Yet, More on Collimation (1 Viewer)

[Omid]

That's a nice idea Peter. It would be also nice if Bill could explain for us how three-axis collimation is achieved. Based on his explanation, this guarantees that the two telescopes' optical axes are parallels at all IPD values. This is only possible if each telescope's optical axis is parallel with the mechanical axis of the central hinge. So, how is this achieved? Should the manufacture align each barrel's optics with the central hinge separately?

What's the CORRECT process for achieving perfect parallelism?

-Omid

 

[wllmspd]

Bills book(a) is/are a good place to start.

Peter

 

[WJC]

Bills book(a) is/are a good place to start.

Peter

191115

Omid and Peter:

“Perfect collimation” or parallelism exists only between the ears of those who are clueless about such matters, and due to changes in temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure, it is always in flux. A big deal? No. But something that should be thought about—like all the “vintage” binos for sale on eBay that are anything but.

I gave 18 pages to Collimation V. Conditional Alignment in my first bino book and 68 to it in the second: I get my hand slapped if I mentioned names ... sigh! So, I don’t think I have kept it a secret. Both bino books are available on Amazon.com.

While sharing my frustration concerning all the unadulterated crap on the Internet concerning the difference with a professor at UA’s College of Optical Sciences (a fellow with a PhD in precision optics and another PhD in Ophthalmology), he said, “So?”

I said, “Think about it, John.”

The phone went silent for a while. The next words I heard were,

“Oh ... OH ... OH MY!”

Shortly after that, I was invited to give a lecture at the 2012 SPIE Conference in San Diego. I was under a time crunch to get ready for the conference but it was covered in the Oct 2012 Proceedings, although BOTH my books do a better job.

I have made it clear—repeatedly—that in many cases CoAl may be all one needs to make a binocular serviceable. I have also repeatedly stated a warning, in that SOME people can READ much faster than they can REASON.

I have performed many CoALs for customers who didn’t want to pay for the time it would take for the “full-meal-deal.” [commercial fishermen can sometimes squeeze an eagle off a quarter.] However, at NO TIME did I call it the procedure “collimation.”

A Beetle is a car but not a Rolls; A SPAD is an airplane but not an F-35; a wolf is canine but not a dog; a king cobra is a snake but not a garter snake. And only to the unaware, immature, ultracrepidarian is Conditional Alignment ... “Collimation”—myriad Internet offerings notwithstanding.

Bino forums are replete with people who complain about chromatic aberration, field curvature, astigmatism, and other Seidel aberrations, though there is not a bloody thing that they can do about them except dig further into their pockets.

Three-axis collimation is a simple process that can be done as easily as the many Internet gurus claim, IF they have the right setup, understand the correct principles, and realize there are several collimation conventions used in various binoculars, not just one.

Ciao ... or as we say in the South ... vittles. :cat:

Bill

 

[Patudo]

Patudo:

There was NO retraction: nor was a retraction warranted!

Right... so after all that back-pedalling and bluster, we're back to your earlier assertions then - "I’m losing the warm fuzzies about today’s technicians even at the major optical firms knowing the in and outs of the operation", "If people who have a real handle on binocular collimation are “probably long gone,” who’s running the railroad?" and other such gems?

 

[Patudo]

Would be entertaining to bring a number of bins along for an afternoon with a collimator, measure the degree of alignment and see how we get on. Old stuff, new stuff, Porro, roof... get some stats. Drop some, remeasure, see how robust they are....

PEter

Mate, you won't get too many volunteers for that kind of treatment! Even if someone with the necessarily skills was in attendance to put things right ... the only way a binocular of mine is going to be dropped is after it's been wrestled from my cold dead hands!

And for what it's worth, I think it'd be great if WJC's treatises inspired folks to learn what's required to collimate binoculars properly, build their own setups, etc. It'll give myself and, most probably, the great majority of those who use binoculars, more options when (or if) problems with collimation arise. Breaking into 40-year old porros and sealed modern roofs is, and will remain, firmly in the category of things I can't do a bloody thing about other than reach for my pocket.

 

[WJC]

Right... so after all that back-pedalling and bluster, we're back to your earlier assertions then - "I’m losing the warm fuzzies about today’s technicians even at the major optical firms knowing the in and outs of the operation", "If people who have a real handle on binocular collimation are “probably long gone,” who’s running the railroad?" and other such gems?

191115

Hi, Patudo:

I think it has been a long time since I’ve seen anyone so bent on a fight ... which I won’t oblige. One of the bad things about most of these forums is that you never know if you speaking to an inexperienced 13-year old, an over-experienced 90-year old, or someone in between with cranial challenges.

At any rate, I will address your concerns—hopefully for the last time. Being a 10th generation American, I would have thought my English good enough that previous comments would have been sufficient.

— Those who have paid attention know WHY the “bluster” and know I have NOT been, as you say “back-pedaling” — not then; not now; not ever.

— The Big Three are NOT the only “Major Optical Firms.” Why don’t you write a letter to Kevin Busorow, owner of Oberwerk and ask him just how long he had been in the binocular business claiming he “didn’t need a collimator” because he could “eyeball collimation to 100 power.” Ask him about the two video tapes he produced (for sale) in which he claimed “conditional alignment” was a “myth.” Then, ask him what friends, Bill and Cory, tried so long to teach him before it got any traction. Kevin was a friend then; he is a friend, now. I stopped by to see him in Dayton last June, but he was on the road. Finally, ask him how he likes the Mk5 collimator he NOW has which, for so long he claimed he didn’t need, all the while claiming his binoculars were all “perfectly collimated.” Do you think he understood spatial accommodation before Bill came along?

[The point immediately above is one I would have preferred to keep to myself—at least as far as specific names and companies are concerned—But I think the size and importance of the company in question are relevant. That is just ONE of several pieces of information to which I’m privy that would drive my point home like a sledgehammer.]

— Your “probably long gone” comment didn’t originate with me. It came from a U.S. representative of Zeiss. You remember Zeiss, they’re the folks who came up with the Porro prism (capital “P” for Porro) binocular in 1894. If anyone I knew is still there—Senior Chief Opticalman Warren Nuckols retired years ago and has since passed on—you might contact Zeiss in the US and ask them WHY my shop was the first name on the list of their recommended shops for out of warranty Zeiss repair and restoration. I couldn’t find that letter. But I did find one from a customer that came as a result of it. If you want his number, I have it—though I did the work 30 years ago. “Bluster” creates good customers, AS LONG AS YOU CAN BACK IT UP.

Every word I said was true:

Seize upon the truth, wherever it’s found
On Christian, or on heathen ground
From our friends, from our foes
Neglect the prickle and assume the rose ...
Rev. Isaac Watts, Knickerbocker magazine, N.Y., N.Y. Oct 1836

I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulder by Ed Huff and others (friends all) for flaunting my credentials—oh, how unprofessional. But sometimes, especially on bino forums, it takes megatons just to get some attention. However, if It will make you think and bring this foolishness to an end, I’ll be up for it.

Attached you will find an endorsement from Michael O’Gara who sent his binoculars all the way across the country for restoration and collimation when several of the biggest names on the East Coast danced around the issue.

The next letter came from one of the University of Chicago’s optical engineers working at Yerkes Observatory. The 24-inch Cassegrain telescope of the CARA project went through my computer before it was ready to go to Antarctica in 1993.

Finally, you have been so vociferous lately, quoting things and making assumptions that were never said OR intended, I have offered a bit of information concerning my time in the optics craft as a technician, engineer, optician, and salesperson. Of course, for legal reasons, that list is truncated. In order to substantiate your comments and concerns, I offer you the opportunity to state, as I have, YOUR credentials and experience in the field. I think boldly stating the grounds from which you have repeatedly tried to belittle me with your aggressive claims would be enlightening for all of us. I’m prepared to be impressed. :cat:

“The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.”— Friedrich Nietzche

Please, no more.

 

[Patudo]

When one holds oneself out as the possessor of such profound industry experience and knowledge as you do (which you're perfectly entitled to do, of course), one shouldn't be surprised if your proclamations attract some scrutiny - or that some of said scrutiny is communicated in a manner that corresponds to the internet persona you've cultivated.

The Big Three are NOT the only “Major Optical Firms.” Why don’t you write a letter to Kevin Busorow, owner of Oberwerk...

Nice try. But your references in your post #1 and post #37 to the "Big Three", and in your post #5 to Swarovski and Zeiss (yes, originator of the porro prism binocular, as you so magnanimously point out) specifically, followed by asking for pictures of Zeiss and Leica factory collimators and instructions as to their use, make it pretty clear that it's those companies that are squarely in your sights. And your proclamation in your post #7 (in response to being informed that the details you requested were confidential) that "But then, I had nothing to hide. ‘Makes one think, doesn’t it?" is an obvious attempt to invite your readership to think that those same companies had something to hide.

Your “probably long gone” comment didn’t originate with me. It came from a U.S. representative of Zeiss.

You conveniently forget that the section that immediately follows “probably long gone,” - "who’s running the railroad?" came not from Zeiss, but from you. Another faux naif piece of speculation, suggesting that said company has no one with "a real handle on binocular collimation" "running the railroad".

I am the one who first contracted with Zeiss and was #1 on their list for out-of-warranty repairs and restoration. That bino in post #15 was sent to me on recommendations from Zeiss and Senior Chief Opticalman, Warren Nuckols—Zeiss USA repair manager—was a colleague. I am the one who first contracted with Leica. I am the one who increased Captain’s Swarovski sales by around 80%, earning the crystal Habicht from the company.

Well, bully for you. Now, since that's so, how is it that with all that industry cred, all you've got to go on in relation to how binoculars are currently collimated at Swarovski is "a photo of Gail Fisher (repair manager, now retired) at the collimator of Swarovski Optik USA"? That you're asking around on an internet talking shop for pictures and manuals of Zeiss and Leica factory collimators, when surely S, L, and Z could hardly deny a person of your stature (crystal Habicht, etc) the info you request?

“At the time I left Captain’s in 2008, all collimation jobs returning from the European giants were well within tolerance as checked by me either with the Mk 5 or the Fujinon U.B.M.M.”

Do you have a problem with that declaration?

Certainly not (although it's instructive that you made no mention of it till deep down into the thread). But I do have a question: Between 2008 and now, how many binoculars from the European giants have you worked on or looked at in a professional capacity? And how many/what percentage of these were sufficiently out of collimation to justify your suspicions over "who's running the railroad"?

I'm quite happy to note that I have never opened up a binocular, nor do I doubt your expertise in collimating or otherwise servicing binoculars. What you implied in your posts 1, 5 and 7 in this thread, however, needs no technical expertise to understand - and I'm glad that "the idea that the Big Three might be taking shortcuts based on hammered sales or new scientific data regarding spatial accommodation in the collimation process, has been taken off the table" (in your own words). Unless, of course, it hasn't been taken off the table, in which case I really don't know whether said idea is egregious (if honestly believed), or disingenuous.

 

[Canip]

Are you guys collimating at each other?

Are you at all aware of the origin of the word „collimation“?

Quoting the online Merriam-Webster:
„One might expect a science-y word like collimate to have a straightforward etymology, but that's not the case. Collimate comes from Latin collimare, a misreading of the Latin word collineare .......... The erroneous collimare appeared in some editions of the works of ancient Roman statesman Cicero and scholar Aulus Gellius. The error was propagated by later writers-most notably by astronomers, such as Johannes Kepler, who wrote in Latin. And so it was the spelling collimate, rather than collineate, that passed into English in the 19th century.“

My Latin dictionary translates the term „collineare“ in two ways:

1. to aim (e.g. a spear) straight at something
2. to hit, to strike.

So is that what you guys are doing?

Canip

 

[LPT]

Are you guys collimating at each other?

Are you at all aware of the origin of the word „collimation“?

Quoting the online Merriam-Webster:
„One might expect a science-y word like collimate to have a straightforward etymology, but that's not the case. Collimate comes from Latin collimare, a misreading of the Latin word collineare .......... The erroneous collimare appeared in some editions of the works of ancient Roman statesman Cicero and scholar Aulus Gellius. The error was propagated by later writers-most notably by astronomers, such as Johannes Kepler, who wrote in Latin. And so it was the spelling collimate, rather than collineate, that passed into English in the 19th century.“

My Latin dictionary translates the term „collineare“ in two ways:

1. to aim (e.g. a spear) straight at something
2. to hit, to strike.

So is that what you guys are doing?

Canip

The interaction between these individuals cannot be described as collimated. Although there appear to be some points of agreement (alignment) along their opinion axes (albeit few), they do not agree across all points on the opinion axis so, therefore, they can at best be described as in conditional alignment NOT TRUE COLLIMATION.

 

[Binastro]

I think out of alignment and out of collimation is more accurate.

Like quite a few of my binoculars, which I have no intention of correcting or getting corrected, at this late stage.

One thing I am interested in, is whether top end binoculars have really good well centred out of focus star images when properly collimated. In both tubes.
Or does the collimation process in these top end binoculars, slightly throw one or both tube out of focus star images, out of central good star images.

I think that if the axle is not truly parallel with both tubes, then some non centrality of the out of focus star images is inevitable in one or both tubes.

B.

 

[henry link]

Yep. That's what happens even in high end binoculars. Usually neither side is exactly centered and each is off in a different direction, one side worse than the other.

It's what causes the "truncated exit pupils" in Allbinos reviews, but there's no point in the assigning it a grade since it's different in every specimen.

 

[Canip]

LPT and Binastro:

:t:

 

[cdmackay]

Please forgive me, as a beginner, but is the implication of the last few posts that the sometimes-suggested method of checking for (rough) alignment is unreliable?

i.e by turning the eyepiece adjuster all the way, using the central focuser to focus the other tube, and then seeing if the focussed star is centred in the out-of-focus image from the other tube?


And, on a related note, what do people suggest as the most reliable, simple, rough method of determining whether your binocular tubes are not too badly out of alignment? I'm aware of several methods, but never feel like I'm getting a reliable answer.

 

[Binastro]

Hi cdm,

Not an exact answer, but it depends firstly on an individual's IPD.

A binocular may seem in good alignment to one person, but may be a bit off for somebody else.

One way is to see if there is eye strain, either immediately or in extended use.

But here again, the problem may be a person's eye.
Perhaps a slight squint.

In my experience, new top end binoculars are in good alignment when bought new, unless heavily dropped or banged.
Cheap binoculars can have between 10% and 70% out of alignment problems.
Nikon Aculon about 10%.
Cheap Chinese up to 70%. What does one expect for £15 retail new. Prisms, lenses etc.
Cheap Chinese megazoom tiny binoculars up to 98% out of alignment at top magnification.

Usually top end binoculars have almost centred out of focus star images in each barrel.

Charity shop binoculars perhaps 70% or 80% out of alignment, plus a host of other problems.

Make sure ones eyes are rested before judging a binocular.

Regards,
B.

 

[WJC]

Please forgive me, as a beginner, but is the implication of the last few posts that the sometimes-suggested method of checking for (rough) alignment is unreliable?

i.e by turning the eyepiece adjuster all the way, using the central focuser to focus the other tube, and then seeing if the focussed star is centred in the out-of-focus image from the other tube?


And, on a related note, what do people suggest as the most reliable, simple, rough method of determining whether your binocular tubes are not too badly out of alignment? I'm aware of several methods, but never feel like I'm getting a reliable answer.

As mentioned in post 43, there are optical PhDs who don’t understand what 3-axis collimation is and is not. Having been trained by the mover and shaker who developed correct principles during the early stages of the Second World War—the US Navy—and after more than 12,000 happy binocular repair and collimation customers in the civilian world, I think I have a pretty good handle on it.

Neither Cicero nor Quasimodo (‘lil humor) had a scientific assessment of what collimation was to telescope optics let alone binocular optics—which is quite different. And no dictionary has a handle on it. That's why I have been fighting this madness like a fire. While following the BS on the Internet, one can take his binocular even further out of alignment and in some cases damage it. I have been away from the bench for years; I'm just trying to help others. I don't have a horse in this race.

I think the attached will answer your question, as 100% of the verbiage currently on the Internet relates to Conditional Alignment and not clinical Collimation. :cat:

Bill

 

[Pileatus]

As mentioned in post 43, there are optical PhDs who don’t understand what 3-axis collimation is and is not. Having been trained by the mover and shaker who developed correct principles during the early stages of the Second World War—the US Navy—and after more than 12,000 happy binocular repair and collimation customers in the civilian world, I think I have a pretty good handle on it.

Neither Cicero nor Quasimodo (‘lil humor) had a scientific assessment of what collimation was to telescope optics let alone binocular optics—which is quite different. And no dictionary has a handle on it. That's why I have been fighting this madness like a fire. While following the BS on the Internet, one can take his binocular even further out of alignment and in some cases damage it. I have been away from the bench for years; I'm just trying to help others. I don't have a horse in this race.

I think the attached will answer your question, as 100% of the verbiage currently on the Internet relates to Conditional Alignment and not clinical Collimation. :cat:

Bill

Here's a nice article on the subject...maybe you've seen it before.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d=1416079597&usg=AOvVaw0iFLoJsEdDEqjVHi3SET2r

 

[WJC]

Here's a nice article on the subject...maybe you've seen it before.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d=1416079597&usg=AOvVaw0iFLoJsEdDEqjVHi3SET2r

Hi, Pileatus:

I haven’t been promoting this article because while it is correct in most ways, I succumbed to the advice of an advanced optical “authority”—against my better judgement—but since he had an advanced degree, I felt obliged to pay attention. This kind of thing is why I have grown so resolute in saying, “Some experts ... AREN’T.”

His logic was that I “Spent too much time concentrating on binoculars used for amateur astronomy when MOST binocular are used to birding, hunting, and nature observing, where targets are much closer.” Consequently, he felt I should move the lines of sight tapering closer to each other.” The GREEN lines on page three made him happy.

In reality, it was an embarrassment to me. But, I did make the expert, who was helping me, happy. While I get into trouble for being a know-it-all, the sad truth is that most Optical PhDs never think of such things, as pointed out in post 43, because their world rarely touches of such an elementary subjects. In the REAL world, however, the result has a large detrimental effect, as pointed out with the graphics in post #55. :cat: