Collimation Sticky

[bingevader]

Any chance of someone writing a Collimation Sticky to avoid any further upset?!

A few useful links to the likes of Astrobaby's guide along with some advice on when it is necessary might be helpful.

If we could put it altogether in one place, I'm sure it'd be a useful tool for anyone starting out.

Although collimation is an important skill to learn, it shouldn't necessarily be the first thing a newcomer should have to think about. Maybe I was very lucky, but my 'scope came all the way from China needing no initial adjustment in order to get me started and enjoy pretty tremendous views. It's only with time that I've become used to tweaking things to get the best out of the images I see.

Understandably, now that 'scopes have entered the mass market, there will be some that need an initial setup, but we don't want to put anyone off from what can be a fairly daunting experience at first, even if the subject comes up reassuring frequently!

To be honest, I can count the number of times I've successfully achieved a Star Test on the fingers of one finger and they've had nothing to do with poor collimation. That's where links like this can be confusing in presenting unobtainable images and not explaining that the poor views one is experiencing might also be down to poor seeing conditions.

It's a technical business and can need a gentle patient hand at times.

A sticky would be lovely.

Cheers

[Charic]

If there was a sticky, would anyone ask any questions? There seems to be good advice already available, but if people cant follow that, then they need to ask.

MrQ said "  I LOVE to help out beginners but, in this area, I give up, seemingly wasting my time and getting extremely frustrated on the whole subject" 

Not sure if he`s found his teddy, but there must have been a politer  way of scarring of the newbies?

[CSM]

One point I would make is that too often the advice given here to newbies asking what telescope they should get includes the comment that 'oh and you will need to collimate it' or words to that effect. As Mr Anger said

that doing a collimation is a task more suited to the experienced observer, not the beginner who has just unpacked his/her first scope  and starts messing with important adjustments.

And that is, I think, the nub of what he was trying to say.

[jason.p]

I remember my first encounter with collimation was with my TAL2. Having posted a query here, I had a comprehensive step by step reply with pics from Andy.H which I found invaluable. I realise with the ubiquitous Skywatchers a collimation sticky could be useful, but I doubt if I would have found such help without posting a question here.<br />

<br />

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk<br />

<br />

[bambuko]

If there was a sticky, would anyone ask any questions? ..

and, since when did the sticky prevented newbs from asking the same question again for the umpteenth time again (without first searching the forum?)

:grin: :grin:

ps I am not raging just taking a leak

[Peter Drew]

I think it would be difficult to generate a definitive "sticky" for collimation. There are many different favourite methods and tools used to arrive at the same end and the great diversity of available telescopes these days means that different approaches have to be made. I favour playing down the collimation ogre and just helping those who run into difficulties, the transition from newbie to expert doesn't take long. 

[Moonshane]

I doubt you get tuning advice in the kit when buying a guitar. people just research it and perfect their technique and realise it's not hard in the end. collimation is the same.

[Mr Q]

One point I would make is that too often the advice given here to newbies asking what telescope they should get includes the comment that 'oh and you will need to collimate it' or words to that effect. As Mr Anger said

And that is, I think, the nub of what he was trying to say.

   Thanks. I'm in the process of taking some chill pills and will soon be back to the good old Mr Q.

   It sounds like a good idea but even I have did this - not checking the stickies first and being reminded of it when asking a question.  Seems like stickies are a good idea only if they are used.

   As for the original poster's point of some links being too confusing on the subject, I have not yet found any that didn't seem to technical and easy to understand. But I'm still looking, even against my better judgement...time for another chill pill

[ronin]

My opinion is I cannot see a sticky being a great deal of use.

It would get missed/ignored and most would still ask a question anyway.

Another point I would make is where would it end?

Warthog created the Sticky on Eyepieces. to me there is not that great a number that you need and selection is not difficult. At present that sticky is up to 18 pages where people have added bits and likely different opinions and whatever else.

What Warthog did initially was fine, but what are the other close to 200 posts about or for then?

With Warthogs sticky there are still many posts asking "What eyepiece?", as I say people still ask.

Then comes collimation of what ?

Newtonian - fast or slow, Mak, SCT, Refractor, how many groups in the refractor - 1, 2, 3?

It the collimation sticky follows the eyepiece sticky and gets to 10+ pages I cannot see any beginner reading it, they will just make a new post titled "Collimation Help Wanted". Back to square one.

[Charic]

Even if we had an index, people will still ask questions. You can often read, re-read, and still won't understand what your actually reading. If you re read Mr Q's OP its straight to the point, that's a fact, but maybe alarming to some folk, for its abruptness.

Ted has been recovered safely? and a chill pill or cold beverage is being consumed as we speak. Enjoy your beer Q.

[bingevader]

Yes, but if there was a sticky, you could at least direct people to it first.

And I think you're selling our Noobs short here a little! 

A great number of the posts on Warthogs thread are saying what a great thread it is.

Same for the feed back on Qualia's "What I can expect to see?..." thread.

They might be noobs, they're not all dim wits!

And of course it won't be definitive, neither of the above threads are, but just because it won't cover every single base doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good place to start.

I haven't suggested that people won't stop asking questions, why would they?

There will always be specifics to answer as in the thread you've replied to on collimating a Bird-Jones 'scope Charic.

Cheers

[mashedpotatomountain]

i think too much cloudy weather is getting to people a bit now! it's pretty clear MrQ had an off day and was fed up with us newcomers not taking good advice, and maybe it caused a mild stink but there's no harm done…

i'd just like to say one thing in defence of all us beginners if i may! 

i'm as guilty as any other newcomer of reading up on my subject first and then still feeling the need to ask you guys...i guess it's just comforting to get direct interaction from people who've been there and understand the thing that you don't.

stickies are very handy, i read all of them 3 times a day when i first joined here - but we all still need to ask sometimes...and the best analogy i can think of for why is this -

if textbooks were all people needed to learn by, there would be no need for teachers.

anyway having been cheated by the forecast again, i'm off out for a drink now.

cheers all!

rich

[Charic]

bingevader..........And I think you're selling our Noobs short here a little!  Thats not my intention, I`m a noob too!

How many times has someone asked you to read and then sign. What are you signing for, that you just understood it all, Nah! it takes time for some folk to absorb it whereas others feed on it. I only ever sign to say Ive read it, not understood it, so I still ask questions   

This is what forums are all about, good banter, good advice.

[bingevader]

This is what forums are all about, good banter, good advice.

It's what this forum is all about, for sure!

Cheers

[umadog]

Some of them need updating, which I'll do soon, but there's a link collection here: http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~raac/collimationLinks.shtml

I believe almost all collimation-related questions are addressed in the above links. So if you're new to this, I suggest you give them a read first then ask questions on the forum if you're still confused.

[itmo]

maybe we should list stuff that is not normally listed like "how can you spot you need collimation" "what is the most important thing to collimate" "how much will bad/good collimation worsen/improve my image" 

[Moonshane]

   As for the original poster's point of some links being too confusing on the subject, I have not yet found any that didn't seem to technical and easy to understand. But I'm still looking, even against my better judgement...time for another chill pill

I think mine is (although I did write it ) http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/197640-collimation-and-star-hopping/

Mr Q, whilst I don't generally star test, we agree on the first step to good collimation - do nothing until you check it.

[bingevader]

Yes, but this is my point with regards to newbies, and why they then might be coming to the forum to ask questions.

If you use this link, then for me, Jupiter has looked like the bottom, far right picture for the past month on all but one occasion. Let alone the fact that I've never seen a star test resembling any of the pictures in the middle of the page! Surely that's confusing for a newbie?

Cheers

[Tonys]

One point I would make is that too often the advice given here to newbies asking what telescope they should get includes the comment that 'oh and you will need to collimate it' or words to that effect. As Mr Anger said

And that is, I think, the nub of what he was trying to say.

One point I would make is that too often the advice given here to newbies asking what telescope they should get includes the comment that 'oh and you will need to collimate it' or words to that effect. As Mr Anger said

And that is, I think, the nub of what he was trying to say.

One thing for me is that newcomers often don't know what performance to expect from their newtonians and that if the collimation is out on delivery they may just put it down to the rubbish performance of their scope and give up on star gazing because they can't afford anything supposedly better eg like an expensive sct. My Skyliner arrived with the focuser way out of alignment but I had previous experience with my Tal and knew what to look for.

[ardbeg74]

As someone who had to sort out their secondary on 2nd light with their first scope ( thanks SW for not tightening the spider vanes - not being sarcastic - im grateful ) i'd say that  collimation is something you just have practice until you "get it". And lets face it, you dont need to be 100% accurate with it first time either. Not like your scope stops working if you get it 90% there.

So for me it was a necessity from night 2, but i'd already researched it and bought a cheshire AT THE SAME TIME as my scope, so i had everything that i needed EXCEPT the experience of actually doing it. That took the rest of the viewing session, but it wasnt a night wasted at all. It was just me getting to know my scope better.

Its not hard but somehow it is portrayed as such or as an "advanced technique" that the beginner should not worry about right away. Yet IMHO its just natural as getting the finder scope aligned with the OTA. And not much harder. 

Perhaps a sticky would be of use, one that was locked and just contained some links to some "approved" collimation guides. Its not going to stop the questions, nor should it, but it will allow people to be pointed in the right direction. .. "read these and let me know if you get stuck".

IMHO since collimation is part of "reflector life" we should, as a community, have something to say about it. Even if its just "Dont Panic - read this and dont be afraid to ask".

Just my 2p.

Mark

[itmo]

Collimation is so fun and easy i do it all the time 

[Mr Q]

Even if we had an index, people will still ask questions. You can often read, re-read, and still won't understand what your actually reading. If you re read Mr Q's OP its straight to the point, that's a fact, but maybe alarming to some folk, for its abruptness.

Ted has been recovered safely? and a chill pill or cold beverage is being consumed as we speak. Enjoy your beer Q.

  Thanks for the support - its posts like yours that are my "chill pills". Since I asked if the thread could be ended, a mod agreed and did so. Well, in the end I did learn something

[ardbeg74]

Collimation is so fun and easy i do it all the time 

And there we have the title of our new collimation sticky.

[Mr Q]

   As to the OP's idea, I find that the most useful stickies for the beginner as well as experienced members of any forum  are listed links (approved by an experienced mod) with a few words describing each link or groups of links with similar subject matter.

   Going through stickies made up of countless posts are not only useless for quick referencing but a wast of one's time. These formats need to be more aimed at document-type refference material, like forum use stickies are posted for forum rules. Otherwise, this type of sticky is just another long thread.

[Paul73]

A Yes Vote For The Sticky - Write it, pin it, lock it! Couldn't be easier.

I suggested the sticky in the last thread because, as a newbie, I viewed them as required reading prior to posting a question (together with a quick search prior to starting anew thread). They do get a lot of reads.

I found them to be very very helpful. I have to admit to adding to the long list of replies on some - Mostly to thank the author for taking the time and the effort to put them together.

Like the idea of the series of "Described" links.

Paul