Jason D

From visual observation perspective, there is no difference between a fully offset secondary mirror and a partially offset secondary mirror after the proper collimation steps have been followed. The following diagram shows the difference between a fully offset secondary mirror mount (right diagram) and a partially offset secondary mirror mount (left diagram). In the partially offset secondary mirror mount, the secondary mirror is mounted centrally with respect to its stalk. For a telescope with a secondary mirror mounted centrally on its stalk (partially offset), the primary mirror will end up getting tilted slightly towards the focuser to compensate as shown in the following diagram. The tilting will be taken care of automatically/implicitly once the proper collimation steps are followed. The only cases where a fully offset secondary mirror mount would be needed: 1- The OTA opening is too restrictive and tilting the primary mirror towards the focuser will introduce obstructions into the light path as shown below (the obstruction is the vane clip in this case) 2- There is a corrective lens at the OTA opening. In this case, it is imperative to have the primary mirror axis being coincident with the corrective lens axis. 3- You are using DSC to get little more accuracy though the accuracy will be small -- not a major reason for the fully offset case. Jason

Just follow the proper collimation steps and the "away-from-focuser" offset will be taken care of automatically. In other words, don't do anything special for the "away-from-focuser" offset. Adjusting the spider vanes to move the secondary mirror away from the focuser might exacerbate diffraction spikes since you will end up with opposite spider vanes that are not inline/parallel with respect to each other. The only valid reasons why you want to re-install the secondary mirror with the proper "away from focuser" offset are: 1- Your scope has a corrective lens at the OTA front opening 2- Improves setting circles accuracy but the improvement is minimal 3- Avoid front-end vignetting which happens when the OTA opening is almost as wide as the primary mirror diameter. If the secondary mirror is centered in its stalk then following proper collimation steps will end up tilting the primary mirror towards the focuser as shown in the right diagram of the attachment. Jason

"single diagram is going to take away the simplicity I was trying to achieve" My suggestion is to show a diagram without mentioning whether the secondary was mounted centrally or with an offset. Just don't mention how the secondary mirror was mounted since such an info will have no significance on collimation. That will keep it simple. "But not if the secondary reflection (x2) were elliptical indicating a secondary error?" Well, the "error" has to be taken within context. Achieving axial alignment is the most important goal of collimation. Axial alignment is achieved when the eyepiece axis points directly at the primary mirror center and the optical axis of the primary mirror points back at the eyepiece center. The secondary shadow elliptical "error" you have referenced has nothing to do whatsoever with axial alignment. In that sense, the "error" impact could range from nothing to something. If the elliptical shape is minor and the scope is used for visual observation then the "error" can be safely ignored. If it is major and/or the scope is used for astrophotography then it needs to be corrected. The elliptical "error" only impacts the illumination of the FOV which impacts astrophotography more than visual observation. But sometimes the elliptical "error" is not an indication of a secondary mirror rotation/tilt error but rather an indication of a slightly off-centered secondary mirror in the OTA and/or a non-squared focuser. In this case, achieving axial alignment will demand rotating/tilting the secondary mirror to achieve axial alignment which will give its shadow an elliptical shape. Check the attached animation. In each frame, my scope has achieved axial alignment yet only one frame includes the optimal placement of the secondary mirror. My scope happened to be mechanically aligned so the optimal placement will not show an elliptical shadowy shape of the secondary mirror. If I intentionally adjust the vanes of my scope to shift the whole secondary mirror assembly to the left or right perpendicular to the focuser axis then the optimal placement of the secondary mirror will show a slight elliptical shadowy shape. Jason

You stated: a=b - That is my goal but IF a user had chosen a non-offset arrangement then it is right to say that IF i=j THEN a≠b SHOULD be true? It is true if i=j then a≠b. But this statement is true regardless whether the secondary mirror was mounted centrally or with an offset. You stated: e=f - Incorrect labelling on my diagram. See below We are in agreement. You stated: g=h - Added to represent a non-centred secondary and therefore highlight an error. Above statement is true regardless whether the secondary mirror was mounted centrally or with an offset. For the most part, there is no difference in the collimation view between a scope with its secondary mirror mounted centrally or with an offset. Interestingly, the only difference is the apparent relative placement of one set of the vanes. For a scope with a secondary mirror mounted centrally, the vanes will appear centered with respect to the secondary shadow (figure 2 below). For a scope with a secondary mirror mounted with an offset, the vanes will appear centered with respect to the secondary mirror (figure 1 below). For example, I can tell the secondary mirror was mounted with an offset in your illustration. Below is the view through my scope with the secondary mirror mounted centrally: Whether the secondary mirror mounted centrally or with an offset, the optical axis of the primary mirror will intersect the secondary mirror at the same spot, hence, the view (with the exception of the vanes) will look the same. "New Model" figure corresponds to a scope with a secondary mirror mounted centrally "Classical Offset" figure corresponds to a scope with a secondary mirror mounted with an offset.

a=b (or b>a for a centred alignment with no offset)* [[ a=b should be the goal regardless whether the secondary mirror was mounted centrally or with an offset ]] c=d e=f [[ This will always be true no matter what you do. ]] g=h [[ This should be ignored. If collimation is done correctly for a mechanically aligned scope then g=h will be true. That is, there is no collimation step specifically for g=h. It is an automatic result of a good collimation ]] i < j IF a=b [[ a=b should always be the target. i<j will always be true for a good collimated scope regardless whether the secondary was mounted with an offset or centrally.]] or i=j IF *b>a by the correct offset amount [[ This statement should be dropped. It is an incorrect target ]] Jason

Your collimation as shown on the above photo looks good Jason

Secondary mirror silhouette will always appear skewed towards the primary mirror. It is just more paramount for fast scopes. The cross hairs in the photo are the spider vanes. These should be ignored when collimating. Refer to my photo in the pre reply. My scope's spider vanes intersect slightly to the right of the center spot.

It should look like that (with an offset). Here is a photo of my collimated scope

That does not mean much with respect to collimation. I would ignore that observation if I were in your shoes. Your photo does not provide enough information to evaluate your collimation. The primary center spot is not showing and the focuser edge is also not showing. A good collimation cap will have a reflective (or at leave a white) underneath surface.

Can you share the "after" photo for comparison?

Hi Shane, Below are the two main takeaways I tried to convey: 1- Mounting secondary mirrors with an offset has limited benefits that do not apply to all. There is no need to detach/remount secondaries with an offset. Meanwhile, if someone is mounting a new secondary mirror for other reasons then mounting it with an offset is a good idea unless there is a mechanical reason to prevent it. 2- The idea that some light is lost for scopes with centrally mounted secondaries is incorrect as I have explained. Jason

Wow!!!! That is way too tight.

Based on "conic section" geometry, it is elliptical. I know it is not that intuitive but you can't argue with math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section Actually, the secondary mirrors we use are a 45 degree cross section of a cylinder -- not a cone. Both are ellipses but only the latter will appear perfectly circular at 45 degrees angle but only when observed from the cone vertex -- mathematically speaking. Jason

Are you stating that the OTA opening diameter is not greater than ~5 millimters compared to the diameter of your primary mirror? Typically, scopes have larger diameter. Jason