The South Cave Collimator System
Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:49 PM
I was hoping for a simpler and more direct reply from you.
Our perspectives about telescope collimation are different. The terms you use and the concepts you are referencing are very different from what I am accustomed to. I thought I understood your invention at one point but now I doubt I ever did; therefore, I am unable to continue with this discussion. I assure you I do not mean any disrespect.
Posted 17 January 2010 - 05:57 AM
I align the focuser axis with hardsly a thought initially by aligning the curser with the vertical x hair using the two eyepiece aligning and tightening grub screws or split clamping collar, adjuster and single grub screw. Then the cursor of the peephole can be thereafter at haphazard attitude as shown in Fig.2 and 3, and I confess waqs drawn thus to create the interest you have shown.
Yours and everyone's description of the function of the star test was just what I did until my stumble on 17/18 May 2009, in the best traditions of discovery, scientific or otherwise.
Your stage B is at '2ndry collimated without magnification'; good enough up to 200x and more if not interested in faint stars or sharp images, and if there's a tad of sph.abrn. to cloud things unconciously and conceil all.
My stage 2 to 4 is the secondary beeing fine tuned on a star at 200 to 450x, endding with your primary axis alignment we can call stage 5.
Actual Cheshire instead of a combi tool. Thats how my peephole works. I could have had one instead of the film canister for use with the CFC, but advice 4 years ago routed me via the laser colllimator. i.e. If I'd had a Cheshire I'd still have invented the CFC.
Tomorrow night at the astro society we are going to pretend the Cheshire came after the special peephole cap.
Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:19 PM
I wish other members would join in and express their opinions about your invention. Getting feedback from a larger number of members would be more helpful. So far, only few of us commented on your invention.
Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:27 PM
All your comments will go towards producing a better article. Meantime, why not make one and try it?
Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:34 PM
Just go into Google with, V367 Cygni. To me all was revealed thereby.
Posted 26 January 2010 - 07:46 PM
Posted 07 August 2010 - 06:08 AM
You are welcome to use my recent up-date, 'Collimating a Newtonian with the South Cave Collimator' on this site, in any further edition of 'New Perspectives on Newtonian Collimation.' It has been accepted for publication in the next newletter of the Federation of Astronomical Societes
and should be on their website too.
Posted 01 November 2010 - 04:55 PM
Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:56 AM
Posted 03 November 2010 - 01:00 PM
You have an interesting writing style by the way Peter, it is almost like you write in another language and then use google translator.
Posted 05 November 2010 - 10:20 AM
You'll see that what you ask is covered in my second article,'Collimating the Newtonian with the South Cave Collimator' at end of para. begining, 'Preparation for the..' Not all newtonians hve spiders, not all spiders are in line with the focus tube. Sorry, but I can't collimate without seeing through something, which might as well be a peephole cap.
Here's a precis of my articles, on the lines of a letter which Astronomy Now has just publsihed: MM in October's Tech Talk rightly refers to the sight tube's importance in collimating. But everyone imagines, and makes it, as a short tube when it has been easier to make the telescope tube itself the sight tube. The cross hairs needed can be inscribed on a fibreglass front cover or translucent inset disc for handier and easier accuracy of secondary mirror alignment than other methods up to about 180 x, beyond which all methods defer to the star test. This is achieved by almost the full focal length being utilised. It works in the same manner as a Cheshire eyepiece/sight tube combination, with the same easier secondary adjustments advantage over the laser collimator.
Posted 05 November 2010 - 10:39 AM
Posted 05 November 2010 - 06:21 PM
Your description of my style process could be spot on. I guess every collimator writer brings their past expressions in and alters some. There's just no formal telescope driving school that I know of. Best of skies, Peter.
Posted 07 November 2010 - 11:38 AM
Posted 09 November 2010 - 05:58 PM
Posted 10 January 2012 - 05:52 PM
Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:03 PM
Good drawings shown in optical desire progress from A to C.
However B and C need to swop positions because to produce a concentric star at slightly de-focussed image the reflection angle needs to be something other than 90 degrees. Your B is fine for the completion of bench testing and so ready for a star test to produce any off-set needed to complete collimation. 3 telescopes now with no image shift when going from one side of focus to the other.
Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:15 PM
It is obvious the originator does not speak English as a native speaker, or has gone to the "Yoda" school of Buddhist Obtuse Sayings, because I simply cannot make sense of what he is describing.
Also, none of the attachments or photos in this thread download correctly, and I get "damaged file" messages on most of them.
From what I do understand, though, the alignment method is similar to the techniques you might use on an f/10-f/15 scope, though oddly backwards from how it is currently done, but will not be successful on an f/4.5 newtonian.
Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:35 AM
I benefitted from your drawings 3 years ago nearly. However,I now your B & C drawings need to change positions because B is more like the mechanical set up when optically collimated by a star, owing to 90 degrees not being the best reflection angle. So the new order suggest A needs collimating. B (your C) shows completion of bench collimating. I've a drawing to show. Best regards,