WJC
Well-known member
Hey Gang,
The following is from a letter I have just sent to some of the MAJOR bino OEMs. If you have definitive information, please share it with me.
****************************
... I am working on my third book on binoculars—the first two of which go beyond the sub-rudimentary tripe so prevalent in print, today—and I need some authoritative information on the dichotomy in thinking concerning binocular collimation, US and Asian vs. European.
During the early days of WWII, the US military—the mover and shaker of which was the Navy—moved from the British Mk I binocular collimation devices and conditional alignment to the 3-axis clinical collimation that, taking the axle into consideration, would allow the binocular to collimated at every position of the IPD. By 1941, the British recognized their Mk I collimator was very limited and determined it to be “obsolete.”
The US experimented with a number of devices to accomplish this. The US Navy used the Mk 5 and the image projecting Mk 13 collimator while the British used the MK II, III, and IV. Much more problematic than the US Navy’s Mk 5, the British collimators were more portable, thus easier to move from one theater of operation to another.
THE PROBLEM
Long after the importance of 3-axis collimation was established, some European repair facilities and independent technicians were still using the conditional alignment techniques of the British Mk I collimator. The images of two such collimators are attached.
I wish to know the thinking behind the resistance to incorporate the more efficient technology.
Was it:
1. A lack of understanding, caring, or resistance to change?
2. A feeling that an observer’s spatial accommodation was a NECESSARY part of the process of collimation and that eyestrain could be (or should be) ignored?
3. A feeling that since the IPD of most adults will fall between 62mm and 69mm deviations for the greatest and least separation of the telescopes were inconsequential and that attaining the more stringent standards needed to serve observers of ALL IPDs were unnecessary.
I have photographs of the CURRENT binocular collimator used by one of Europe’s “Big Three” and, although there are adjustments available, I see no way to take the axle into consideration.
FINALLY
I have attached (if sent via a REAL email address*) two photos of some of the collimators still used in Europe. I would appreciate a tech manual for either device (or both) or the thinking concerning how each was supposed to be used.
The following is from a letter I have just sent to some of the MAJOR bino OEMs. If you have definitive information, please share it with me.
****************************
... I am working on my third book on binoculars—the first two of which go beyond the sub-rudimentary tripe so prevalent in print, today—and I need some authoritative information on the dichotomy in thinking concerning binocular collimation, US and Asian vs. European.
During the early days of WWII, the US military—the mover and shaker of which was the Navy—moved from the British Mk I binocular collimation devices and conditional alignment to the 3-axis clinical collimation that, taking the axle into consideration, would allow the binocular to collimated at every position of the IPD. By 1941, the British recognized their Mk I collimator was very limited and determined it to be “obsolete.”
The US experimented with a number of devices to accomplish this. The US Navy used the Mk 5 and the image projecting Mk 13 collimator while the British used the MK II, III, and IV. Much more problematic than the US Navy’s Mk 5, the British collimators were more portable, thus easier to move from one theater of operation to another.
THE PROBLEM
Long after the importance of 3-axis collimation was established, some European repair facilities and independent technicians were still using the conditional alignment techniques of the British Mk I collimator. The images of two such collimators are attached.
I wish to know the thinking behind the resistance to incorporate the more efficient technology.
Was it:
1. A lack of understanding, caring, or resistance to change?
2. A feeling that an observer’s spatial accommodation was a NECESSARY part of the process of collimation and that eyestrain could be (or should be) ignored?
3. A feeling that since the IPD of most adults will fall between 62mm and 69mm deviations for the greatest and least separation of the telescopes were inconsequential and that attaining the more stringent standards needed to serve observers of ALL IPDs were unnecessary.
I have photographs of the CURRENT binocular collimator used by one of Europe’s “Big Three” and, although there are adjustments available, I see no way to take the axle into consideration.
FINALLY
I have attached (if sent via a REAL email address*) two photos of some of the collimators still used in Europe. I would appreciate a tech manual for either device (or both) or the thinking concerning how each was supposed to be used.