away source,
here we can pick any point (x, y) on the receiver, and the set of rays going through
a small area dxdy will not be dependent on the (x, y) position [Fig. 10(a)]. We can
visualize the 4D phase space of such an aperture by projecting it on the 2D LM
(or, px py ) space. The phase space projection into LM space in such an example will
be of a circular area of radius sinθ, as shown in Fig. 10(b). The phase space volume
is therefore πA sin2 θ.
R
We can also calculate the dLdM using the unit sphere method [5]. It is crucially
important to understand that the directional cosine space is different from the 2D
phase space. Although they are both two-dimensional, one represents the directional
x and directional y (L and M , or Px Py ), which is a projection of the full four-
dimensional phase space. The other is the full representation of x and Px under a
2D configuration.
4. CONSTRUCTING A NONIMAGING OPTICS SYSTEM

We have provided two ways of arriving at the same limit of concentration. With the
thermodynamic argument Eq. (10) and the phase space argument Eq. (19), we reached
the same conclusion. Equation (10) provides the limit of concentration under simple
but fundamental thermodynamic assumptions. With Eq. (19) we see how étendue con-
servation in phase space will provide clues for the designs for edge rays (a more robust
argument can be found in [14]). Although such thermodynamic understanding of
nonimaging optics does not offer design methods to directly generate a nonimaging
Figure 10
(a) 3D configuration of light coming into an aperture A subtending angle θ. (b) The
L∕M space representation of the incoming rays.
concentrator, it does provide a theoretical limit and some intuitions for the designing
process. It also serves as a guideline on how nonimaging optical systems can be
designed, as shown below.
4.1. Compound Parabolic Concentrator
4.1a. Basic Nonimaging Optics Design

One of the first nonimaging optical designs to be invented was the compound para-
bolic concentrator (CPC), which we look at now. Here the source is between two
wavefronts (Fig. 11), or two groups of “edge rays” that represent the two extreme
angles that the source subtends. The most rudimentary way of designing a concen-
trator for such a setup is to use two straight line reflectors, as shown in Fig. 12. This,
indeed, was the first effort employed that led to the design of the CPC. However, it will
result in a poor concentration ratio. The evolution of such a design into the CPC has
been well documented ([9], Fig. 2.8). Here instead, we use the insights provided
by Eq. (8) to review the result of this designing process to give another perspective
of how nonimaging optics is related to thermodynamics. We require that (1) P31 1,
or all rays from the absorber back trace to the angle between the two wavefronts, and
(2) P12 P13 , or all rays between the two extreme directions will arrive at the
absorber. Then the straightforward attempt is to map wavefront 1 to absorber edge B0
and wavefront 2 to absorber edge B. This can be shown as the following. (1) To under-
stand P31 , we look at the extreme rays, namely, rays from points B and B0 . To prove
that for P31 1 requires that all rays from B and B0 should be mapped into extreme
ray directions θ and −θ, we use this following proof of contradiction. If some of the
rays from B or B0 are mapped into angles larger than θ, say, at θ0 , then we can find their
neighboring point B0 , where the small ray cluster emitted by BB0 at θ0 will be outside
of the source 1. (2) Similarly, if some of the rays from B or B0 are mapped into angles
smaller than θ, then some rays coming into the aperture will not be mapped between B
and B0 . In such a case we would not be able to guarantee P12 P13 . By limiting all the
rays from points B and B0 to be mapped to extreme angles, we ensure both conditions
that are implied by Eq. (8).
Figure 11
Setup of edge rays or wavefronts.
Figure 12
Using simple straight line reflectors to form the concentrator.

Mapping these two groups of parallel rays into two points will result in two parabolic
curves (Fig. 13). We determine the aperture AA0 when the tangent of parabola becomes
vertical. Because under this condition the aperture of the concentrator will be at a
maximum. This, however, is only one way of designing optics that satisfy both
thermodynamic requirements of Eq. (7).
4.2. Concentration Ratio of the CPC

Here we prove that the concentrator constructed this way does achieve the ideal con-
centration ratio.
Because of the geometric property of the parabola,
CA AB0 A0 B BB0
and
A0 B AB0 :
Therefore,
CA BB0 :
Utilizing the property of right triangle AA0 C,
AC sin θ · A0 A,
gives us the concentration
A0 A 1
0 :
BB sin θ
4.3. Phase Space Analysis of the CPC

Phase space of a plane in the optical device can be plotted based on the position and
direction of a light ray. Here we use the CPC design from the previous section as an
example. First, we examine the phase space representation of the aperture plane A0 A.
At point A0 , the two extreme rays both intersect with the aperture at the same x
coordinate; therefore, their representation on the phase space coordinate has the
same value on the x axis. In phase space, instead of plotting the ray’s direction as
Figure 13
Mapping points to edge rays.

the incident angle, we plot the direction according to the sine of the incident angle, or
px n sinincident angle, where n is the index of refraction. We also call px the
optical momentum or, when the refractive index is 1, directional cosine. The incident
angle of ray 1 is θ, while as ray 2 is at −θ. Therefore, they are plotted as points 1 and 2
in the phase space. The same can be done for rays 3 and 4, which are represented as
points 3 and 4 in the phase space plot. All the other rays incident at point A0 have the
same x coordinates, with different values for px between sinθ and − sinθ. As a
result, they will form a line between points 1 and 2. As we plot these phase space
points one by one based on their position of x and directional cosine px , we find that
this “cloud” of points occupies an area shaped as a rectangle. The same plot can be
created for the absorber. In this case the extreme rays will intersect with the absorber
at angles of 90 deg; therefore, their px coordinates correspond to 1 and −1, corre-
sponding to the limits we saw for L in Fig. 8(b).
4.4. Understanding the Maximum Concentration Based on Phase Space

For an optical device without light generation or loss, its phase space volume is con-
served [15]. In a 2D configuration, as shown in Fig. 14, the phase space volume,
represented by the area of the rectangles, is conserved between the aperture and
the absorber plane:
AA0 · sinθ BB0 · 1,

AA0
C 1∕ sinθ: (24)
BB0
Equation (24) shows that, from the phase space conservation perspective, the CPC is
achieving the ideal concentration limit.
4.5. Edge Ray Principle

As an example shown in Fig. 15, an imaging system maps the rays from boundary
points a and b to a0 and b0 . It also requires the precise mapping of any point in between,
such as c, to its corresponding point c0 . A nonimaging system, however, does not
require the point c to be mapped to c0 , or to be mapped at all. The edge ray principle
requires that the rays traveling at extreme directions and or emanating from ex-
treme positions at the aperture, must be directed to the extreme directions and or
extreme positions at the absorber. Extreme is meant to refer to the largest angles
accepted by a system and or the edge-most positions located on an aperture or
Figure 14
Phase space of a CPC.

absorber. We call such rays the “edge rays.” When plotted in phase space, they are
represented by the boundaries of the phase space volume (area for 2D).
We use the phase space representations of an optical device to prove this concept,
which is similar to the Liouville theorem in classical mechanics [16]. As shown
in Fig. 16, it is impossible for a ray to retire from its position as a boundary point
in its phase space representation. For example, if ray 1 at the boundary (red square)
wants to become a ray that occupies a position in phase space located internally, the
following must happen: ray 1 would need to select one of its neighboring points
(for example, the blue square) to exchange positions. However, the Liouville theorem
requires that the phase space volume occupied by all the rays of the system to have
no source or sink. In other words, there is no generation, vanishing, or merging of
the little squares representing each ray.
In order for blue and red squares to interchange their positions in phase space at one
point, they must be compressed, as in Fig. 17, and eventually merged (the green square
in Fig. 18). However, merging the area of the phase space representations of any two
rays will result in these rays then processing at the same direction and position (green
square), which renders them indistinguishable from then on. This makes it clear that
two separate rays in a system cannot during their propagation within the optical sys-
tem acquire both the same position and same direction, or occupy the same phase
space area. This proves that the edge rays cannot interchange their positions with
internal rays, they are stuck as edge rays. Any edge rays from the absorber must
always be mapped to the edge rays of the radiation source, and vice versa.
Figure 15
Difference between nonimaging and imaging optics.
Figure 16
Ray 1 cannot (red square) interchange its position with a ray (blue square) that is not
originally inside the boundary.
4.6. Nonimaging Concentrator with Convex Shaped Absorber

For a convex absorber, such as the tubular absorber shown in Fig. 19, we can again use
the thermodynamic intuition proposed in Eq. (8). To design for a wavefront tilted at
an angle of θ, we use the principle of redirecting the edge ray to the absorber tangent.
We require that the absorber can only see within the designed angle θ, and we design
reversely, evaluating the rays that come from the absorber. Starting from the bottom of
the absorber B, we require⌢
that the unwinding string TP be the same length as the
absorber
⌢
section length BT , effectively forming an involute part of the concentrator
BQ. In this part, the involute only redirects the rays from the absorber based on 1:1
concentration ratio. Past this involute part we require the tangent ray TP ⌢
of the
0
absorber to be reflected into the extreme ray direction, forming the curve QA , until
the tangent of the reflector becomes vertical, resulting at the concentrator to be at
its maximum aperture. Another way of thinking of this design is to use the string
method. We assign the point S to be on the slider which can move without friction,
and it has a string attached to it. By tying this string to point P and around the
absorber shape to point B, we require that the string BTPS be always taught and have
the same length. Now as we trace the point P along the curve, the point S slides freely,
causing the string to be always perpendicular to the slider bar. This method also guar-
antees the constant optical path length between the wavefront and the tangent points
of the absorber.
An alternative way of designing the nonimaging concentrator is by replacing the idea
of constant string length with correct ray angles. One starts from an arbitrary point
at the bottom of the absorber, such as B. The curve of the reflector starts by reflecting
the
⌢
tangent ray of the absorber to its original direction to form the involute section
BQ (TP is the same as PT). Then as soon as the reflector tangent can reflect the
absorber tangent ray into the wavefront S without being obstructed by the absorber,
Figure 17
In order for the ray 1 to interchange its phase space position, it will have to merge
with a small phase space that was originally not on the boundary. This violates the
Liouville theorem.
Figure 18
Merging of the edge ray with an internal ray in their phase space representations.
Similarly, it violates the Liouville theorem.
the tangent of the reflector should be constructed to do so [8] (PS is perpendicular to

the bar AC). The source code as an example for this process can be acquired from this
public repository [17]. A shape generated with such a procedure is effectively the
same as that generated by the method previously described.
4.7. Asymmetric CEC

The asymmetric compound elliptical concentrator (CEC) was first introduced in [18]
as a secondary concentrator used for imaging primary concentrator designs. Here we
use the thermodynamic understanding to perform the design procedure in reverse,
starting from the absorber cc0, then naturally determine the aperture by using the
strings. This design achieves the thermodynamic limit of concentration, or 1∕P21.
The proceeding steps are followed to design the CEC with the string method (Fig. 20):
(1) Choose the position of the source aa0 , and the shape and position of the absorber.
(2) Draw the crossover lines a0 c and ac0 , which are tangent to the upper and lower
edges of the absorber.
(3) Start tracing the reflector using the string method from one end of the absorber,
⌢
e.g., curve c0 b0 starts at point c0 .
(4) Tie the corresponding strings to the chosen points and the source edges. For
⌢
example, ac0 c are tied to a and c, with c0 as the initial movable point for tracing
⌢
out the curve c0 b0 .
(5) Keep the string tight and trace out the upper and lower curves of the concentrator.
(6) Stop the curves before they go across the crossover lines a0 c and ac0 .
To prove that such a design can reach the thermodynamic limit, we use the properties
of ellipses:
ab0 b0 c ac0 c0 c, (25)
a0 b bc0 a0 c cc0 : (26)
Figure 19
CPC design for a tubular absorber.

Therefore, we conclude that
2cc0 a0 b ab0 − ab − a0 b0 : (27)
We can derive the concentration ratio as
bb0 A2 2A2 1
C 0 C max : (28)
cc A3 A4 A5 − A6 − A7 P21
This method is not limited to cc0 being a straight line; with cc0 being any convex shape,
a similar process will also produce ideal nonimaging optics [19]. An example can be
found here [20].
5. FLOW LINE DESIGN

The flow line design has been introduced as an alternative way of generating non-
imaging optical shape.
5.1. Flow Line in the Context of Radiative Heat Transfer

Geometric vector flux, or flow line [8], has been used in illumination as a photic field
[21], and in computer graphic rendering as a light field [22,23]. It was first introduced
in 1893 [24,25] as a light vector. The definition of flow line is
ZZ ZZ ZZ
J~ dpy dpz , dpx dpz , dpx dpy : (29)
Therefore, we can arrive at the relationship between étendue and flow line vector as [9]
prescribes (eq 5.24),
Z Z Z Z
E dpx dpy dxdy dpx dpz dxdz dpz dpy dzdy J~ · d~s, (30)
which is also a Poincare invariant [19,26]. Here d~s represents the differential surface
area with its direction pointing at the surface normal, and E is étendue. We establish
here that the étendue between two geometric surfaces is the flux of the geometric flow
line going through such an area.
For a two-dimensional configuration as shown in Fig. 21, AB is a blackbody radiation
source. The J~ is a vector with a magnitude jJ j sinθ1 −θ
2 , and a direction of
2 θ1 θ2
2 ,
or the direction bisecting the two extreme rays.
Figure 20
Asymmetric CEC setup.

5.2. Using Flow Line Design to Construct the CPC

Because the flow line always bisects the two extreme angles of the rays from the
source, a mirror placed along the flow line will not disturb the flow line field.
This can be shown in a 2D scenario; for 3D setups it is also true for Lambertian
sources [8,27].
5.2a. Flow Line Examples

To visualize this, we use the example of a spherical source. Because the flow lines
point away from the center of the solid angle subtended by the source, all the flow
lines are simply straight lines from the center of the sphere (Fig. 22). One can take
any surface that consists of flow lines and put a mirror along it, without disturbing the
flow line field. In other words, one would see exactly the same thing even with
the flow line mirrors in place.
As an example, we put a cone that follows the flow line AB, DC in Fig. 22, as shown in
Fig. 23, and from all the angles we can see that the orange remains the same.
5.2b. Flow Line Design as an Alternative Way of Generating Nonimaging Optics

To use the flow line method for generating a CPC shape, we must include both the
radiation source and radiation absorber information to come up with the flow line
generator.
For a CPC, this means that the flow line generator must combine the information from
both the acceptance angle and the radiation absorber shape. Such a setup is shown
Figure 21
Flow line bisects the two extreme angles.
Figure 22
Flow line of a spherical source.

in Fig. 24. The flat radiation absorber is extended with two “shadow lines” from the
source, which extend to infinity at the acceptance angle (e.g., line PR). Such a shape
for the flow line generator can be shown to work as the following:
(a) At the source edge, the flow line at P will bisect the direction of PA and PR.
(b) As P moves away from the source, such a bisecting feature is maintained, effec-
tively tracing out a tilted parabola with its focus at A.
(c) The process is continued until it crosses the dotted line.
As we observe such a process, we can see that the flow line design is capable
of transforming the view of any point within the concentrator to be seeing the
whole “mountain top” even if we only keep the flow line source AP. The phase
space that AP occupies for any point is effectively the same as the phase space
the mountain top shape occupies. This setup does not, however, work for all 3D
configurations [8].
Figure 23
Flow line example of an orange cone.
Figure 24
“Mountain top” shape as the source for flow line that generates CPC.
5.2c. Flow Line as a Tool to Calculate Concentration Ratio

For the asymmetric setup, as shown in Figs. 25 and 26, the étendue at the aperture is
(notice that the flow line is at the angle θ1 θ
2
2
from the aperture)
Z Z
θ θ2 θ − θ1 θ θ2
J~ · d~s jJ j sin 1 ds 2 sin 2 sin 1 A2 : (31)
2 2 2
The étendue at the absorber is

Z
J~ · d~s 2 sin90° sin90°A3 2A3 : (32)
Because the étendue is conserved,
A2 1
C : (33)
A3 sin 2 1 sin θ1 θ2
θ −θ
2 2
Figure 25
Flow line plot of an asymmetric compound elliptical concentrator.
Figure 26
Close-up flow line plot of the asymmetric CEC.

5.3. Generalizing the Flow Line Design

Although we can see from the previous sections that the flow line design is capable of
producing same design for certain configurations, the very nature of the design
method still remains to be explained. Here we try to generalize the flow line design
and look at another motivation of nonimaging designs, the Hilbert integral.
The Hilbert integral has provided an understanding of nonimaging optics at a deeper
level ([27], Section 6.6). In this section we summarize the Hilbert integral previously
introduced to form a very general treatment of the 2D concentrator. In the example
shown by Fig. 27, an input and an output surface are postulated enclosing and
surrounded by regions of given refractive index distributions.
On each of these surfaces a distribution of extreme rays is given. Then we develop a
procedure that enables us to design a 2D concentrator that will ensure that all rays
between the extreme incoming rays and none outside are transmitted so that the con-
centrator is optimal. Suppose we have, as in Fig. 27, two surfaces AB and A0 B0 , and let
AB be illuminated in such a way that the extreme angle rays at each point form pencils
belonging respectively to wavefronts Σα and Σβ . Similarly, rays at intermediate angles
belong to other wavefronts, so the whole ensemble of rays comes ultimately from a
line of point sources and is transformed by a possibly inhomogeneous medium in such
a way that the rays just fill the aperture AB. These rays then have a certain étendue E,
and we shall see following how to calculate it. Similarly, we draw rays and wavefronts
emerging from A0 B0 as indicated, and we postulate that these shall have the same
étendue E. Now we want to know how we can design a concentrator system between
the surfaces AB and A0 B0 , possibly containing an inhomogeneous medium, that shall
transform the incoming beam into the emergent beam without loss of étendue. To
solve this problem, we postulate a new principle (we shall see that our edge ray prin-
ciple can be regarded as derived from it). The optical system between AB and A0 B0
must be such as to exactly image the pencil from the wavefront Σα into one of the
emergent wavefronts and Σβ into the other.
To see how this principle leads to a solution of the general problem, we must first show
how to calculate the étendue of an arbitrary beam of rays at a curved aperture, as in
Fig. 27. We use the Hilbert integral, a concept from the calculus of variations. In the
optics context [9] the Hilbert integral for a path from P1 to P2 across a pencil of rays
that originated in a single point is
Z P
nk~ · d~s,
2
I1, 2 (34)
P1
where n is the local refractive index, k~ is a unit vector along the ray direction at the
current point, and d~s is an element along the path P1 P2 . Thus, I1, 2 is simply the
Figure 27
Hilbert integral as a high-level understanding of nonimaging optics.

optical path length along any ray between the wavefronts that pass through P1 and P2 ,
so it is independent of the form of the path of integration. We can now use this to find
the étendue of the beams in Fig. 27. The Hilbert integral from A to B for the pencil is
seen from (1) to be
Z B
I α AB n sin ϕds, (35)
A
where ϕ is the angle of incidence of a ray on the line element ds. Thus,
I α AB n sin ϕLAB , (36)
where h i denotes the average and LAB is the length of the curve from A to B. It follows
that provided the aperture AB is filled with rays from the line of point sources just
indicated, the étendue is simply
I α AB − I β AB: (37)
But
I α AB Pα B − Pα A, (38)
where the square brackets denote optical path lengths along the rays so that we obtain
for the étendue
E Pα B Pβ A − Pα A − Pβ B: (39)
Now let there be some kind of system constructed that achieves the desired transfor-
mation of incident extreme pencils with emergent extreme pencils, as in Fig. 27. The
system takes Σα into Σ0α and Σβ into Σ0β , and we want it to do so without loss of
étendue. We write down the optical path length from Pα to P0α and equate it to that
from Pα to P0α . Similarly, for the other pencil
Pα B BA0 α A0 P0α Pα A AB0 α B0 P0α ,

Pβ A AB0 β B0 P0β Pβ B BA0 β A0 P0β , (40)
Figure 28
Hilbert integral configured without refractive optics.

where BA0 β denotes the optical path from B to A0 along the β ray and similarly for the
other symbols. From these we find
fPβ A − Pα A − Pβ B − Pα Bg

− fA0 P0β − A0 P0α − B0 P0β − B0 P0α g
AB0 α − AB0 β BA0 β − BA0 α : (41)
The left-hand side of this equation can be treated as the difference between the
étendues at the entry and exit apertures. Since we require this difference to vanish,
we have to make the right-hand side of Eq. (41) vanish. A simple way to do this would
be to ensure that the optical system of the concentrator is such that the α and β ray
paths from A to B0 coincide, and the same for those from B to A0 . We can do this by
starting segments of mirror surfaces at A and A0 in such directions as to bisect the
angles between the incoming α and β rays. In this way we effectively made the
Pα A and Pβ A the same through the optical system between AB and A0 B0 . In other
words, the two extreme rays became one. We then continue the mirror surfaces in
such a way as to make all β rays join up with the corresponding emerging rays;
in other words, we image the β0 pencil exactly into the β0 pencil, and similarly for
the other mirror surface connecting B and B0 . We have E12 E34 thus completed
the construction and used up all degrees of freedom in doing so.
In Fig. 28 we construct a simplified configuration of Fig. 27 with only mirrors AA0
and BB0 . The result of satisfying Eq. (41) is E 12 E34 , and if 3 and 4 overlaps,
E 34 πA3 . This brings us back to Eq. (17). Notice that Eq. (41) is not the only
way to enable E12 E34 . However, A0 B0 overlapping with Σ0α Σ0β , being either the
same or part of it, is essential to meet the condition E34 πA3 .
5.4. Flow Line Method and Its Potential

As we can see, this particular generalized method is not limited by the refractive index.
Such a general method provides one particular way of how to make a nonimaging
optics system, and it also hints at an alternative explanation of what nonimaging optics
is and how it works. However, this is not the only way to explain nonimaging
optics and we are continuously exploring the fundamental reasoning and methodol-
ogies of creating nonimaging systems with newer tools. Thermodynamics has given
us what can be done; the means to achieve the theoretical goals remains an open
discussion.
6. CONCLUSION
Other designing methods include the simultaneous multiple surface, and tailored edge
ray concentrators have been built based on the generalized method presented in
Subsection 5.3. These methods either directly utilize the edge ray principle as de-
scribed previously, or use a variation of the edge ray concept to form the optical
device. The breakthrough of nonimaging optics compared to the traditional imaging
optical design, however, lies within its capability of connecting the thermodynamic
principles with the designing process through edge rays. This tutorial aims to show
that the intuition of the multitude of nonimaging optics designing methods originates
from a thermodynamic understanding of the optical system. This concept continues
to fuel the development of this field. Therefore, to understand both how a nonimaging
optical design works, and how to develop new ways of such optical designs, one could
rely on the guidance of the thermodynamic understanding of the optical designing
process.
APPENDIX A: FERMI PROOF OF ÉTENDUE CONSERVATION

“An important result deserves more than one proof.”
Consider the Legendre transformation of the optical Lagrangian:
Construct px x_ py y_ − Lx, y, x_ , y_ H

∂L ∂L ∂L ∂L
dH px d_x dpx x_ py d_y dpy y_ − dx dy d_x d_y
∂x ∂y ∂_x ∂_y
−p_x dx − p_y dy x_ dpx y_ dpy : (A1)
This results in ∂H _ ∂H _ ∂H _ ∂H
∂x −px , ∂y −py , ∂px x, ∂py y, which are familiar to
_
Hamiltonian equations.

Notice that ∂_
px
∂px − ∂ ∂H
∂px ∂x − ∂ ∂H ∂_x
∂x ∂px ∂x, etc, which are the Hamilton’s equa-
tions of motion.
~ _x, y_ , p_ x , p_ y , notice that ∇ · W
Now construct a vector W ~ ∂W ∂W ∂W
∂_x ∂_y ∂_px
∂_py ~
∂W
∂_py ∂_
px ∂_x ∂_y
∂px ∂x ∂py ∂y 0. This means the field of four-dimensional vector W
has the important property of divergence being zero. In other words, the four-
dimensional hyperspace of x, y, px , py has the property of conservation of volume
as all the light rays evolve in an optical system.
Here we will also offer an intuitive analogy using an incompressible fluid (Fig. 29).
Let V be the volume surrounded by a closed Surface, where !v is the velocity field of
the small elements within. As the fluid starts to flow according to the change of t,
and the Surfacet starts to evolve into shape Surfacet Δt, the enclosed volume
of Vt Δt will also change as
Vt Δt − Vt ∯ Surfacet ~vΔt · d~s, (A2)
where d~s is the surface vector pointing outward along the normal direction.
Using Gauss’s theorem,
ZZZ
∯ Surfacet ~vΔt · d~s ∇ · ~vdτ, (A3)
where dτ is the volume element.

Figure 29
Phase space volume remains constant.

If ∇ · ~v 0 everywhere, then obviously,
Vt Δt − Vt 0; or, Vt constant: (A4)
Applying this to the étendue conservation, we find that the four-dimensional

volume x, y, px , py remains constant as it evolves with time. The vector field
W ~ 0 just as ∇ · ~v 0.) This not only implies
~ _x, y_ , p_ x , p_ y replaces ~v. (∇ · W
that the étendue is conserved, but also shows that there is no source or sink of
~ as the light propogates.
field W
FUNDING
University of California (UC) Advanced Solar Technologies Institute.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors want to thank Aaron Brinkerhoff for the flow line orange cone photo. We are
grateful to our colleagues Bennett Widyolar, Jonathan Ferry, and Jordyn Brinkley, who
provided expertise assisting the research. We also want to thank the anonymous reviewers
who greatly helped to improve the quality of the paper. Last but not the least, we want
to thank Sarah Boyd, who moderated this paper. The research was supported by
University of California Advanced Solar Technologies Institute (ucsolar.org).
REFERENCES
1. W. Welford, R. Winston, and D. Sinclair, “The optics of nonimaging concentra-
tors: light and solar energy,” Phys. Today 33(6), 56–57 (1980).
2. W. T. Welford and R. Winston, “The ellipsoid paradox in thermodynamics,”
J. Stat. Phys. 28, 603–606 (1982).
3. H. Ries, “Thermodynamic limitations of the concentration of electromagnetic
radiation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72, 380–385 (1982).
4. B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, and R. Winston, “Thermodynamics and the segmented
compound parabolic concentrator,” J. Photonics Energy 7, 28002 (2017).
5. M. F. Modest, Radiative Heat Transfer (Academic, 2013).
6. R. Siegel and J. R. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer (McGraw-Hill,
1972), pp. 204–207.
7. G. Derrick, “A three-dimensional analogue of the Hottel string construction for
radiation transfer,” J. Mod. Opt. 32, 39–60 (1985).
8. R. Winston, J. C. Miñano, and P. Benítez, Nonimaging Optics (Academic, 2005).
9. J. Chaves, Introduction to Nonimaging Optics (CRC Press, 2015).
10. L. Jiang and R. Winston, “Flow line asymmetric nonimaging concentrating
optics,” Proc. SPIE 9955, 99550I (2016).
11. L. Jiang, “2D Phase space representation example,” https://github.com/wormite/
PhaseSpace/.
12. T. Sekiguchi and K. B. Wolf, “The Hamiltonian formulation of optics,” Am. J.
Phys. 55, 830–835 (1987).
13. E. Fermi, Notes on Thermodynamics and Statistics (Univsersity of Chicago,
1966).
14. H. Ries and A. Rabl, “Edge-ray principle of nonimaging optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.
A 11, 2627–2632 (1994).
15. R. Winston, “Light collection within the framework of geometrical optics,” J. Opt.
Soc. Am. 60, 245–247 (1970).
16. H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 1950).
17. L. Jiang, “CPC program for any convex absorber shape,” https://github.com/
wormite/AnyCPC2.
18. R. Winston and W. T. Welford, “Design of nonimaging concentrators as second

stages in tandem with image-forming first-stage concentrators,” Appl. Opt. 19,
347–351 (1980).
19. L. Jiang and R. Winston, “Asymmetric design for Compound Elliptical
Concentrators (CEC) and its geometric flux implications,” Proc. SPIE 9572,
957203 (2015).
20. L. Jiang, “CEC example with an absorber of any convex shape,” https://github.
com/wormite/AnyCEC.
21. P. Moon and D. Spencer, “The pharosage vector,” in The Photic Field (MIT,
1981), p. 70.
22. M. Levoy and P. Hanrahan, “Light field rendering,” in Proceedings of the 23rd
ACM international conference on Multimedia (1996).
23. A. Gershun, “The light field,” J. Math. Phys. 18, 51–151 (1939).
24. R. Mehmke, “Über die mathematische Bestimmung der Helligkeit in Rämen mit
Tagesbeleuchtung, insbesondere Gemäldesälen mit Deckenlicht,” Zs. f. Math. u.
Phys 43, 41 (1893).
25. P. Moon and D. Spencer, “Theory of the photic field,” J. Franklin Inst. 255, 33–50
(1953).
26. H. Poincaré, New Methods of Celestial Mechanics (AIP, 1992).
27. R. Winston and W. T. Welford, “Ideal flux concentrators as shapes that do not
disturb the geometrical vector flux field: A new derivation of the compound
parabolic concentrator,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 536–539 (1979).
Dr. Roland Winston is a leading figure in the field of nonimaging

optics and its applications to solar energy. He is the inventor of the
compound parabolic concentrator (CPC), used in solar energy,
astronomy, and illumination. He is also a Guggenheim Fellow,
a Franklin Institute medalist, past head of the University of
Chicago Department of Physics, and a member of the founding
faculty of University of California Merced, and he is currently
the head of UC Solar.
Dr. Lun Jiang is a researching scientist at UC Solar. His expertise

is with vacuum devices, nonimaging optics and solar thermal and
hybrid systems, solar cooling, and solar desalination. In his Ph.D.
thesis he demonstrated two novel solar collectors that reach a
working temperature above 200°C, without tracking. He led the
receiver designing team for a vacuum hybrid receiver that gener-
ates both electricity and heat under 70× concentration, commis-
sion by Arpa-E.
Dr. Melissa Ricketts is an illumination engineer at Acuity Brands

Lighting. She received her Ph.D. (2017) from the University of
California, Merced in physics with a concentration in nonimaging
optics and a B.S. (2012) from the University of California, Merced
in physics. Her research interests lie in nonimaging optics for il-
lumination. She currently uses the nonimaging optics theory to
design optics for illumination in both indoor and outdoor lighting.

Aop 10 2 484

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aop 10 2 484

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

484 Vol. 10, No.

2 / June 2018 / Advances in Optics and Photonics Tutorial

Nonimaging optics: a tutorial

2.2. Maximize the Optical Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

Nonimaging optics: a tutorial

Comparison between imaging (left) and nonimaging (right) optics.

1.1. Sphere Ellipse Paradox

2. THERMODYNAMIC ORIGIN OF NONIMAGING OPTICS

Elliptical paradox where the imaging optics fails.

2.1. Maximize Radiation Flux at the Absorber

Q13 A1 σT 41 P13 , (2)

where A1 is the area of the source, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, and T is

Typical setup of a concentrator.

σT 4 A1 P13 σT 4 A3 P31 , A1 P13 A3 P31 : (3)

q13 σT 41 if and only if P31 1: (5)

2.2. Maximize the Optical Efficiency

Q12 Q13 , σT 41 A1 P12 σT 41 A1 P13 , A1 P12 A1 P13 : (6)

2.3. Maximum Concentration Ratio

Combining Eqs. (3), (6), and (7), we conclude that

Equation (8) demonstrates the design principle of an ideal nonimaging concentrator.

2.4. Nonimaging Concentrator for Infinitely Far Away Source

AD BC − AC BD

As the source AB approaches infinity, Δθ approaches 0 and AC AE. If the setup is

2.5. Discussion of Étendue within Thermodynamic Framework

Hottel’s strings can be used to solve for P21.

From Eq. (12), the étendue ([8, 9], Eq. (3.11)) is

Compare Eqs. (12) and (13), we conclude

E 12 πA1 P12 : (14)

E12 πP12 A1 πP21 A2 E 21 : (15)

Or, for any two surfaces we can conclude that

E ij πPij A1 πPji Aj Eji : (16)

E 12 E13 πA3 : (17)

Radiative heat transfer between areas 1 and 2.

3. PHASE SPACE REPRESENTATION OF NONIMAGING OPTICS

3.1. Definition of Étendue within the Phase Space Framework

Discrete representation of the phase space.

3.2. Maximum Concentration Ratio under Phase Space Representation

Dense representation of the phase space.

(a) Configuration of an aperture of a concentrator. (b) The phase space representation

3.3. Flux Density of Nonimaging Optics in Directional Cosine Space

dE dxdydpx dpy : (21)

(a) Phase space representation of the absorber achieving maximum concentration.

The full étendue is

4. CONSTRUCTING A NONIMAGING OPTICS SYSTEM

4.1. Compound Parabolic Concentrator

4.1a. Basic Nonimaging Optics Design

Setup of edge rays or wavefronts.

Using simple straight line reflectors to form the concentrator.

4.2. Concentration Ratio of the CPC

Utilizing the property of right triangle AA0 C,

gives us the concentration

4.3. Phase Space Analysis of the CPC

Mapping points to edge rays.

4.4. Understanding the Maximum Concentration Based on Phase Space

AA0 · sinθ BB0 · 1,

4.5. Edge Ray Principle

Phase space of a CPC.

Difference between nonimaging and imaging optics.

4.6. Nonimaging Concentrator with Convex Shaped Absorber

the tangent of the reflector should be constructed to do so [8] (PS is perpendicular to

4.7. Asymmetric CEC

a0 b bc0 a0 c cc0 : (26)

CPC design for a tubular absorber.

AD BC − AC BD

AA0 · sinθ BB0 · 1,

I α AB n sin ϕLAB , (36)

I α AB − I β AB: (37)

I α AB Pα B − Pα A, (38)

E Pα B Pβ A − Pα A − Pβ B: (39)

Pα B BA0 α A0 P0α Pα A AB0 α B0 P0α ,

fPβ A − Pα A − Pβ B − Pα Bg

Vt Δt − Vt 0; or, Vt constant: (A4)