Collimation (Again :) )

[kniclander]

the Thing, not sure what's got into you as usually you seem like a sensible fellow but you're talking nonsense and being very rude. The person you're being rude to has also (I have noticed, but not at the expense of going out:rolleyes:) posted many extremely helpful posts on collimation. I do hope your rudeness does not discourage him.

[rickygoespop]

This is the first negative and personal , "I know better than you !" type posts I have seen on sgl. Shame up until now I've always read friendly non biased and usefull posts.

[Jason D]

in my experience, A_B's guide is over complicated and fussy.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if you are going to claim that 95% of collimation related questions asked on this board are caused by AB’s guide, at least have the decency to substantiate such a frivolous claim which obviously you are unable to do.

Enough said…

Jason

EDIT:

Here is what TheThing said 3 years ago:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/68234-collimation-help.html#3

"Really, Astro-baby's collimation piece should be made into a sticky! It's really useful and well thought out. Any chance mods?"

Here is what TheThing said 2 years ago:

http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/91165-newbie-seeks-help.html#5

"Astro_Baby's advice is very good, especially when used in conjunction with this video."

[Jason D]

The person you're being rude to has also (I have noticed, but not at the expense of going out:rolleyes:) posted many extremely helpful posts on collimation. I do hope your rudeness does not discourage him.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Do not worry. It would take much more to discourage me from helping others

Jason

[TheThing]

Well I'm sorry you feel this way. All I did was express my experience of the guide in question to prevent others suffering the same frustration. Not just criticism as I gave details of a much better guide.

A couple of people have taken issue with that and taken to disagreeing with me for no other reason than disagreeing itself. I think I'm entitled to defend my position am I not?

I'm sure that whatever his name is has provided lots of help in 160 odd posts and a few months membership, but that doesn't make him right. I'm sure I have as well, particularly in this post by warning newbies of the pitfalls of A_B's guide.

At the risk of repeating myself though, it's no skin off my nose. Do as you please. Take my advice or leave it.

TheThing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kniclander]

the Thing, what riled me was how rude you were, not the substance of what you said (although I thought that was wrong too). But I suppose I've been rude too now so I'll go sit in the corner.

ps, is my Sky at Night on its way:D

[umadog]

I was going to stay out of this, but I assume you are referring to me as one of those who has disagreed with you just for the sake of it. I have better things to do than that. There are good reasons why the ShotGlass guide needs to be accompanied with something else: it's over-simplified and misleading in places. For instance:

- It doesn't describe how to use a sight-tube and the procedure for rounding the secondary as viewed from the focuser is largely glossed over.

- The simulated eyepiece view of a collimated scope is incorrect (it shows everything being concentric) and may lead to beginners spending hours trying to achieve something they should not be doing.

- It doesn't mention that the secondary and primary should be adjusted iteratively until everything looks right.

- The laser collimator is presented a panacea. The caveats are not discussed; in particular the the requirement for the laser to be collimated isn't mentioned. The unit used in the video is notorious for requiring collimation.

- The barlowed laser method, which is the preferred technique for adjusting the primary, isn't mentioned.

Due to these things, it is counter-productive of you to repeatedly imply that ShotGlass guide is the only thing a beginner needs and that the AB guide should be binned. I'm not making judgements about which is better and I am not stating that the AB guide is perfect, but I am of the opinion that the video on is far from sufficient. Other newcomers to the hobby appear to agree, if this thread is anything to go by.

It is a pity that you have chosen to be rude and patronising toward Jason, who is one of the most knowledgeable and helpful people on these fora. I need only point you to two of his threads to illustrate this point:Telescope Reviews: Concise thread about autocollimators+improvements, Telescope Reviews: Useful info about secondary mirror alignment

When Jason posts on collimation, I sit up and pay attention.

[Tim]

play nice Hugh.

I for one am eternally grateful to Jason that he does follow these threads, because unlike a lot of people, Jason does actually know what he is talking about.

[Ant]

Hugh,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion - I actually agree with you about Mel's guide, but given the fact that I just don't get collimation I assume that it's me that's the problem with the guide and not the guide itself!

Your post is downright rude - if you post in that manner again I'll put you on moderated posts.

Ant

[umadog]

Ant, if you are having trouble "getting" collimation then take a look at the links page I posted on the first page of this thread. In those links, the procedure is described several different ways and various different tools are discussed. Understanding the relationship between the tools is helpful, as is focusing on what each tool can measure. Hopefully in all that information you'll find something that sticks. Some of the content is rather detailed, I'll admit, but there are some very good descriptions there.

[TheThing]

I've already apologised if people felt upset by my previous posts. I'm also sorry if anyone interpreted them as rude.

Of course, Andy's Shot is aimed at the beginner and a lot of the missing points would lead to it becoming over complicated and fussy, the whole point I have been making. Beginners don't need all that when starting out in collimating. In fact, you rarely need any of that when collimating at all.

Still, I'll say no more on this topic for risk if upsetting anyone else. Each to their own.

TheThing

[Jason D]

Rob (umadog), Tim, Kniclander, thanks for your vote of confidence.

Hugh, check my earlier edited post. Interestingly, you spoke very highly of AB's collimation guide few years ago.

I apologize if I derailed this thread. It was not my intention. Now back to the original objective of this thread.

Jason

[Ant]

Ant, if you are having trouble "getting" collimation then take a look at the links page I posted on the first page of this thread. In those links, the procedure is described several different ways and various different tools are discussed. Understanding the relationship between the tools is helpful, as is focusing on what each tool can measure. Hopefully in all that information you'll find something that sticks. Some of the content is rather detailed, I'll admit, but there are some very good descriptions there.

Cheers Rob, I didn't use the right word. I understand the theory of collimation - I just cannot do it .

I actually sold my reflector because I couldn't do it. I think it was always the secondary mirror that "got" me...

I now have an un-collimatable ED80.

Ant

[TheThing]

Hugh, check my earlier edited post. Interestingly, you spoke very highly of AB's collimation guide few years ago.

Jason

Actually, that's TheThing to you. I don't use my real name in my postings. Those that know me can and do but, at the risk of being pedantic, that's a familiarity too far on your part as I know you not from Adam.

Have you never changed you mind on something as you gained more experience? When I had little experience of collimation, I did think that A_B's guide was good. With experience and having discovered other guides and methods, I know realise that this was erroneous. A_B's guide is fussy and over complicated, particularly for the beginner.

But we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, and that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

What a dull place the world would be if people couldn't change their minds.