Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

RC collimation with no laser or stars

  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

#51 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 01 August 2021 - 05:42 PM

dg401

 

I think you are correct. The collimation screws cannot be the cause of "pinched" mirror on those scopes (on either mirror). There is no direct contact or path for stress to propagate in any way between the screws and the mirror. Only the tightening ring with the rubber o-ring can cause stress on the primary mirror if you tighten it too much. 

 

BTW, the o-ring goes on the outer edge of the tightening ring. There is a groove at the base that looks like the o-ring goes there but it does not. Just in case it helps someone who took it apart and did not pay attention (like meconfused1.gif ).

 

EDIT: Oops! sorry for double post. 

I had that happen once early on in my fooling around with my RC6.  The O-ring sits stretched a bit on a narrow "shelf" and wants to slip off that shelf and sit more loosely around the smaller threaded tube.  I just stretch the O-ring onto the "shelf" and run a finger around it a few times until it sticks in place.  Then I just screw down the ring until the O-ring starts to engage the mirror and it can no longer fall off the "shelf".  This problem will probably catch all of us once and after that we're wise to it.

 

When it comes to tightening down the O-ring, I'm going to have to reverse my mentality away from worrying about how tightly I have to crank it down to seeing how loosely I can get away with leaving it.  Also, after enough fooling around, the O-ring tends to start to fray.  I was able to buy 10 replacements from Amazon for 6 bucks.  At that price, no sense using an O-ring with any wear showing.

 

It bears repeating because it's been a huge eye-opener for me:  If you don't understand every mechanical aspect of your optical system... all the way down to the individual screws, their tension, and the wind direction, you're starting your collimation with at least one strike against you (OK, maybe that thing about the wind direction was an exaggeration, but you get the point).  I still don't know if my scope will give good results with the procedure introduced here (and it will come down to how closely my optical centers coincides with my mechanical centers), but I do know that I can complete the steps of this procedure with precision and certainty.  That's important because each of us has probably started into any number of written procedures and somewhere around step 3, we throw up our hands and say, "I give up!".  The metrics are either hazy, the descriptions sloppy, or worse, the procedure is full of logical leaps where the author jumps from point A to point C and doesn't bother to say anything about point B along the way because it's wrongly assumed that you understand the unspoken point B as well as the author does (assuming the author understands it at all).

 

When it comes to the always sticky issue of compression rings throwing 2" to 1.25" adapters out of alignment with the focuser, or throwing a 1.25" Cheshire out of alignment with the 2" to 1.25" adapter, I can't stress enough how much GRAVITY IS YOUR FRIEND.  Mount your scope and point the focuser straight upward.  Let everything hang loosely and let gravity do it's thing to pull everything downward and square.  Similarly, when adjusting for hall of mirrors, point the focuser straight downward.  Again, gravity will do it's thing and you can loosen the primary push screws without inducing flex into the mirror cell.  At the end, the push screws can be tightened gradually while checking and rechecking the hall of mirrors until they're sufficiently snug.

 

Bottom line, This procedure will give a fast and precise mechanical collimation.  It might also give a precise optical collimation if you're among the fortunate whose mechanical and optical centers coincide.  At the very least, you'll be close and maybe need only fine secondary tweaking to spiffy up your star test.


Edited by dg401, 01 August 2021 - 05:51 PM.

  • MikeECha likes this

#52 MikeECha

MikeECha

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Charlotte, NC

Posted 01 August 2021 - 05:54 PM

When it comes to tightening down the O-ring, I'm going to have to reverse my mentality away from worrying about how tightly I have to crank it down to seeing how loosely I can get away with leaving it.  Also, after enough fooling around, the O-ring tends to start to fray.  I was able to buy 10 replacements from Amazon for 6 bucks.  At that price, no sense using an O-ring with any wear showing.

 

It bears repeating because it's been a huge eye-opener for me:  If you don't understand every mechanical aspect of your optical system... all the way down to the individual screws, their tension, and the wind direction, you're starting your collimation with at least one strike against you (OK, maybe that thing about the wind direction was an exaggeration, but you get the point).  I still don't know if my scope will give good results with the procedure introduced here (and it will come down to how closely my optical centers coincides with my mechanical centers), but I do know that I can complete the steps of this procedure with precision and certainty.  That's important because each of us has probably started into any number of written procedures and somewhere around step 3, we throw up our hands and say, "I give up!".  The metrics are either hazy, the descriptions sloppy, or worse, the procedure is full of logical leaps where the author jumps from point A to point C and doesn't bother to say anything about point B along the way because it's wrongly assumed that you understand the unspoken point B as well as the author does (assuming the author understands it at all).

 

When it comes to the always sticky issue of compression rings throwing 2" to 1.25" adapters out of alignment with the focuser, or throwing a 1.25" Cheshire out of alignment with the 2" to 1.25" adapter, I can't stress enough how much GRAVITY IS YOUR FRIEND.  Mount your scope and point the focuser straight upward.  Let everything hang loose and let gravity do it's thing to pull everything downward and square.  Similarly, when adjusting for hall of mirrors, point the focuser straight downward.  Again, gravity will do it's thing and you can loosen the primary push screws without inducing flex into the mirror cell.  At the end, the push screws can be tightened gradually while checking and rechecking the hall of mirrors until they''re sufficiently snug.

 

Bottom line, This procedure will give a fast and precise mechanical collimation.  It might also give a precise optical collimation if you're among the fortunate whose mechanical and optical centers coincide.  At the very least, you'll be close and maybe need only fine secondary tweaking to spiffy up your star test.

"...If you don't understand every mechanical aspect of  optical system... all the way down to the individual screws, their tension, and the wind direction, you're starting your collimation with at least one strike against you..."

 

I agree 100%. That was my point on the other thread when I explained what I have learned from disassembling my scope to take the mystery out of the way.

 

I find that we do not really do a good job at finding the root cause of the issues we see and in stead we try to fix the effects.  



#53 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 01 August 2021 - 07:11 PM

"...If you don't understand every mechanical aspect of your optical system... all the way down to the individual screws, their tension, and the wind direction, you're starting your collimation with at least one strike against you..."

 

I agree 100%. That was my point on the other thread when I explained what I have learned from disassembling my scope to take the mystery out of the way.

 

I find that we do not really do a good job at finding the root cause of the issues we see and in stead we try to fix the effects.  

My experience ends at the GSO RC6.  If you buy a 6" Ritchey–Chrétien for $500 possessing decent optics, the mechanics are going to be a horror show of compromise.  Shoddy (or we can be kind and call them "compromise") mechanics are the root cause of the issues with these scopes.

 

A focuser without any tilt capability is perhaps a necessary compromise, but that doesn't mean it's a good compromise.  So we address this bad compromise and buy a Moonlite focuser or similar.  We get our tilt but we immediately jump from a $500 scope to a $750 scope and the rest of the mechanics are still rough.  To continue to address the shoddy/compromise mechanics of these scopes is to punt on them entirely and purchase a more mechanically sound and more expensive scope.

 

Much of what is troublesome about these GSO scopes can only be remedied only by opening our wallets wide and taking the monetary hit on a more mechanically sound scope.  So as long as we're not punting on these scopes entirely, it's necessity that makes us discuss the steps we can take to mitigate their less than stellar mechanics.


Edited by dg401, 01 August 2021 - 07:57 PM.


#54 MikeECha

MikeECha

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Charlotte, NC

Posted 01 August 2021 - 08:02 PM

A focuser without any tilt capability is perhaps a necessary compromise, but that doesn't mean it's a good compromise.  So we address this bad compromise and buy a Moonlite focuser or similar.  We get our tilt but we immediately jump from a $500 scope to a $750 scope and the rest of the mechanics are still rough.  To continue to address the shoddy/compromise mechanics of these scopes is to punt on them entirely and purchase a more mechanically sound and more expensive scope.

 

Much of what is troublesome about these GSO scopes can be remedied only by opening our wallets wide and taking the monetary hit on a more mechanically sound scope.  So as long as we're not punting on these scopes entirely, it's necessity that makes us discuss the steps we can take to mitigate their less than stellar mechanics.

That is exactly what I mean by fixing the effect and not the cause.

 

The problem is that there is nothing wrong with the GSO-designed focuser. At least for the only copy I know. The GSO focuser "tilt" so much talked about (at least on my copy) is "an operator error" as we call it in the design engineering world. Simply be careful how you sit it on the scope and that tilt goes away. I have checked this with a cheshire over and over again and I can make it be correctly and incorrectly seated at will. When it is incorrectly seated (but correctly collimated with a tilt plate) the weight of the camera and else will eventually move it out of place because the M91 ring can not hold it and now everything is way off. I have no doubt that is the root cause of the tilt problem.

 

Then, when one realizes that there is no tilt problem with the focuser, it follows that it, being attached to the back of the mirror plate is good thing and not a bad thing because both the mirror and focuser are coaxial and move together.

 

The only real problem I see on the design of these scopes is the spring loaded secondary. That is the real problem that keeps these threads coming up and going viral most of the time. Now that I have spent some time working on my scope, I have no doubt about it.


  • dg401 likes this

#55 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 01 August 2021 - 11:40 PM

I just got an image after collimating with this procedure.  It's on the rough side, but it's by far the best I've seen since I started fighting with the collimation back in June.  Lots of astigmatism showing in APSC sensor and not even that good looking on axis.  Focal length comes out to 1354mm, so I'm going to have to tweak that upward a bit.  Maybe still just a little bit pinched from the gasket ring... going to really loosen up on that and see.

 

At least I'm in the ballpark now.

 

 


  • Sky King and nebulachadnezzer like this

#56 nebulachadnezzer

nebulachadnezzer

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:22 AM

I just got an image after collimating with this procedure.  It's on the rough side, but it's by far the best I've seen since I started fighting with the collimation back in June.  Lots of astigmatism showing in APSC sensor and not even that good looking on axis.  Focal length comes out to 1354mm, so I'm going to have to tweak that upward a bit.  Maybe still just a little bit pinched from the gasket ring... going to really loosen up on that and see.

 

At least I'm in the ballpark now.

 

That's not *too* far off, although it'd be easier to judge with an out-of-focus stars image. I popped it into ASTAP and it showed average HFD varying by about 25% from the lower left corner toward the upper right. I bet you could tweak that in a few minutes under the stars.

If that's freshly re-assembled and collimated using the author's procedure that's quite good.


  • dg401 likes this

#57 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 01:03 AM

That's not *too* far off, although it'd be easier to judge with an out-of-focus stars image. I popped it into ASTAP and it showed average HFD varying by about 25% from the lower left corner toward the upper right. I bet you could tweak that in a few minutes under the stars.

If that's freshly re-assembled and collimated using the author's procedure that's quite good.

It is precisely that... freshly assembled and collimated per the author's procedure.

 

Just did a refocus, re-collimation, and another star field.  But I've dropped the SD card down into the nether regions of the sofa and I'm at a loss for the moment how to fish it out.



#58 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 03:33 AM

Reset focal length from 1453mm to 1468mm (target was 1470mm manufacturer specification).

 

Re-collimated per author's procedure with no additional adjustment other than focus.

 

Curious to hear what somebody with more experience than I do at reading the tea-leaves has to say about these results.  Like with the results shown in my previous photo, I feel like this procedure gets me close but not quite there.  Could be a bit of real eastate between the mechanical and optical center of the secondary.  Could be a defect with the user.

 

This puts me at a point where I can star-test/tweak from not too far off to improve the results (and usually end up making things worse since it's would be generous to assume I know what the heck I'm doing).

 

Starfield near Deneb

 

Focus adjusted to 1370mm.  Recollimated.
 
Same starfield defocused
 
Out of Focus

 

 



#59 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 09:43 AM

I just got an image after collimating with this procedure.  It's on the rough side, but it's by far the best I've seen since I started fighting with the collimation back in June.  Lots of astigmatism showing in APSC sensor and not even that good looking on axis.  Focal length comes out to 1354mm, so I'm going to have to tweak that upward a bit.  Maybe still just a little bit pinched from the gasket ring... going to really loosen up on that and see.

 

At least I'm in the ballpark now.

 

What changed since your original poorer result back in post #34?

 

I hate to say "well, we're close enough for a star tweak" when the whole point of this procedure is to avoid that.  What would you tweak, anyway?  Primary?  Secondary?  Focuser?  Like you say in post #58, it's not unlikely to screw it up even further under the stars.

 

I just noticed that your focal length looks quite a ways off also: 1354 for this image but 1470 spec.  I'm getting pretty skeptical of the focal length spec from GSO.  If you can do a Ronchi test you can set for the actual focal length of your mirrors.  I'm gearing up for that myself, never done it.  But at least you should shoot for the spec.

 

Nice to see forward progress anyway!


Edited by TinySpeck, 02 August 2021 - 09:50 AM.


#60 quilty

quilty

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019

Posted 02 August 2021 - 11:16 AM

just a question. How do you exactly read your true focal length?

How do you adjust it?



#61 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 11:24 AM

I usually plate solve an image.  The solver will give you image scale or focal length directly.  PixInsight has a built-in solver, or there's one online at Astrometry.net.



#62 quilty

quilty

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:05 PM

ok. plate solving. And how do you exactly adjust the focal length, when it doesn't fit?



#63 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:15 PM

If you have a GSO RC one method is covered in step 1 of this post.

 

I do focal length adjustment under the stars by iterating on plate solving in Sequence Generator Pro and tweaking as described at the link above.  You should look at the SGP log file to get the full precision image scale.


Edited by TinySpeck, 02 August 2021 - 12:18 PM.


#64 nebulachadnezzer

nebulachadnezzer

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:21 PM

 

I hate to say "well, we're close enough for a star tweak" when the whole point of this procedure is to avoid that.  What would you tweak, anyway?  Primary?  Secondary?  Focuser?  Like you say in post #58, it's not unlikely to screw it up even further under the stars.

Is it realistic to expect a mostly tool-free bench calibration without an accurate substitute for a target at infinity focus can achieve that degree of precision with a picky optical system like an RC? The HOM effect is quite useful but extremely sensitive to the user's vision and small errors in precision from an arm's length away.

My expectation is that this method gets one "close enough" that they could potentially image with a small amount of astigmatism but they would need to resort to DSI or a similar method to perfect collimation.

Your method seems to be plenty accurate enough to get someone from entirely uncollimated to a small amount of coma and astigmatism, but not quite approaching zero.



#65 quilty

quilty

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2019

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:36 PM

If you have a GSO RC one method is covered in step 1 of this post.

 

I do focal length adjustment under the stars by iterating on plate solving in Sequence Generator Pro and tweaking as described at the link above.  You should look at the SGP log file to get the full precision image scale.

you can also (and to bigger extent) adjust the mirror distance by turning the secondary baffle and fixing ring, see pic.

Attached Thumbnails

  • post-360047-0-20964200-1627375888_thumb.jpg


#66 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:38 PM

Is it realistic to expect a mostly tool-free bench calibration without an accurate substitute for a target at infinity focus can achieve that degree of precision with a picky optical system like an RC? The HOM effect is quite useful but extremely sensitive to the user's vision and small errors in precision from an arm's length away.

My expectation is that this method gets one "close enough" that they could potentially image with a small amount of astigmatism but they would need to resort to DSI or a similar method to perfect collimation.

Your method seems to be plenty accurate enough to get someone from entirely uncollimated to a small amount of coma and astigmatism, but not quite approaching zero.

My Holy Grail comrade is giving up!  Stay strong, my friend.  grin.gif  There are plenty of "close" methods out there requiring star tweaking.  This one got me to as good as can be expected, period, I think.  If it's repeatable (even by me) it's a good candidate for the Holy Grail.

 

You're right about depending on user's vision etc., but that's true of any method.  This method is indeed extremely picky and pushed me to the limit of my abilities, but the final tweaks were on the order of 1/20 turn which is what you'd do under the stars too.  I could just see the effect of that, same as for for a fuzzy and shimmering out-of-focus star.

 

I'm tinkering with a pinhole video camera which should make the Cheshire adjustments clearer.  That will make the effect of tiny adjustments more distinct.



#67 nebulachadnezzer

nebulachadnezzer

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 12:59 PM

 

Reset focal length from 1453mm to 1468mm (target was 1470mm manufacturer specification).

 

Re-collimated per author's procedure with no additional adjustment other than focus.

 

Curious to hear what somebody with more experience than I do at reading the tea-leaves has to say about these results.  Like with the results shown in my previous photo, I feel like this procedure gets me close but not quite there.  Could be a bit of real eastate between the mechanical and optical center of the secondary.  Could be a defect with the user.

 

This puts me at a point where I can star-test/tweak from not too far off to improve the results (and usually end up making things worse since it's would be generous to assume I know what the heck I'm doing).

 

Starfield near Deneb

 

 
 
Same starfield defocused
 
 

 

 

The astigmatism here is apparent, but it's hard to judge on-axis coma from your images.

I suggest centering one of the brighter stars in this field, shifting further outside of focus, and taking a longer exposure. When I'm getting down to final adjustments of on-axis coma (primary mirror adjustments) I end up shooting 10- to sometimes 30-second exposures. Here is an example. Notice that the star image has concentric diffraction artifacts that sort of look like an LP record.
 

Large collimation star example

 

These should be balanced. If the ring is narrow to one side and the diffraction patterns are squashed (for a star in the center of the field) that's on-axis coma adjustable via a tweak of the primary mirror. You then correct astigmatism via adjusting the secondary, and iterate as necessary as changing one affects the other slightly.

I usually shoot closer to in-focus (but still outside of focus) to judge off-axis astigmatism as this gives me a better overall view of the frame. That will give me an image more like your out-of-focus stars. That said, I probably still shoot a bit farther out of focus and use a longer exposure to compensate (making the rings more visible and removing seeing as a factor).


Edited by nebulachadnezzer, 02 August 2021 - 03:01 PM.

  • dg401 likes this

#68 nebulachadnezzer

nebulachadnezzer

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 01:37 PM

My Holy Grail comrade is giving up!  Stay strong, my friend.  grin.gif  There are plenty of "close" methods out there requiring star tweaking.  This one got me to as good as can be expected, period, I think.  If it's repeatable (even by me) it's a good candidate for the Holy Grail.

 

You're right about depending on user's vision etc., but that's true of any method.  This method is indeed extremely picky and pushed me to the limit of my abilities, but the final tweaks were on the order of 1/20 turn which is what you'd do under the stars too.  I could just see the effect of that, same as for for a fuzzy and shimmering out-of-focus star.

 

I'm tinkering with a pinhole video camera which should make the Cheshire adjustments clearer.  That will make the effect of tiny adjustments more distinct.

I'm not giving up. grin.gif My expectations all along have been that a bench collimation method that gets you 90-95% of the way there might be good enough for some imaging. A successful one should certainly be good enough to minimize the time spent tweaking under the stars to approach 100%.

I remain skeptical that perfect collimation can be achieved without an equivalent to a bright point-source at infinity focus. 

Lining up a camera with a Cheshire or other instrument is, to me, something else that requires a minor miracle. I'd love to see a good solution for this. It would be great if I could see through the scope in real time while making adjustments. It beats walking in constant circles around the scope.

The problem is that the human eye is suspect, mostly because of what it's wired to. However, a camera can be even worse if it's not perfectly aligned. You could do this with an X-Y table and some kind of reference target, but what target? And how do you maintain that? The mechanisms we use and the extent to which we go to try to ensure our imaging cameras/focusers are aligned to the optical axis and focal plane of the scope are significant.



#69 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 01:50 PM

What changed since your original poorer result back in post #34?

 

I hate to say "well, we're close enough for a star tweak" when the whole point of this procedure is to avoid that.  What would you tweak, anyway?  Primary?  Secondary?  Focuser?  Like you say in post #58, it's not unlikely to screw it up even further under the stars.

 

I just noticed that your focal length looks quite a ways off also: 1354 for this image but 1470 spec.  I'm getting pretty skeptical of the focal length spec from GSO.  If you can do a Ronchi test you can set for the actual focal length of your mirrors.  I'm gearing up for that myself, never done it.  But at least you should shoot for the spec.

 

Nice to see forward progress anyway!

 

-----------

 

Post #34 likely suffered from a pinched primary via a too tight locking ring.  Spec on the RC6 is 1370mm (150/f9).  Most recent photo is 1368mm

 

You bring up a good point.  Technical information from the manufacturer is sparse to non-existent.  If the focal length of these scopes was always set as specified, this might not be a problem, but I've got the same suspicion that the correct focal length varies with the mirror set.  Upon purchase, and before touching a thing, I was solving at ~1410mm (requiring all 4 inches of extension rings for DSLR focus). Also a bit familiar with the Ronchi test, but a bit wary of ending up with a $500 scope and $1000 worth of gadgets to make it work.

 

Now that I've got the focal length set, I can collimate multiple times and take an image each time.  If I'm the problem, the the aberrations should be inconsistent.  If there's an issue with my scope or the procedure, then the aberrations should be consistent from collimation to collimation.

 

 


Edited by dg401, 02 August 2021 - 01:56 PM.

  • TinySpeck likes this

#70 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 01:50 PM

...
Lining up a camera with a Cheshire or other instrument is, to me, something else that requires a minor miracle. I'd love to see a good solution for this. It would be great if I could see through the scope in real time while making adjustments. It beats walking in constant circles around the scope.
...

When I hold my pinhole camera up to the Cheshire it displays the whole primary reflection image, just what you need for adjustment.  I think I'll have to 3D print a custom mount for it, which will slip over the Cheshire and fix the pinhole camera in position.  Blow that up, overlay a graticule, and view it from the open end of the OTA and it should make secondary adjustment duck soup.

 

I'm really liking this retirement thing...


  • nebulachadnezzer likes this

#71 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 02:09 PM

When I hold my pinhole camera up to the Cheshire it displays the whole primary reflection image, just what you need for adjustment.  I think I'll have to 3D print a custom mount for it, which will slip over the Cheshire and fix the pinhole camera in position.  Blow that up, overlay a graticule, and view it from the open end of the OTA and it should make secondary adjustment duck soup.

 

I'm really liking this retirement thing...

I aspire to retire.

 

I was thinking about how I'll sometimes diagnose a troublesome instrument at a customer site.  When doing all the right things doesn't make it perform right down the middle, I fool around with wrong settings and see if I can get it right down the middle in that manner.  Then I can compare the wrong settings that work with the correct settings that don't work and often can figure out what's wrong based on the observed deviation.

 

So... Let's say I use this procedure and it gets me close.  Then I tweak via star testing and get it right (ha!).  Then I check the cheshire and hall of mirror views on the correctly performing scope to see how far off they are from visually centered.   If the visual is clearly different, then it just comes down to optical vs mechanical centers being different.  But what if the visual is identical to that obtained by the procedure?  Then it might be a matter of the resolution of the procedure.  I.E. Maybe the difference between "in the ballpark" and "bang on" is too small for the eye to discern? 


  • nebulachadnezzer likes this

#72 nebulachadnezzer

nebulachadnezzer

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 02:58 PM

So... Let's say I use this procedure and it gets me close.  Then I tweak via star testing and get it right (ha!).  Then I check the cheshire and hall of mirror views on the correctly performing scope to see how far off they are from visually centered.   If the visual is clearly different, then it just comes down to optical vs mechanical centers being different.  But what if the visual is identical to that obtained by the procedure?  Then it might be a matter of the resolution of the procedure.  I.E. Maybe the difference between "in the ballpark" and "bang on" is too small for the eye to discern? 

That's my expectation. I'm not sure the resolution of visually confirming the Hall of Mirrors approaches perfection to the degree that it would obviate final tweaking under the stars. Maybe some folks are better at it. Maybe I'm not.

I've checked the Hall of Mirrors effect on two well-collimated RCs and found them to be balanced to the extent I could observe them from arm's length. It would be interesting to see what binoculars or a spotting scope could do for this procedure but then we're back to something that requires more space than an average workbench, observatory, or kitchen table.

I have no desire to mess up my collimation to see if I can find my way back to it using this procedure. I started from badly collimated scopes and did all of mine via the DSI method, so I've paid the price in terms of lost imaging time and blood loss to mosquitos.

If someone wants to donate an RC to me I'm game to give that a try. smile.gif I have previously given some consideration of picking up a used RC6 just to tear apart and put back together, but thus far it hasn't been worth me hearing my wife and kids say, "You got *another* telescope?" lol.gif


Edited by nebulachadnezzer, 02 August 2021 - 02:59 PM.


#73 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 04:13 PM

...

So... Let's say I use this procedure and it gets me close.  Then I tweak via star testing and get it right (ha!).  Then I check the cheshire and hall of mirror views on the correctly performing scope to see how far off they are from visually centered.   If the visual is clearly different, then it just comes down to optical vs mechanical centers being different.  But what if the visual is identical to that obtained by the procedure?  Then it might be a matter of the resolution of the procedure.  I.E. Maybe the difference between "in the ballpark" and "bang on" is too small for the eye to discern? 

Let us know what you find there.  I did find that the smallest adjustments had discernable test results and in fact led to my final improvement, but this needs to be duplicated.  I had accepted my second-to-last adjustment as "as good as I could get", but a subsequent star test showed asymmetry in the N-S axis.  I went back to the procedure and sure enough, now I could see a tiny deviation from Cheshire concentricity in the N-S axis.  A couple very small adjustments took care of that and the result was just as predicted.  That gave me hope for this method (and a respect for just how touchy collimation of these things is).

 

I need to work through the procedure and get confident of exactly what is being accomplished at each step.  That would give some insight into what an off-center secondary donut might lead to, for example.



#74 dg401

dg401

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2021

Posted 02 August 2021 - 04:36 PM

Let us know what you find there.  I did find that the smallest adjustments had discernable test results and in fact led to my final improvement, but this needs to be duplicated.  I had accepted my second-to-last adjustment as "as good as I could get", but a subsequent star test showed asymmetry in the N-S axis.  I went back to the procedure and sure enough, now I could see a tiny deviation from Cheshire concentricity in the N-S axis.  A couple very small adjustments took care of that and the result was just as predicted.  That gave me hope for this method (and a respect for just how touchy collimation of these things is).

 

I need to work through the procedure and get confident of exactly what is being accomplished at each step.  That would give some insight into what an off-center secondary donut might lead to, for example.
 

The trick might be to see that tiny deviation in the N-S axis before the star test, not after.

 

Funny things, brains.


  • TinySpeck likes this

#75 TinySpeck

TinySpeck

    Messenger

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Seattle area

Posted 02 August 2021 - 04:48 PM

The trick might be to see that tiny deviation in the N-S axis before the star test, not after.

 

Funny things, brains.

grin.gif   I know!  We see what we want to see, and I was struggling to keep that under control.  I did know where to look, but I swear I did see a slight deviation.  Since I corrected it, saw that it looked better, and the measurements confirmed it, I figured it had to have been there.

 

But yeah, the trick is to see the imperfection first, you're right.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics