First, read this:  Collimating a Newt    It will explain everything you need to know about collimating a newt.  In addition, this site has a wonderfully complete explanation of collimation and collimation techniques.  This site is so complete as to make my site redundant.  But I didn't find it until today, so I'll leave my stuff here as well.


As with most new telescope owners, I was very intimidated by collimation when I received my XT4.5.  That carried on well into the early days of my XT10.  I read and read and re-read everything I could find on the internet.  But every time I put that darn peep hole eyepiece in the focuser (the one Orion provides), I just got lost in all the reflections. 


The thing that cleared everything up for me was the document that Gene Baraff has on the Skyquest group.  I must have read 20 different documents on how to collimate a newtonian reflector and still didn't get it.  But for some reason, as I read through Gene's document, it all clicked.  I'm not sure if I was already on the cusp of enlightenment and just needed any sort of nudge, but Gene's description just made sense to me.  You can read a copy of his document here


From that point on, it was just a matter of fine tuning my technique.  It was no longer acceptable to be close, collimation had to be perfect.  It was at this point that I figured out the inherent inaccuracies of each method of collimation.  Mind you, I had not learned how to do a proper star test to check collimation, so I did not know if my collimation technique was actually inaccurate.  I just assumed it must be because I could not get repeatable results with my laser.  The Cheshire was a viable option, but I couldn't use it at night and that's kinda when I needed it the most.


Over the past year, I have had a chance to use several different methods of collimating my newtonian telescopes.  I will try to list the goods and others for each type.  First, here is a list of methods I have tried:


1.  Collimation Cap: this is the little round cap with a hole in it.

2.  Orion Cheshire/sight tube

3.  Orion Lasermate

4.  EZ Telescope 1.25" Laser (just like the Orion Deluxe Lasermate)

5.  Barlowed laser technique

6.  Catseye cheshire and auto collimator

7.  Star collimation (you should always do this)


All of these methods will work to some degree of accuracy or another.  My favorites are the barlowed laser and the Catseye cheshire/autocollimator.  These have proven to be the most repeatable and are very, very accurate.


Regardless of the methods chosen, the article listed above covers all the aspects that are involved.  You can pick a different method of accomplishing all of these elements, but they all must be done.






This is the little round cap that comes with most Orion reflectors.  Here's a picture of one.



Its purpose is to provide a good reference for you to use when collimating your telescope.  If you just look down the focuser without the collimating cap, it's hard to tell where to put your eyeball.  This little cap keeps your eye close to the center and makes alignment easier. 



The most complete collimating device ever invented.



The article I have referenced several times uses a combination sight tube / cheshire to illustrate how to collimate a reflector.  It really is the only tool I have used that can do every step that collimation requires.  I'll let you refer to the article for all the gucci pictures and most excellent explantion of how and why it works.  Suffice to say it can do everything and more that the fancy lasers and such do. 


The drawback that keeps me from using this as my only method of collimation is that I cannot use it at night.  You need some sort of light shining in the little 45 deg mirror to make it work.  You can do this at night by shining a flashlight into it, but that's not for me.  This is the same reason I don't use the Catseye method at night.  First time I drop that flashlight down the tube onto my mirror will be a horrifying moment indeed.  No flashlights for me.  For night time collimation, I use the laser and barlowed laser method.


A bit more on the sight tube.


The sight tube part is just that.  Without the cheshire, a sight tube is simply a hollow tube with a cap on the end that has a tiny hole in it.  This is the tool required to center the secondary under the focuser.  The sight tube should have a ratio of length to diameter close to the focal ratio of your telescope.  For instance, a sight tube for an f/5 telescope should be 5 times longer than it is around.  This makes it easier to align the secondary under the focuser.  If you use a sight tube that is too short, the secondary will look a lot smaller than the hole in the bottom of the sight tube.  If you use a sight tube that is too long, you won't be able to see the edges of the secondary.



You can rack the sight tube in and out a bit to get the right spacing around the secondary.




I am not a big fan of a straight laser type collimation.  Either a regular laser or the EZTelescope or Orion Deluxe lasermate lasers.  Both suffer from the same weakness.  They rely on the accurate and repeatable placement of laser in the focuser every time in order to be useful.  You also need to collimate the laser, which might be hard or not so hard.  As an engineer, it gives me the willies to see that I can effect the accuracy of my alignment by just lightly touching the laser in the focuser.  I abandoned this method long ago.


I still use the straight laser to align the secondary after dark.  This is not the most accurate, but good enough for after dark alignment.




The barlowed laser method takes out all of the variables mentioned above.  Here is a most excellent description of Barlowed Laser Collimation.


Gene posted a message on the Skyquest group  about this new method of collimating a newtonian reflector with a barlowed laser.  As with all things related to tinkering, it immediately piqued my interest.  I had the laser, I had a barlow, all I needed was a target and I would be set.  So, I made a MEBLSPTT [mebblespit] (Most Excellent Barlowed Laser Spot Target Thingy).  You can read about my advanced construction techniques for the MEBLSPTT (and follow on NIDPMEBLSPTT) MEBLSPTT.


I am a big fan of the barlowed laser method, but it does not collimate the entire optical train.  It only adjusts the tilt of the primary.  But it does that very, very well.


For me, this is the defacto method for aligning the primary at night.  As accurate as any other tool I have used.  For aligning the secondary at night, I use the straight laser method.






A star test is required as a verification of whatever method you use.  That means a star test for collimation.  The best site I have found that explains how to star collimate is here.  If the collimation method you use proves accurate via a star test, then you should stick with that.  One word of caution: a precise star collimation check must be done in the best of seeing conditions.  Simply defocusing on a star and evaluating the concentricity of the diffraction rings is good enough to get in the ballpark, but won't tell you if you're gnat's ass on.  That requires an in focus star with a steady airy disc and that requires very good seeing.  Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by those apparently perfect out of focus diffraction rings.  They are not precise enough to get that final tweak for perfection. 




So, really, how important is collimation?  In my experience with my XT10, it is critical.  With a slower f/6 or f/8 telescope, it is still critical, you just don't have to be as accurate as with the f/4.7 XT10.  I can say for certain that 1/30th of a turn on one of the collimation knobs will mean the difference between seeing 4 craterletes in Plato and 9 craterletes.  It could make the difference in spying the Enke division in Saturn's rings.  More often than not, though, poor seeing will mask any errors that may exist in your collimation.  If the seeing is bad, you might not see any craterletes in Plato or even the Cassini division in Saturn's rings no matter how accurately you are collimated.  But why miss an opportunity to see such detail because of something you have complete control over?