Go Back   IceInSpace > Beginners Start Here > Beginners Talk
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 24-06-2007, 07:52 PM
timelord's Avatar
timelord (Al)
Registered User

timelord is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 101
Which one to believe?

Gooday to all--I,m fairly new to astronomy and have been sandbagging on the side reading as many threads as possible trying to clue myself in for the last 6 months or so.
I've just installed a crayford style focusser to my 10" Skywatcher Newt. and decided to collimate the optics,I used a cheshire collimator and finally got everything alligned as per instructions looked good as I took my time and was very carefull to get it as perfect as possible. I used the cheshire after reading many threads as to the supposed inaccuracy of the laser collimator which I also have. I then checked the collimation with the laser and found the laser dot to be just outside the centre spot on the primary. I have collimated the laser on precision engineers cast iron v blocks and it was spot on--(pardon the pun) so I am confident the laser isnt telling me lies but am also confident the cheshire was spot on also--which do I beleive? Also can anyone tell me why 1.250" eyepices and anything else that fits into a focusser are all accurate to a thousanth of an inch but everything that recieves them measures approx 1.256--6 thou clearance is way to sloppy! As a machinist I'm used to working with a lot closer fits than these. Could this be the reason why the discrepancy between the two collimators?--although I did rotate the laser through 3 90 deg segments and the beam did not walk around on the primary it stayed in the same position.
timelord.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24-06-2007, 08:22 PM
Uchtungbaby
Registered User

Uchtungbaby is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisane
Posts: 68
Why do you need so much precision for such a small telescope? Wouldn't it be just as easy to use traditional visual methods to collimate the secondary mirror to the primary mirror. I am assuming that that is what you want to do.

When I tried to position my secondary mirror in relation to the primary mirror, the process was quite simple. I visually positioned both mirrors so that the secondary mirror sat as close to the centre of the primary mirror as was possible.

When I did it, I did not use a lens. I simply looked through the focuser hole without a lens. When I did this I saw the secondary mirror reflected in the image produced on the primary mirror.

I then adjusted balancing screws and mirror postions until the secondary mirror looked as if it was dead centre on the primary mirror.

That's how I did it. It's not absolutely precise but there again, it doesn't have to be if you think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24-06-2007, 08:49 PM
monoxide's Avatar
monoxide
Registered User

monoxide is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 658
it doesnt really matter how big or small the telescope is, it still needs to be collimated with some precision to get the best images out of it.

i use my laser for both primary collimation and secondary tilt as its easier to get the primary in the ball park from the rear of the scope, then i do the final adjustments with the cheshire although ive collimated purely with the laser and the star tests looked fine.

if you want to go a step further and get it 'perfect' then you could check out the tools from catseye.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24-06-2007, 08:49 PM
Doug
Registered User

Doug is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 645
Time Lord, 6 thou is not too bad really. I have some fittings that are more like +20 thou. Focusers are probably machined to something like 1.255 -0/+010, or maybe +.005.
How would 1.252 at 20deg C focuser go operating at 2deg C with a warm EP barrel?
AS for the 3 positions used with the Laser, since you have ascertained the laser is centred within the body, and you are clamping the tube against the same point in the focuser with the lock screw I doubt that this proves anything.
As for which method is the more accurate, I think you can best judge that by a comparison of detail visible on Jupiter or Saturn's rings. There is software available that will measure colimation, but it is not really meant to be used with a dob, and it needs a digital image of a star.

HTH,
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24-06-2007, 08:56 PM
Tannehill's Avatar
Tannehill
Registered User

Tannehill is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson, before that Wisconsin, before...
Posts: 231
Different things in this case...

Welcome, timelord.

Hmmm…I’ll go out on a limb here and ask, based on your descriptors below, whether you are using a barlowed laser collimator or not. You mention only the laser beam dot down to the center mark on primary, so it really sounds like you are not using a barlowed laser collimator. I’ll apologize, because it sounds like you were modestly misled by some of our collimation thread lingo. Due, no doubt, to our increasingly abbreviated vocabulary and tendency to condense descriptors. In this case – if I’m correct and if I’m not I will dummy slap myself as penance - I think you may have interpreted laser collimator for the somewhat different tool, the BARLOWED laser collimator. These are lasers with barlow lenses right in front of the laser. Many are commercially made mini-barlows that screw in to the end of the laser.

If you have a laser WITHOUT the barlow attachment, you are assessing the position of the secondary relative to the primary. Bouncing that laser beam off the secondary and making it hit the primary center mark. Now the angle of the secondary is aligned okay relative to the center of the mirror. Check.

A chesire assesss the collimation of the primary relative to your focuser tube. It’s not really precisely assessing secondary position, as strange as that sounds. It's possible for the primary to be aligned relative to the focuser well enough to make the chesire look "good", while simultaneously permitting the secondary to be off just enough to have the (NON-barlowed) laser beam miss the center mark on the primary.

A chesire and barlowed laser collimator should agree 100% if both are made and working correctly.

First, you have confirmed your laser is collimated. Good. That’s the part that bogs 90% of users down. Before you go to the chesire, put that laser back in, and adjust the SECONDARY mirror’s collimation screws (or better follow instructions pertinent to that particular secondary unit) until that center mark has the laser dot bull’s eyed. I don't know the mechanism of your secondary so I won't try to be too specific. But, once you have the laser hitting center, you are done with the laser.

Now, place the chesire in and zero it in.

Then, you are done. You are collimated.

[There are other steps one could take, but if you scope is f5 or slower, and your focuser is reasonably square to the tube, really, you are fine]

The only other thing you could do to maximize image quality is to center the secondary under the focuser tube using a sight-tube. That is also something that will not be assessed with the above tools. There are nuances – partial offset vs full offset of the secondary – but let us know if you want some references on-line for centering the secondary. It’s easy, but you need a sight-tube, and you can make one for $1 or buy a $100 one, the options are broad! But, to beat this dead horse, secondary position largely only affects vignetting of the light cone, not true image quality-affecting mirror alignments.

And if you are using a barlowed laser, I now dummy slap myself and will now say that I have no clue what's going on!

Cheers

Scott


Quote:
Originally Posted by timelord View Post
Gooday to all--I,m fairly new to astronomy and have been sandbagging on the side reading as many threads as possible trying to clue myself in for the last 6 months or so.
I've just installed a crayford style focusser to my 10" Skywatcher Newt. and decided to collimate the optics,I used a cheshire collimator and finally got everything alligned as per instructions looked good as I took my time and was very carefull to get it as perfect as possible. I used the cheshire after reading many threads as to the supposed inaccuracy of the laser collimator which I also have. I then checked the collimation with the laser and found the laser dot to be just outside the centre spot on the primary. I have collimated the laser on precision engineers cast iron v blocks and it was spot on--(pardon the pun) so I am confident the laser isnt telling me lies but am also confident the cheshire was spot on also--which do I beleive? Also can anyone tell me why 1.250" eyepices and anything else that fits into a focusser are all accurate to a thousanth of an inch but everything that recieves them measures approx 1.256--6 thou clearance is way to sloppy! As a machinist I'm used to working with a lot closer fits than these. Could this be the reason why the discrepancy between the two collimators?--although I did rotate the laser through 3 90 deg segments and the beam did not walk around on the primary it stayed in the same position.
timelord.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24-06-2007, 09:10 PM
Tannehill's Avatar
Tannehill
Registered User

Tannehill is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson, before that Wisconsin, before...
Posts: 231
Ah, sorry, one other question. Did you assess the laser's return beam back to the laser collimator? Watch that "return" beam?

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 24-06-2007, 10:01 PM
timelord's Avatar
timelord (Al)
Registered User

timelord is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 101
Thanx for the quick replys-- when you say barlowed laser do you mean a specific design of laser or a barlow with a laser collimator installed in the end of a barlow? I did assess the position of the return beam and it is not centred but not trusting the discrepancy between the two collimators have not yet adjusted the primary. Sight tube to square the foccusser hmm I.d better read a few more posts.
Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 24-06-2007, 11:06 PM
Tannehill's Avatar
Tannehill
Registered User

Tannehill is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tucson, before that Wisconsin, before...
Posts: 231
Collimation thread...

Either, except that it is a barlow installed on teh end of a laser, not vice versa.

and to capitalize on the barlow feature, you need a white disk with a center hole taped to the back of the laser/barlow assembly. It projects back to the end of the assembly a shadow of the primary mirror center mark; you adjust the primary collimation bolts to center this shadow (a shadow donut, often)over the exact center of the laser/barlow assembly. It's possible to use a 1.25" laser and 1.25" barlow to jury rig it. If you have a 2" laser and 1.25" barlow might be harder, I guess. I really have never done it, I'm not sure. I bought a dedicated self-barlowed laser collimator, the Glatter laser by Howie Glatter in the States. Never used anything else, sorry.

You know, for now, forget the whole idea of a barlowed laser....you have a chesire and a straight laser, you do not need a barlowed laser at this point.

And I should have said 'centering the secondary under the focuser', rather than squaring the focuser...that latter term is older and sticks in my brain when we talk about making sure the focuser is moving straight in and out perpendicular to the tube side long axis while always pointed at the secondary. In truth it's rarely a problem in scopes like yours but worth reviewing after you've mastered mirror collimation...on a rainy night when you want to do something astronomical..

There are three basic elements to collimating a newt.

1) position the secondary to capture the entire light cone coming up from the primary and send it laterally to the focuser tube.

2) point the focuser tube axis at the center of the primary mirror axis.

3) point the primary mirror axis (i.e. the center mark) at the center of the focuser tube axis.

Everything we do in collimation can be boiled down to these three concepts, usually but not necessarily in that order.

2 and 3 are not the same thing.

Here's an analogy I came up with to understand this. Please don't think I'm a gun-crazed American. I'm not (gun-crazed at least). But the analogy works well: Your focuser is ONE gun barrel. The primary mirror is a SECOND gun barrel. You want to aim both gun barrels so a bullet from one will drill right down the barrel of the second. The secondary mirror is a steel plate that "bounces" bullets (the light cone) perfectly.

You can have one gun barrel (the focuser) aimed at the other barrel (the primary center mark) even though that OTHER gun (primary center mark) isn't aimed right at the first (the focuser). And vice versa. What you want, or rather what you NEED is each aimed exactly at the other's barrel for perfect collimation. That's called co-axial alignment: collimation aka "same line."

Your "sight" for your focuser tube gun barrel is that straight laser beam from your laser collimator. You point that at the primary, but you have to bounce it off the secondary to get it there. Now, the secondary can be a few cm too high or low or left or right, and you can still bounce your bullet off it in such a way as to aim it the way you want. But, as you can envision, if that secondary is off a lot, it won't catch a full shotgun spray of bullets (the full light cone). For it to catch the entire spray (of light from the primary), it needs to be positioned "under" the focuser in such a way. That is called centering the focuser. Non-centered and you are losing some light from the primary, that's called vignetting. When all is said and done, the bullets can still bounce perfectly - those that hit the secondary at least - but you are just losing some light needlessly. Your 10" starts acting like a 9.5" or less...

Once you've centered your secondary under the focuser, you start by aiming one of the guns. Really, in most cases, it doesn't matter which you aim first, but since one can't really adjust the focuser plate that well, we adjust the "tilt" of the secondary in order to "aim" the focuser barrel down to the center mark. Put the laser in and tilt secondary until it drills down on the center of primary.

Once the focuser is aimed (i.e., the secondary tilt screws adjusted so that the straight laser beam hits the primary center mark), you can move to aiming the other gun barrel (the primary) at the focuser. Imagine that gun barrel is the center hole in your primary mirror center donut. That alignment is done with the chesire, or the barlowed laser. In fact, you can use the NON-barlowed laser to do this also. You use the bounced beam of the laser off the center mark, it bounces back up to the focuser, and it should hit (fuse) with the exiting beam in the exact center of the laser unit. If you see the return beam hit the back of the (again, non-barlowed) laser OFF of center, you move the primary bolts until it does, thereby disappearing into the exiting beam path and not visible anymore. But, most of us use the Chesire or the barlowed laser device for aiming the primary, as it's easier to be accurate to the tolerances most new (fast) newts require.

After adjusting your primary bolts until you have the chesire dialed in, you might want to recheck the straight laser, as sometimes (not normally, but if the mirror cells is clunky) the secondary needs a little tweak to make sure it's center. If that was needed, you need to redo the primary again, after that.

Technically, you can do it ALL with a sight-tube alone, if your eye is good. It also helps if your f ratio is high, as you won't notice any deviations from perfection like you will with an f4 scope. For fast scopes, the different tools start to matter. Most of us collimation GEEKS (and I'm proud, darn it) use a sight-tube, a regular laser, and a chesire or Barlowed laser, and lastly a device called an autocollimator which is just a super fine tuning of the mirror alignments. But the basics (for you, for example) would be a sight-tube and a straight laser and a chesire. That'll get you real good, and you are two-thirds there.

So, you just need to fine tune the secondary until that hits center of center mark, then redo chesire, and perhaps do that cycle one more time to perfect it, since when you move one gun barrel, the other one might need re-aiming, too!

If you end up adjusting your secondary to center it under the focuser, you'll need to redo the whole shooting match (American gun analogy again!) but then you'll be good to go.

If you google and fine Jim Fly's Catseye sight, he has some good stuff. So does Nils Olof Carlin - google him.

Lastly, I'll make a pitch again for teh Yahoo group collimate_your_telescope, a great resource.

I see you are in Melbourne? If so, there are many veterans here (MPAS, ASV, etc) who could help out if you wanted a double check of your collimation.

Cheers,

Anti-Gun Scott



Quote:
Originally Posted by timelord View Post
Thanx for the quick replys-- when you say barlowed laser do you mean a specific design of laser or a barlow with a laser collimator installed in the end of a barlow? I did assess the position of the return beam and it is not centred but not trusting the discrepancy between the two collimators have not yet adjusted the primary. Sight tube to square the foccusser hmm I.d better read a few more posts.
Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25-06-2007, 05:41 PM
Uchtungbaby
Registered User

Uchtungbaby is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisane
Posts: 68
Monoxide says-

Quote:
..it doesnt really matter how big or small the telescope is, it still needs to be collimated with some precision to get the best images out of it..
No, I don't think that it matters all that much. You see it is the case that the elipse to the mirror is the same all over the mirror. An elipse on a concave mirror maintains the same eliptical shape throughout the mirror. Magnification on the edge of the primary mirror will be the same as in the centre of the mirror. The only reason that I would think that laser collimation was introduced could have been to collimate the mirror to a star guidance system that sometimes comes with expensive telescopes. You know those guidance systems that position a star dead centre in the lens. The only other reason would be that the tube of the telescope might come into frame if it is not centred properly. Like I say, it's not rocket science to centre a secondary mirror in front of a primary mirror. It just gets a little bit harder when you try to work out focal length et cetera., But then you would be building a telescope if you used that little formula.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-06-2007, 06:32 PM
Garyh's Avatar
Garyh
Amongst the stars

Garyh is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glen Innes, N.S.W.
Posts: 2,883
Welcome Timelord...
I find that there`s quiet alot of difference in different manufactures products as to 1.25" accessories, some with more tolerances than others. Some so sloppy that a few turns of the old sticky tape makes a fine fit!! I think you will find the same with collimating tools as well.
The only way is when you are happy with you collimation using your cheshire or laser I would give it a good star test at a medium/high power and carefully check that the diffraction rings are even all the way around in focus and either side of focus, seeing permitted. Make sure your star is dead centre but...
cheers
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25-06-2007, 10:39 PM
astro_nutt
Registered User

astro_nutt is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,013
Welcome Timelord!!!
A bit of slack is necessary as the diffence in metal alloys that are used in the manufacture of optical components..eyepieces..barlows..pho tographic equipment..etc
All scopes will be exposed to some degree of thermal variances and you wouldn't want your eyepieces to get stuck in your focuser!!!
Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26-06-2007, 12:45 AM
GeoffW1's Avatar
GeoffW1 (Geoff)
Registered User

GeoffW1 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
How would 1.252 at 20deg C focuser go operating at 2deg C with a warm EP barrel?

HTH,
Doug
Hi,

Almost no difference at all in steel, a change in diameter of about 0.0003", so you would not notice.

In aluminium, twice that.

Any competent lathe operator should be able to better + or - 0.005", but these are mass produced items and almost certainly are made on a CNC lathe, so I believe there is some other reason for the excessive clearances, if by design.

Cheers

GeoffW1
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26-06-2007, 01:24 AM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
All my EP's but one are a slightly loose fit in my Crayford Focuser. The other one is a perfectly tight fit. I suppose they have to allow for differences in EP manufacturing.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26-06-2007, 08:30 PM
timelord's Avatar
timelord (Al)
Registered User

timelord is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 101
Okay three tenths of a thou in steel --6 tenths in aluminiun all up nine tenths less than 1 thou total still doesnt explain 5 times the clearance required and I cant imagine how you could achieve a temperature difference between eyepiece and focusser to cause a problem--if the clearance was aprox 2 thou--does anyone preheat there eyepeices? ( Just tongue in cheek).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27-06-2007, 04:46 PM
Doug
Registered User

Doug is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 645
Anyone with hands on experience with fine tolerance machining will know that inserting a 1.250 dia shaft into a 1.252 dia hole is only simple in theory.
I think the most probable reason for focusers to be a little sloppy is so that EPs can be changed in the dark, in the cold, with relative ease. If EP barrels were machined with a 1/4" leadin land say about 1.245dia, then a close tolerance betwixt EP and focuser would be no problem; but they are not, and there are far too many in the field to ignore by not allowing the fact. Also a 1/4" leadin land would likely make the barrel too long for some applications, so I guess we just have to live with taking up the slack with a lock screw.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27-06-2007, 08:28 PM
ausastronomer (John Bambury)
Registered User

ausastronomer is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shoalhaven Heads, NSW
Posts: 2,619
Hi Timelord,

A quick question. After you collimate the scope with the cheshire and think its correct, are you referring to the laser being off with the outgoing beam striking the centre mark on the primary mirror, or are you referring to the return beam off the primary mirror not striking back on the centre of the face of the laser collimater ?

Uchtungbaby,

The aperture of the scope is immaterial in determining its need for good collimation. With any scope you get better images when the scope is well collimated, as opposed to a scope which is poorly collimated. An experienced observer can tell in a fraction of a second by looking at the quality of the star images, if a scope is well collimated or poorly collimated. What you may be referring to is the fact that a scope with a slow F-Ratio is much easier to collimate than a scope with a fast F-Ratio and when poorly collimated its images deteriorate to a lesser degree than a poorly collimated scope with a fast F-ratio.

CS-John B
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28-06-2007, 08:16 PM
timelord's Avatar
timelord (Al)
Registered User

timelord is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 101
Hi ausastronomer, both--the laser was 11 oclock high just outside the centrre spot on the primary and the return beam was also high on the side view of the laser. I havent had A chance to get the scope out for a star test yet and this weekend isnt looking promising weather wise either---must build that observatory one day!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement