The main take-away from DP's article are the geometry for the offset and non-offset case, and the general picture of what a collimated system looks like through the focuser. There are a gazillion confused users who expect the vanes to line up with the peep hole of a collimated scope, it does not. If you want to use measurements you have to program the geometry and measurements in the computer accounting for all offsets, etcetera. This is not easy and is best avoided since it is also not necessary.turboscrew wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:55 pm Hmm... In the Don Pensack's article it says:1. Collimation cap (A simple peep-hole, though not good enough for scopes below f/10. I don’t recommend these except, perhaps, as a quick check to see if the optical elements are at least in gross alignment at the start).
2. Laser collimator (not useful unless perfectly collimated itself, possessed of a small beam diameter, and not accurate enough for primary mirror collimation unless used with a Barlow lens, but quite useful in the dark. Mfrs.: Glatter, FarPoint, etc.
I never read the Catseye stuff, see Nils Olof's FAQ for a reality check on what he thinks about Catseye.
About the preference of laser vs collimation cap vs Barlowed laser, this seems to vary from author to author so I would not take that too seriously unless it is backed up with thorough evidence. Also keep in mind that it's an article that promotes a different method.
I collimated my
I also have a Z12 laser collimator that I used until the battery ran out. It worked OK until then but the laser dot really started drooping when the battery ran out. Then I have a dirt cheap Seben LK1, it needed collimation and tape to get it set firmly in the focuser. But it can be made to work fine. I also have a brand-less and hair-less Cheshire that is useful if the laser misses the secondary.