I Artificial Stars for testing telescopes: the final answer?

I feel the need to make sure my Dobsonian scope is working at its best. I was considering a conventional (?) red LED collimator but I suddenly begin to see these Artificial Stars on sale. Would that be a better way to go? Anyone have experience of them? Looking at real stars tells me that the collimation is not too bad but it could be better. Which should I go for?

 

This link tells you all you need to know about the principles. They don't need to be particularly expensive but there are some very pricy ones (of course).
My problem would be how to do any adjustment at one end of a 1m Dobs whilst looking at the eyepiece at the other end. Using a laser collimator could be more straightforward, I think. (I found a movie with two geezers using one and it looked a doddle.)

Thanks for the reply. I think they must be a recent addition to the market place.
If I go for a laser option then the choice is quite wide but Amazon etc. reviews are varied on all of them. I never know how seriously to take some of the comments you can read on Amazon, though. Some people are so inept and a lot of poor reviews are largely the result of klutzes trying to use fancy equipment.

 

Well, you see, I am a keen new boy to this topic and I am reading everything I can find. The first ad I saw was only a few weeks ago.

 

You seem to be more or less describing how the laser collimators on sale are used. They have a laser and 45degree semi silvered mirror in place of the eyepiece and you look at the resulting ring pattern from the light coming back on the two way path. Reviews seem to suggest that some of the cheaper collimators are not reliable and need collimating before you start!
The artificial stars have a small enough source to mimic a star, at a distance of 20m or so (allegedly). When I look at a very unfocussed real star, the pattern looks pretty symmetrical with just a hint of the four lines of the secondary support. That must mean the system is fairly well aligned, I guess.

 

On a very flimsy basis, perhaps. I was just looking at the symmetry of the pattern and comparing it with the 'bad' examples on various places I found. As the Newtonian telescope is so basic, I assumed that was enough. In fact, I couldn't thin of anything else that could be at issue. If the sub reflector is at near enough the right distance from the primary, I assumed the dominant factor would have to be symmetry. (?)

 

It's a parabolic mirror, which would be better(?).
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, chaps. I'll have to do some looking around the Astronomy forums. I don't hold up much hope though because, unlike PF, they just don't seem to have the 'traffic' and this is a new topic.

 

I understood that coma in parabolic mirrors is less/ eliminated.

A well justified "Huh?", I think. I rushed round. re-reading some bits on Spheres vs paraboloids. Paraboloid eliminates Spherical aberration on axis (hence parabolic reflectors in radio reflectors) but coma is there, off axis. Slower reflector, the less coma - hardly surprising because the angles are less.