Probably dreaming. I would think that an optical ball-tracking system based on a few cameras placed around the arena would be a better approach. Such systems are commonly used these days in the TV coverage of baseball, tennis, golf, etc. and they are surprisingly precise.

Seems twisted to take a uni-directional source like a laser, and modify it to spread light output. If you want an isotropic light source, consider an incandescent lightbulb.

If you could draw a picture of what you want it'd be a lot easier to tell you if it's optically possible.

why not have the sensors in the jack ball? ... you really only need to identify the closest boule

@Dave Tweed That kind of system already exists. My premise is to have a system within a ball that can measure the distance from the jack itself.

@glen_geek The purpose is to use the medium to refract the laser in multiple directions in an effort to increase the coverage of the measuring ability of the single laser. Is it possible to have each of these new refracted points measure a distance?

@jsotola the jack is too small to fit all the required components - it's only 25-35mm.

@user1850479 I have added an image. Exactly what I hope to achieve is the refraction of the laser in multiple direction as shown, and whether each refracted laser is able to measure distance in some way.

What are the blue lines in the drawing? More lasers? Regardless, the diffractive element you drew could be purchased and would allow the sensor to measure time of flight across all the beams. How it would do so depends on how the sensor works. If it measures distance to the first reflection, you would measure whichever path is shortest. If it can measure multiple reflections along a path, you would see many depth scans super imposed on top of each other.

@user1850479 Those lines all represent refracted lasers, yes. Would you be able to give me more advice on the specific type of diffractive element I'd need, the ideal sensor for my objective, perhaps some examples of such sensors, too. Cheers.

I understand the premise, but not the motivation for it. What advantages does it have? What about drawbacks, such as the need for the balls to be transparent (i.e., not steel)? What is the user experience like -- for example, how does the ball signal that it is closer to the jack than the other balls?

Diffractive beam splitter, although most are going to make something like the red beams. If the blue are from the same laser and not a separate blue laser, then that maybe hard to find. Probably some kind of high end lidar would be best. It would probably be cheaper to use a lot of simple lidar sensors from different angles.

@DaveTweed the advantage of the system being within the boules is that the game becomes more self-contained and requires no setup or calibration/positioning of a camera system, and also does not require you to have a camera. In terms of transparency, I would only need a strip of transparent material running the circumference of the boule to allow the lasers to penetrate, or if I have lasers on multiple planes, simply put small transparent holes where the laser sits.

@DaveTweed for your last question, this is the most pressing issue. We can collect all of the distance readings, but do not yet have a way of differentiating the readings and being able to lable to which boule they belong. We are also uncertain of a way to filter out measurements apart from those measuring the jack, but I may have to create a separate question for that one.

There is a system like this, VCSELS can spray out in multiple directions, if you wanted to source a custom one you would need more than 10k with custom optics. As it stands this question is an optics problem.

@VoltageSpike thanks, but I am unsure why you have consistently denied my request for reopening the question despite the question being focused. Please do tell me what the problem still is, as I haven't the foggiest.

It's an optics problem, we don't have the expertise to solve this here, and off topic.

@VoltageSpike so you speak for everyone in the entire SE? Anyway, optics can most certainly be considered a part of electrical engineering, plus I've had plenty of useful feedback so far, so will you please reopen the question?

I'm not an enforcer I'm a janitor, I volunteer a lot of hours to maintain the site and make sure it's running in proper order. How it stands this question is far too broad for the scope of this site. There are rules here in the help center if you care to read them, this is explained in the tutorial in signing up. So far the question has generated a lot of discussion which is not within the scope of this site, SE's mission is to build a good repository of questions and answers.

@VoltageSpike You're not making sense. This question falls under the spectrum of this stack exchange. People have given answers which have been useful. But please, do point me to where all of the allowed topics are listed within this site. As for the rules, yeah, they've been shoved down my throat since I got here. How dare I, a newcomer, not know every bloody rule under the sun. Let's us, the moderators, close each of his questions and spout some nonsense about it not falling under the endless scope that is electrical engineering and all that is related to it.

I have experience with VCSEL-based lidar systems as well as diffractive optics, so I do have the expertise needed. However, I also have no idea what you're doing so I can't help you beyond answering the literal question you asked (what is the name of a diffractive beam splitter). If we reopened the question, I could type a one sentence answer and then you could mark the question as answered. Is that what you really want? Or do you want to take this opportunity to edit your question to focus it more on whatever it is you're trying to do in order to get a more detailed answer?

@user1850479 my question previously was very detailed in what I wanted to achieve. You know what happened? It was closed for "not being focused", whatever they think that means. I've since edited the question about 7 times and each time it was closed without reason, but I don't need to complain to you as you've been kind enough to offer your knowledge, whereas Voltage Spike is on a power trip and is useless. Anyway, I'll re-edit my question for you.

Your goal with editing the question is to help everyone reading it understand what it is you want to know. For example, I don't know what "petanque" is, what the rules are or what you would need to measure. You have a big, incomprehensible picture which is not clearly related to your question. You mention measurements to a "jack" but don't say what that is, how accurate they need to be or anything else. You also keep using "refraction" when probably you mean "diffraction". If I had to guess, I think a camera would be better, but I really have no idea what your needs are.

I understand that you're angry at Voltage Spike, but he is right that you need more focus. You're asking about diffraction, refraction, different types of sensors, lasers, ultrasound, a random TOF product, and many other things. Try to narrow it down into something manageable that fits into the format of the site. A good format is to first describe the problem, then describe your research and then finally ask a question at the end. This isn't always easy, but in engineering defining the problem is often harder than solving it.

@user1850479 Thank you for the feedback. I shall make the necessary changes.