No tools collimation will *only* achieve accurate collimation by dumb luck.

The no-tools approach ends with fine collimation using a star test. Any
method which ends with this will be correct, any which does not would rely on
dumb
luck. Understand something before you knock it.

First, my comments didn't knock the no-tools approach, they pointed out its
limitations. The best the no-tools approach will regularly achieve is a rough
collimation that has not adequately addressed the two most overlooked aspects
of Newtonian collimation: focuser alignment and secondary alignment.

For the beginner, a no-tools approach may be a good place to start. It doens't
get too technical and will get a scope in the ball park. But if a person wants
accurate collimation, the no-tools approach is not the way to go. Stephen
Paul's not some wet-behind-the-ears novice. He deserved better than your
off-the-cuff recommendation that he abandon tools for a simplistic approach
that offers no guarantee of improved collimation.

The barlowed-laser technique of aligning the primary is as easy as easy gets
and it's more accurate than the no-tools approach. If you don't believe me, try
it yourself. I have and, in more than 10-years collimating Newtonian
reflectors, the lasered-Barlow techique produces better collimation with less
work than any "no-tools" approach will.

Regards,

Bill Ferris
"Cosmic Voyage: The Online Resource for Amateur Astronomers"
URL: http://www.cosmic-voyage.net
=============
Email: Remove "ic" from .comic above to respond