Collimation techniques - Eyepiece or software assisted?

9 replies309 views
Randall Schleier avatar
I have a CDK which I collimated manually using the Ronchi eyepiece for secondary spacing and an eyepiece to center the defocused secondary shadow. I also checked this with the SKYX collimation aid which places adjustable rings to make sure the shadow is centered. This worked ok but I wonder if collimation could be improved.

I have been considering using something like the CCDInspector collimation tool or maybe the Innovations Foresight Skywave software once it becomes available. Maybe there are other programs?

In Gaston's presentation on Skywave, he indicates that often best collimation is achieved when the shadow is slightly offset from center. Is the Skywave collimation method more robust? Will it approach the results of using an interferometer and test bench?

Please comment if you have used a software tool. Is it more accurate? How would we know? Any optical engineers that can share some insight?

Thank you, Randall
Engaging
Paul Muller avatar
Ive tried all the above (including the GoldFocus tool) - I'd also add in ASTAP's CCD Inspector tool (which I personally find much more useful than CCDI).

By the eye is great (though I would use a camera not my actual eye), Gaston's tool is excellent - but comes at a price.

ASTAP is somewhere between the two.

Whichever you choose, understanding the mechanics of your system, including the influence of things like sensor tilt and focuser sag are just as important as having the tools!
Helpful Insightful Respectful
Ruediger avatar
Hi Randall,

I have also the CDK14 and had some issues when collimating. I spent several nights with try and error.  Two things I found found out very quickly:

1. The light spandex shroud causes diffraction. Remove it - at least for collimating if you have one.
2. The CDK14 is sensitive to very tiny asymmetric collimation resulting in blurred or spiked stars. The de centering was not really visible in the de-focused star disk.

My attempts (also together with the help of PWI support):

First I had tried MetaGuide as assisted solution, but did not succeed to get any satisfying result. My seeing was to unstable to get a constant result. Still I had some asymmetric star discs and spikes.

I had the best result by the very old fashioned ways:

1. Made a 10 sec image of a star field
2. Imaged looping in 1s
3. adjusted the mirror in tiny moves in that direction the elongation/spikes were pointing to.
4. Loop through 1 to 3 until image is perfect.

I had to do the collimation because one of the spider vanes became lose, and the secondary moved out of center by 2 Millimeter.
Note: Watch out when cleaning the secondary! The center marker was cleaned away on the first wipe. Fortunately this is not so critical, since it is a spherical mirror.

CS
Rüdiger
Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Randall Schleier avatar
Paul,  I have the Gold Focus tool and collimation/focus mask. I used it when I briefly had a C11. My mask is only for up to 12". It did seem to work. I need something for my 14" now.

I didn't know about the Astap software. Looks interesting. I am interested in SKW too. Hopefully someone can give an independent review - at least of the method for now.

Ruediger, Spider vanes loose! Uh oh…better check mine.

What does a 10s image followed by 1s looping mean? Are you adjusting while capturing 1s images? Why the 10s image first? To check the entire field and then adjust on a single star?

Are you adjusting to make any diffraction spikes the same length?


The truth is that while I understand that the optics need to be aligned, I have very little experience with collimation visually. And, it isn't trivial to take apart my CDK14 imaging train (including rotator, ONAG), get the right spacing for an eyepiece, and re-balance for the L350. An automated procedure using the imaging camera is so much easier. But, I want the best results.

Randall
Ruediger avatar
Ruediger, Spider vanes loose! Uh oh...better check mine.

What does a 10s image followed by 1s looping mean? Are you adjusting while capturing 1s images? Why the 10s image first? To check the entire field and then adjust on a single star?

Are you adjusting to make any diffraction spikes the same length?


The truth is that while I understand that the optics need to be aligned, I have very little experience with collimation visually. And, it isn't trivial to take apart my CDK14 imaging train (including rotator, ONAG), get the right spacing for an eyepiece, and re-balance for the L350. An automated procedure using the imaging camera is so much easier. But, I want the best results.

Randall

Hi Randall,

watch out not to over tighten the vane holder screw. The support was warning me, since another customer overdid it an cracked it. Be gentle.

1s exposures to check permanently how far I have corrected the secondary and also of course the direction.
10s to reduce seeing fluctuation and have a clear direction to which to correct and not chase seeing.

No, I did not go for equal length of spikes. The big ones come from the vanes, but there were very tiny, fuzzy ones ones coming from not perfect collimation. I always call the "devil stars" since the have two horns.  See below

Though everyone claims the CDK is really easy to collimate and done in 15 minutes, it was a challenge for me to get it almost perfect, when you have bad seeing.
BTW: A good advise when working close to the zenith. Watch for the Allen key. If you drop it, it might hit directly on the main mirror . Therefore I secured it with a thin cord at my wrist.



Here another example.


Here an example of not properly aligned vanes. Look at the left spike. it is "V shaped"

Helpful Supportive
Randall Schleier avatar
You Da Man, Ruediger. Thanks for the detailed images. I haven't noticed those fuzzy spikes around stars. I use SKYX @focus3 and get tight, zoomed in images on my focus star. I will check using your method.

You are right about the Allen key. I have been very careful to not drop it. A cord is a good idea.

My Allen bolts on the secondary are tight and difficult to turn without  slight "jumps". I wonder if it would make sense to lubricate them. My CDK is probably 6-7 years old. I bought it second-hand.

One other issue I haven't brought up is that my flats have the center of illumination offset to one side. I really screwed up collimation once when I got the crazy idea to center the flat illumination by adjusting the secondary. That threw collimation way off. Are your flats centered on the imaging plane?

Randall
Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Ruediger avatar
Hi Randall,

here the Allen key:



Here a Lum Flat with the ASI6200:
Note: The flat is Histogram transformed to see any gradient. If only opening in Pi, you wont see any vignetting at all.

Randall Schleier avatar
This is what one of my master flats looks like. I clipped it a bit to accentuate the shift to one side. Now, this may be from something with adapters/attachment or EFW. I haven't figured this out yet. It is one of the reasons I want to make sure my optics are aligned properly. And, one of the reasons for my interest in SKW.
David Serquera avatar
Hello,
I have no experience with CDK but I recently used theOcal electronique colimation with a newtonian and it was helpful in finding the concentrique alignment of the mirrors.
Randall Schleier avatar
daserpey, I have seen simliar products but have no experience with them. I'm not convinced that method is any better than centering a defocused star. Maybe someone else can comment.

Randall
Related discussions
Calling all collimation guru! Fast-ish Newtonian scope offset
Hi, I recently had to disassemble my scope to re-glue the flocking material it came with. After removing the secondary and re-attaching it I was stumped. Coming from a f5 system the offset of an f4.5 seemed enough to test my patience. I can not get i...
Discusses Newtonian collimation challenges; directly relevant to author's collimation concerns.
May 8, 2023