Checking collimation at home (1 Viewer)

[WJC]

Hi Bill,



How do you diagnose axle axis misalignment, then? That would seem to be the decisive step, I believe.

Regards,

Henning

That is 100% irrelevant. You view through optical elements NOT containers of those elements or support mechanisms. The axle is supremely important. But one must consider what is and IS NOT important!

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Bill,

That is 100% irrelevant. You view through optical elements NOT containers of those elements or support mechanisms. The axle is supremely important. But one must consider what is and IS NOT important!

So is the correct procedure?

1) Select IPD.
2) Align optical elements optically.
3) Change IPD.
4) Check optical alignment of optical elements.
5) If misaligned, go to step 2).
6) If aligned, collimation is achived.

Regards,

Henning

 

[William Lewis]

I'm kind of wondering where the huge post I had created—complete with 7 pages of text and several photos went.

Hi Bill.

I'm still trying to understand it! I'll give it my best shot.

I get my ctc 30/75 scope, put it on a table or something else that won't move.

Put a small light source 10ft in front of the ocular lens of the scope.

Put my bins on a tripod behind the objective lens of the scope, quite far back I'd assume as it's not got the large (8"?) objective of the collimator, see how many dots I see - if it's 2 it's out?

I'm sure I'm way off mark with that though!

 

[WJC]

Hi Bill.

I'm still trying to understand it! I'll give it my best shot.

I get my ctc 30/75 scope, put it on a table or something else that won't move.

Put a small light source 10ft in front of the ocular lens of the scope.

Put my bins on a tripod behind the objective lens of the scope, quite far back I'd assume as it's not got the large (8"?) objective of the collimator, see how many dots I see - if it's 2 it's out?

I'm sure I'm way off mark with that though!

That is not at all what we are after. I had hoped that I had explained this simple procedure simply enough that I wouldn’t have to print the whole thing. I see it wasn’t so. Thus, here is the whole encha ... anche ... enchi ...... taco. It has been posted before on Birdforum and Cloudy Nights. But I understand that people hate research.

I believe this is the largest treatise on 3-axis collimation in the English language. And since the procedure was conceived by the US Navy between WWI and WWII I don't see how it would have been trumped.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Hauksen]

Hi Bill,

I believe this is the largest treatise on 3-axis collimation in the English language. And since the procedure was conceived by the US Navy between WWI and WWII I don't see how it would have been trumped.

Thanks a lot, now I understand where my mental image of the procedure was erroneous!

Regards,

Henning

 

[WJC]

Hi Bill,



Thanks a lot, now I understand where my mental image of the procedure was erroneous!

Regards,

Henning

You, my friend, are quite welcome!

 

[WJC]

Proper collimation is where all the axes, mechanical and optical are parallel.

Conditional alignment is where the alignment happens to be correct for one IPD, but if the binocular is opened or closed alignment is lost.

No doubt I will be corrected if I have got this wrong.

Although there used to be many technicians able to use a collimator correctly and provide full collimation, in this throwaway society there are very few able to do this properly now.
Some may know how to do it correctly but take short cuts to make their work profitable.

Regards,
B.

If somebody says you’re wrong, tell him I said… Blow it out your shorts!

 

[WJC]

Here is a simple and effective way to do it with items you have around the house. I’ve used this method a number of times.

5 - Nuevos artículos - Collimation of Binoculars with a Lamp, a Mirror and a Screen (recommended)

Method for Collimation of Binoculars Based on Projection of Images of a Lamp after Reflection on a Mirror By Rafael Chamón Cobos Created September 2017 Last update April 2021 (added collimation with 8 screws) Last update July 2023 (added values of misalignment of the binculars under test versus

sites.google.com

The first thing I must say is that I have the utmost respect for Rafael Chamon Cobos. He has shown himself to be the most clever and original person with regards to Collimation and Conditional Alignment circles that I have ever known. He’s a totally dedicated practitioner in a discipline in which most observers don’t even understand ... or—in some cases—want to.

Rafael has created 2 papers on the subject. Yet, neither would I call, “simple and effective,” as Brink has done in post 13. For example: Rafael’s first paper was 31 pages long and depended on a nearly motionless sun and a nearly cloudless sky. I would hardly call that “simple and effective.”

I strongly recommend anyone interested in collimation read Rafael’s work to learn about what is actually to be accomplished by the process.

However, for those who don’t have a lifetime to devote to collimation or who would get tired or board after reading 6 to 8 pages, I still recommend the US Navy’s method using the Mk5 concept. It was those guys who “THUNK IT UP!”

• The collimator is just a telescope used backwards. (see attached)
• The binocular holder is just an adjustable tripod head. (see attached)
• The low-power auxiliary telescope can be bought and modified by amateurs. (see Bruce Davis’, attached.
• And I have presented the COMPLETE instructions in post #44. If the graphics were removed, those instructions would take up a page to a page and a half.

So, do you need your ego pumped, or to you want to collimate binoculars? The choice is yours.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[William Lewis]

The first thing I must say is that I have the utmost respect for Rafael Chamon Cobos. He has shown himself to be the most clever and original person with regards to Collimation and Conditional Alignment circles that I have ever known. He’s a totally dedicated practitioner in a discipline in which most observers don’t even understand ... or—in some cases—want to.

Rafael has created 2 papers on the subject. Yet, neither would I call, “simple and effective,” as Brink has done in post 13. For example: Rafael’s first paper was 31 pages long and depended on a nearly motionless sun and a nearly cloudless sky. I would hardly call that “simple and effective.”

I strongly recommend anyone interested in collimation read Rafael’s work to learn about what is actually to be accomplished by the process.

However, for those who don’t have a lifetime to devote to collimation or who would get tired or board after reading 6 to 8 pages, I still recommend the US Navy’s method using the Mk5 concept. It was those guys who “THUNK IT UP!”

• The collimator is just a telescope used backwards. (see attached)
• The binocular holder is just an adjustable tripod head. (see attached)
• The low-power auxiliary telescope can be bought and modified by amateurs. (see Bruce Davis’, attached.
• And I have presented the COMPLETE instructions in post #44. If the graphics were removed, those instructions would take up a page to a page and a half.

So, do you need your ego pumped, or to you want to collimate binoculars? The choice is yours.

Cheers,

Bill

Hi Bill.

I think quite a few binocular users would just like a quick method to check if a binocular is out of collimation and are happy to leave the actual collimating to the experts like yourself, keep the trade going!

I know to a degree you can check if there ok by the 2 methods I used, both were quite definitive that they were out of collimation but looking up a star was the simplist to see!

So not looking to actually perform collimation - just to see if there aligned what do you think of the methodologies used and is there a better one, just so check if there aligned and no more?

 

[kabsetz]

For a quick check of conditional alignment for your individual IPD, what William explained in his original post is good enough providing the distance to the star/artificial star is long enough. 10 meters would still have enough parallax error to give a faulty result. 300 meters would be enough for sure, infinity would be best. So, a star in the sky or, perhaps more practically, a distant street-light or glitter point of the sun would do. If the "star" is much closer, a bit of math can be done to clear things up.

- Kimmo

 

[Bino Steve]

Even with a star, your eyes can pull the image together and still cause you problems. If you get eye fatigue or headache EVEN if stars look good , send them in or replace. Your eyes are the test. Example: If your car pulls to one side driving you don't need any other test. You take it in for alignment. You don't need to drive it far or get another opinion, it's bad for you. Buy from a company with unconditional lifetime warranty and you'll never have to worry about it.

 

[Brink]

The first thing I must say is that I have the utmost respect for Rafael Chamon Cobos. He has shown himself to be the most clever and original person with regards to Collimation and Conditional Alignment circles that I have ever known. He’s a totally dedicated practitioner in a discipline in which most observers don’t even understand ... or—in some cases—want to.

Rafael has created 2 papers on the subject. Yet, neither would I call, “simple and effective,” as Brink has done in post 13. For example: Rafael’s first paper was 31 pages long and depended on a nearly motionless sun and a nearly cloudless sky. I would hardly call that “simple and effective.”

I strongly recommend anyone interested in collimation read Rafael’s work to learn about what is actually to be accomplished by the process.

However, for those who don’t have a lifetime to devote to collimation or who would get tired or board after reading 6 to 8 pages, I still recommend the US Navy’s method using the Mk5 concept. It was those guys who “THUNK IT UP!”

• The collimator is just a telescope used backwards. (see attached)
• The binocular holder is just an adjustable tripod head. (see attached)
• The low-power auxiliary telescope can be bought and modified by amateurs. (see Bruce Davis’, attached.
• And I have presented the COMPLETE instructions in post #44. If the graphics were removed, those instructions would take up a page to a page and a half.

So, do you need your ego pumped, or to you want to collimate binoculars? The choice is yours.

Cheers,

Bill

The method I linked to requires a mirror, flashlight, and piece of cardboard. The collimation can be accurately checked, indoors, in a few minutes. Correcting misalignment takes longer but Rafael’s paper describes how to do that as well.

 

[WJC]

The method I linked to requires a mirror, flashlight, and piece of cardboard. The collimation can be accurately checked, indoors, in a few minutes. Correcting misalignment takes longer but Rafael’s paper describes how to do that as well.

Hi Brink,

Judging misalignment requires eyes ... only. That is, if the error is great enough or the observer’s spatial accommodation adequate enough.*** Correction of the alignment requires considerably more. If you are willing to spend time following Rafael’s train of thought, it works. My offering in post 48 is FAR, FAR less lengthy and complicated, is FAR easier to perform, requires no sophisticated equipment, is FAR more quantifiable and accurate.

PLEASE don't get me wrong. I support you performing whatever you desire. Collimation is collimation, regardless of the methodology you choose. But just because it is promoted by some self-appointed optician, it does not qualify as “COLLIMATION.” But as I have pointed out MANY times, 100% of the “collimation tips” splattered all over the Internet are ... WRONG! ... and deal only with Conditional Alignment. The real fly in that ointment is that I follow the procedure of the scientists and engineers who created it 87 years ago.

And although I have shared it liberally for almost fifty years, I have rarely presented it without be followed immediately by someone who, almost always knows next to nothing about optics, but seems to have found a way to say: "Ditch that BMW and take a ride on my tricycle." Not always does different mean better. That may be great for getting an ego stroke but it does not raise the bar of understanding.

Finally, for years I have been encouraging observers to come up with a procedure that replaces the MK5 concept—perhaps using a computer monitor and prisms or mirrors—to simplify the process. That, however, has YET to be done. And I feel confident that when it IS done, Rafael will be the man who does it. He is a great practitioner and he knows FAR more about mathematics than me.

I once had a customer whose binoculars presented the image of the van below. (attached) Alignment was severely off in the X and Y axis. When I had the customer look through the bino as I pointed out the discrepancy, she said:

“Well, it looks just fine to me.”

Was she blind, stupid, not wanting to pay for a collimation job, or did she think binoculars were supposed to present an image like those so often seen on TV representing what looking through binoculars is SUPPOSED to be?! (attached) Sadly, I have had many of those in my shop over the 21 years I was at Captain’s.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Brink]

Hi Brink,

Judging misalignment requires eyes ... only. That is, if the error is great enough or the observer’s spatial accommodation adequate enough.*** Correction of the alignment requires considerably more. If you are willing to spend time following Rafael’s train of thought, it works. My offering in post 48 is FAR, FAR less lengthy and complicated, is FAR easier to perform, requires no sophisticated equipment, is FAR more quantifiable and accurate.

It is a given (post 1) that using our eyes to assess misalignment is the first step. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is some desire, from OP and others, to remove the subjectivity of just looking through the binoculars to judge alignment. Your suggestion seems to be to use a collimator bench, building one at home if necessary. It sounds like a neat project, but a not insignificant investment of time and money.

Rafael's methods (another one here: 5 - Nuevos artículos - Collimation of Binoculars with a Lamp and a Screen) don't require much more than a flashlight and dim lighting to objectively assess the alignment of the binoculars. Hmm, I don't think I will be building a periscope attachment for my monocular any time soon...

 

[Maljunulo]

Having struggled through reading that, I found it interesting, but not something I’d ever try.

 

[WJC]

It is a given (post 1) that using our eyes to assess misalignment is the first step. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is some desire, from OP and others, to remove the subjectivity of just looking through the binoculars to judge alignment. Your suggestion seems to be to use a collimator bench, building one at home if necessary. It sounds like a neat project, but a not insignificant investment of time and money.

Rafael's methods (another one here: 5 - Nuevos artículos - Collimation of Binoculars with a Lamp and a Screen) don't require much more than a flashlight and dim lighting to objectively assess the alignment of the binoculars. Hmm, I don't think I will be building a periscope attachment for my monocular any time soon...

Hi Brink,

And thanks for getting back to me without judging me too harshly; that alone is refreshing! Taking subjectivity out of the operation is admirable, but when you get to a certain level of precision, it comes back into play. Many wannabe “experts” ........ aren’t. Too many folks take my credentials and experience as me claiming to be an expert. That seems to be a made up “fact.” In decades of trying to help folks, I don’t think I have ever called MYSELF one! Others have ... but not me. Yet, when you try to straighten the curves of understanding with those self-appointed engineering wannabes, you, by the nature of the beast, collect a few enemies.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” — Victor Hugo, 1845 (quote formerly given to Churchill)

Yes, the collimator IS the way to go if you are making a life of binocular collimation. Yes, it is important to the best, most precise image acquisition. But please understand, there are folks out there using ultra-expensive binoculars who couldn’t (because of their spatial accommodation) notice a discrepancy 3- or four-times greater than Professor Johnson’s greatest tolerance!

Collimation is the only anomaly the amateur observer can do anything about short of buying another binocular. But too many people blow it WAY out of proportion trying to set themselves as the expert as they sarcastically claim me to be.

You speak of me suggesting observers build one. No, no, no! I suggested, the type A personalities use the large bore telescope they probably already have in the closet.

As Richard (Maljunulo) points out:

“Nothing is so simple that it cannot be complicated by someone who doesn’t understand it.”

Finally, I simply bought my auxiliary scope from Cory. I’m living on a very limited budget but did not find the cost prohibitive.

Still, I understand you letting that dog lie.

Thanks again for your courtesy!

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Trinovid]

Having struggled through reading that, I found it interesting, but not something I’d ever try.

I think I was coming to the same conclusion, and after reading your post that about seals it for me too.

 

[Ted Y.]

A brief detour about the collimation, but not at home:

Has someone sent a suspect binocular to be verified by the support? What was the cost? After verification, some measurement document was released to the owner (as for a car wheels alignment)?