Chapter V: On Reflecting Telescopes (2)

Fig. 70 represents a front, or rather an oblique view of the instrument, in which the position of the speculum may be seen. All the specula which I fitted up in this form, having been originally intended for Gregorian reflectors, have holes in their centres. The eye-piece is therefore directed to a point nearly equi-distant from the hole to the left hand edge of the speculum, that is, to the point _a_. In one of these instruments fitted up with a four feet speculum, the line of vision is directed to the point _b_ on the opposite side of the speculum, but, in this case, the eye-tube is removed farther from the arm, than in the former case. The hole in the centre of the speculum is obviously a defect in this construction of a reflecting telescope, as it prevents us from obtaining the full advantage of the rays which fall near the centre of the mirror; yet the performance of the instruments, even with this disadvantage, is superior to what we should previously have been led to expect.

The principal nicety in the construction of this instrument, consists in the adjustment and proper direction of the eye-tube. There is only one position in which vision will be perfectly distinct. It must be neither too high nor too low,--it must be fixed at a certain distance from the arm,--and must be directed to a certain point of the speculum. This position must be ultimately determined by experiment, when viewing terrestrial objects. A person unacquainted with this construction of the telescope, would, perhaps, find it difficult, in the first instance, to make this adjustment; but were it at any time deranged, through accident or otherwise, I can easily make the adjustment anew, in the course of a minute or two.

In pointing this telescope to the object intended to be viewed, the eye is applied at K, fig, 69, and looking along the arm, towards the eye-piece, till it nearly coincide with the object, it will, in most cases, be readily found. In this way I can easily point this instrument to Jupiter or Saturn, or to any of the other planets, visible to the naked eye, even when a power of 160 or 170 times is applied. When high magnifying powers, however, are used, it may be expedient to fix, on the upper part of the short tube in which the speculum rests, a Finder, such as that which is used in Newtonian telescopes. When the moon is the object intended to be viewed, she may be instantly found by moving the instrument till her reflected image be seen from the eye-end of the telescope on the face of the mirror.

I have fitted up several instruments of the above description with specula of 16, 27, 35, and 49 inches focal distance. One of these having a speculum of 27 inches focal length, and an astronomical eye-piece, producing a magnifying power of about 90 times, serves as a good astronomical telescope. By this instrument the belts and satellites of Jupiter, the ring of Saturn, and the mountains and cavities of the moon, may be contemplated with great ease and distinctness. With a magnifying power of 35 or 40 times, terrestrial objects appear remarkably bright and well-defined. When compared with a Gregorian, the quantity of light upon the object appears nearly doubled, and the image is equally distinct--although the speculum has several blemishes, and its surface is but imperfectly polished. It represents objects in their natural colours, without that dingy and yellowish tinge which appears when looking through a Gregorian. Another of these instruments is about four feet long. The speculum which belongs to it is a very old one: when it came into my possession, it was so completely tarnished, as scarcely to reflect a ray of light. After it was cleaned, it appeared to be scarcely half polished, and its surface is covered with yellowish stains which cannot be erased. Were it fitted up upon the Gregorian plan, it would, I presume, be of very little use, unless when a very small magnifying power was applied. Yet, in its present form, it bears, with distinctness, a magnifying power of 130 times, and is equal in its performance to a 3-1/2 feet achromatic. It exhibits distinct and interesting views of the diversities of shade, and of the mountains, vales, cavities, and other inequalities of the moon’s surface. With a power of about 50 times, and a terrestrial eye-piece, it forms an excellent telescope for land objects, and exhibits them in a brilliant and novel aspect. The smallest instrument I have attempted to construct on this plan, is only 5-1/2 inches focal distance, and 1-3/4 inch diameter. With a magnifying power of about 15 times, it shows terrestrial objects with distinctness and brilliancy. But I should deem it inexpedient to fit up any instrument of this description with specula of a shorter focal distance than 20 or 24 inches. The longer the focal distance the more distinctness may be expected, although the aperture of the speculum should be comparatively small.

The following are some of the properties and advantages peculiar to this construction of the reflecting telescope.

1. It is _extremely simple_, and may be fitted up at a comparatively _small expense_. Instead of large and expensive brass tubes, such as are used in the Gregorian and Newtonian construction, little more is required than a short mahogany tube, two or three inches long, to serve as a socket for the speculum, with an arm connected with it about the focal length of the speculum. The expense of small specula, either plain or concave, is saved, together with the numerous screws, springs, &c., for centering the two specula, and placing the small mirror parallel to the large one. The only adjustment requisite in this construction, is that of the eye-tube to the speculum; and, by means of the simple apparatus above described, it can be effected in the course of a few minutes. Almost the whole expense of the instrument consists in the price of the speculum and the eye-pieces. The expense of fitting up the four feet speculum, alluded to above--_exclusive of speculum and eye-piece_--but including mahogany tube and arm, brass sockets, screws, eye-tube, brass joint, and a cast-iron stand painted and varnished, did not amount to £1 : 8_s_. A Gregorian of the same size would have required a brass tube at least 4-1/2 feet in length, which would cost 5 or 6 guineas, besides the apparatus connected with the small speculum, and the additional expense connected with the fitting up of the joint and stand requisite for supporting and steadying so unwieldy an instrument. While the one instrument would require two persons to carry it from one room to another, and would occupy a considerable space in an ordinary apartment, the other can be moved, with the utmost ease, with one hand, to any moderate distance, and the space it occupies is extremely small.

2. _It is more convenient for viewing celestial objects at a high altitude, than other telescopes._ When we look through a Gregorian reflector or an achromatic telescope of 4 or 5 feet in length, to an object elevated 50 or 60 degrees above the horizon, the body requires to be placed in an uneasy and distorted position, and the eye is somewhat strained, while the observation is continued. But when viewing similar objects by the _Aerial Reflector_, we can either stand perfectly erect, or sit on a chair, with the same ease as we sit at a desk when reading a book or writing a letter. In this way, the surface of the moon or any of the planets, may be contemplated for an hour or two, without the least weariness or fatigue. A delineation of the lunar surface may be taken with this instrument with more ease and accuracy than with any other instrument, as the observer can sketch the outline of the object by one eye on a tablet placed a little below the eye-piece, while the other eye is looking at the object. For the purpose of accommodating the instrument to a sitting or standing posture a small table was constructed, capable of being elevated or depressed at pleasure, on which the stand of the telescope is placed. When the telescope is 4 or 5 feet long, and the object at a very high elevation, the instrument may be placed on the floor of the apartment, and the observer will stand in an erect position.

3. This instrument is considerably _shorter_ than a Gregorian telescope whose mirror is of the same focal length. When an astronomical eye-piece is used, the whole length of the instrument is nothing more than the focal length of the speculum. But a Gregorian whose large speculum is 4 feet focus, will be nearly 5 feet in length, including the eye-piece.

4. The Aerial Reflector far excels the Gregorian in brightness. The deficiency of light in the Gregorians is owing to the second reflection from the small mirror; for it has been proved by experiment that nearly the one half of the rays of light which fall upon a reflecting surface is lost by a second reflection. The image of the object may also be presumed to be more correct, as it is not liable to any distortion by being reflected from another speculum.

5. There is _less tremor_ in these telescopes than in Gregorian Reflectors. One cause, among others, of the tremors complained of in Gregorians is, I presume, the formation of a second image at a great distance from the first, besides that which arises from the elastic tremor of the small speculum, when carried by an arm supported only at one end. But as the image formed by the speculum in the aerial telescope is viewed _directly_, without being exposed to any subsequent reflection, it is not so liable to the tremors which are so frequently experienced in other reflectors. Notwithstanding the length of the arm of the 4 feet telescope above mentioned, a celestial object appears remarkably steady, when passing across the field of view, especially when it is at a moderate degree of altitude; and it is easily kept in the field by a gentle motion applied to the arm of the instrument.

In prosecuting my experiments in relation to these instruments, I wished to ascertain what effect might be produced by using a _part of a speculum_ instead of the whole. For this purpose, I cut a speculum, three feet in focal length, through the centre, so as to divide it into two equal parts, and fitted up each part as a distinct telescope; so that I obtained two telescopes from one speculum. In this case I found that each half of the speculum performed nearly as well as the whole speculum had done before, at least there appeared to be _no very sensible_ diminution in the _brightness_ of the object, when viewed with a moderate power, and the image was equally accurate and distinct; so that if _economy_ were a particular object aimed at in the construction of these instruments, two good telescopes might be obtained from one speculum; or if a speculum happened to be broken accidentally into large fragments, one or more of the fragments might be fitted up on this principle to serve as a tolerably good telescope.

From the experiments I have made in reference to these instruments, it is demonstrable, that _a tube is not necessary_ in the construction of a reflecting telescope--at least on the principle now stated--whether it be used by day or by night for terrestrial or celestial objects; for I have frequently used these telescopes in the open air in the day time, without any inconvenience from extraneous light. Therefore, were a reflecting telescope of 50 or 60 feet in length to be constructed, it might be fitted up at a comparatively small expence, after the expense of the metallic substances, and of casting, grinding, and polishing the speculum is defrayed. The largest instrument of this description which has hitherto been constructed is the 40 feet reflector of Sir W. Herschel. This complicated and most unwieldy instrument had a tube of rolled or sheet iron 39 feet 4 inches in length, about 15 feet in circumference, and weighed about 8000 pounds. Now, I conceive that such enormous tubes, in instruments of such dimensions, are altogether unnecessary. Nothing more is requisite than a short tube for holding the speculum. Connected with one side of this tube (or with both sides were it found necessary), two strong bars of wood, projecting a few feet beyond the speculum end, and extending in front as far as the focal length of the mirror, and connected by cross bars of wood, iron or brass--would be quite sufficient for a support to the eye-piece, and for directing the motion of the instrument. A telescope of 40 or 50 feet in length, constructed on this plan, would not require one fifth of the expense, nor one fourth of the apparatus and mechanical power for moving it to any required position, which were found necessary in the construction of Sir W. Herschel’s large reflecting telescope. The idea here suggested will perhaps be more readily appreciated by an inspection of fig. 71, where A is the short tube, BC and DE the two large bars or arms, connected with cross bars, for the purpose of securing strength and steadiness. At I and K, behind the speculum, weights might be applied, if necessary, for counterbalancing the lever power of the long arm. F represents the position of the eye-piece, and GH the joint and part of the pedestal on which the instrument is placed. With regard to telescopes of smaller dimensions, as from 5 to 15 feet in focal length--with the exception of the expense of the specula and eye-pieces--they might be fitted up for a sum not greater than from 3 to 10 or 15 guineas.

Were any person to attempt the construction of those telescopes, it is possible he might not succeed in his first attempts without more minute directions than I have yet given. The following directions may perhaps tend to guide the experimenter in adjusting the eye-tube to the speculum, which is a point that requires to be particularly attended to, and on which depends the accurate performance of the instrument. After having fixed the eye-piece nearly in the position it should occupy, and directed the instrument to a particular object, look along the arm of the telescope, from K (fig. 69.) to the extremity of the eye-piece at H, and observe, whether it nearly coincides with the object. If the object appear lower than this line of vision, the eye-piece must be lowered, and if higher, it must be raised, by means of the nuts and screws at _gd_ and _fe_, till the object and the line of vision now stated nearly coincide. The eye-piece should be directed as nearly perpendicular to the front of the speculum as possible, but so that the reflected image of one’s head from the mirror shall not interfere to obstruct the rays from the object. An object may be seen with an approximate degree of distinctness, but not accurately, unless this adjustment be pretty accurately made. The astronomical eye-pieces used for these telescopes are fitted with a brass cap which slides on the end next the eye, and is capable of being brought nearer to or farther from the first eye-glass. In the centre of this cap, next the eye, is a small hole, about the 1/40th or 1/50th of an inch diameter, or about as wide as to admit the point of a pin or a moderate-sized needle. The distance of this hole from the lens next the eye must be adjusted by trial, till the whole field of view appear distinct. A common astronomical eye-piece, without this addition, does not answer well. I find by experience, that terrestrial eye-pieces, such as those used in good achromatic telescopes, are, on the whole, best adapted to this construction of a reflecting telescope.

I have sometimes used these instruments for the purpose of viewing perspective prints, which they exhibit in a beautiful and interesting manner. If a coloured perspective be placed at one end of a large room or gallery, and strongly illuminated either by the sun or by two candles, and one of the reflectors furnished with a _small magnifying power_, placed at the opposite end of the room--the representation of a street or a landscape will be seen in its true perspective, and will appear even more pleasant and interesting than when viewed through the common _optical diagonal machine_. If an inverting eye-piece be used--which is most eligible in this experiment--the print, of course, must be placed in an inverted position.

That reflecting telescopes of the descriptions now stated are original in their construction, appears from the uniform language of optical writers, some of whom have pronounced such attempts to be altogether impracticable. Sir David Brewster, one of the latest and most respectable writers on this subject, in the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopedia’ art _optics_, and in the last edition of his _appendix_ to ‘Ferguson’s Lectures,’ has the following remarks:--‘If we could dispense with the use of the small specula in telescopes of moderate length, by inclining the great speculum, and using an oblique, and consequently a _distorted_ reflection, as proposed first by La Maire, we should consider the Newtonian telescope as perfect; and on a large scale, or when the instrument exceeds 20 feet, it has undoubtedly this character, as nothing can be more simple than to magnify, by a single eye-glass, the image formed by a single speculum. As the _front view is quite impracticable_, and indeed _has never been attempted_ in instruments of a small size, it becomes of great practicable consequence to remove as much as possible, the evils which arise from the use of a small speculum,’ &c.

The instruments now described have effectuated, in some degree, the desirable object alluded to by this distinguished philosopher, and the mode of construction is neither that of Sir W. Herschel’s front view, nor does it coincide with that proposed by La Maire, which appears to have been a mere hint that was never realized in the construction of reflecting telescopes of a small size. The simplicity of the construction of these instruments, and the excellence of their performance, have been much admired by several scientific gentlemen and others to whom they have been exhibited. Prior to the description of them in the Edin. Philos. Journal, they were exhibited in the Calton Hill Observatory, Edinburgh, in the presence of Professor Wallace, and another gentleman, who compared their performance with that of an excellent Gregorian. As this instrument is distinguished from every other telescope, in being used without a tube, it has been denominated ‘_The aerial reflector_.’

SECT. 4.--EARL OF ROSSE’S REFLECTING TELESCOPES.

This nobleman, unlike many of his compeers, has, for a considerable number of years past, devoted his attention to the pursuits of science, and particularly to the improvement of reflecting telescopes. He is evidently possessed of high mathematical attainments, combined with an uncommon degree of mechanical ingenuity. About 14 or 15 years ago, he engaged in various experiments with the view of counteracting the effects of the spherical aberration of the specula of reflecting telescopes--which imperfection, if it could be completely remedied, would render the reflecting telescope almost a perfect instrument, as it is not affected by the different refrangibility of the rays of light. His method, we believe, consisted in forming a large speculum of two or three separate pieces of metal, which were afterwards accurately combined into one--a central part which was surrounded by one or two rings ground on the same tool. When the images formed by the separate pieces, were made exactly to coincide, the image of the object towards which the whole speculum was directed, was then found to be as distinct as either image had been when separate. But at the period referred to, a sufficient number of experiments had not been made to determine that his lordship had completely accomplished the object he intended.

Great interest, however, has of late been excited by the improvements which his lordship has made in the formation of specula. Sir W. Herschel never made public the means by which he succeeded in giving such gigantic developement to the reflecting telescope: and therefore the construction of a _large_ reflector has been considered as a perilous adventure. But, according to a report of Dr. Robinson of Armagh, to the Irish academy, the Earl of Rosse has overcome the difficulties which have hitherto been met with, and carried to an extent which even Herschel himself did not venture to contemplate, the illuminating power of this telescope, along with a sharpness of definition little inferior to that of the achromatic; and it is scarcely possible, he observes, to preserve the necessary sobriety of language in speaking of the moon’s appearance with this instrument, which Dr. Robinson believes to be the most powerful ever constructed. The difficulty of constructing large specula, and of imparting to them the requisite degree of polish, has hitherto been considered so great, that from 8 to 12 inches diameter has been in general their utmost size. Indeed, except with the greatest reluctance, London opticians would not accept of orders for specula of more than 9 inches in diameter. It appears, however, that the Earl of Rosse has succeeded, by a peculiar method of moulding, in casting object-mirrors of true _speculum metal of three feet in diameter, and of a weight exceeding 17 cwt_. He is about to construct a telescope, the speculum of which is _six feet_ in diameter, _fifty feet focal distance_, and of the weight of _four tons_; and from what he has already accomplished, it is not doubted that he possesses the power to carry his design into effect. These great masses of metal, which, in the hands of all other makers of specula would have been as untractable as so much unannealed flint-glass, the Earl of Rosse has further succeeded in bringing to the highest degree of polish, and the utmost perfection of curvature by means of machinery. The process is conducted under water, by which means those variations of temperature, so fatal to the finest specula hitherto attempted, are effectually guarded against. To convince Dr. Robinson of the efficacy of this machinery, the earl took the three feet speculum out of its telescope, destroyed its polished surface, and placed it under the mechanical polisher. In six hours it was taken out with a perfect new surface as bright as the original. Under the old system of hand-polishing, it might have required months, and even years, to effect this restoration. Even before achieving these extraordinary triumphs on the solid substance, his lordship had constructed a six feet reflector by covering a curved surface of brass with squares of the true _speculum metal_, which gave an immense quantity of light, though subject to some irregularities, arising from the number of joinings necessary in such a mosaic work. Of the performance of his lordship’s great telescope, mounted with this reflector, those who have seen it speak in terms of high admiration; but in reference to the smaller and more perfect instrument, furnished with the solid three feet speculum, the language of the Armagh astronomer assumes a tone of enthusiasm and even of sublimity. By means of this exquisite instrument, Dr. Robinson and Sir J. South, in the intervals of a rather unfavourable night, saw several new stars, and corrected numerous errors of other observers. For example, the planet Uranus, supposed to possess a ring similar to that of Saturn, was found not to have any such appendage; and those nebulæ, hitherto regarded, from their apparently circular outline, as ‘coalescing systems,’ appeared, when tested by the three feet speculum, to be very far indeed from presenting a globular appearance; numerous off-shoots and appendages, invisible by other telescopes, appearing in all directions radiating from their edges. Such discoveries, which reflect great honour on the Earl of Rosse, will doubtless have great effect on the interests of astronomical science.[27]

SECT. 5.--REFLECTING TELESCOPES WITH GLASS SPECULA.

After making a variety of experiments with aerial telescopes constructed of metallic specula of different focal lengths, I constructed a telescope on the same plan, with a concave glass mirror. Having obtained a fragment of a very large convex mirror which happened accidentally to have been broken, I caused the convex side to be foliated, or silverised, and found its focal length to be about 27 inches. This mirror, which was about 5 inches diameter, I placed in one of the aerial reflectors, instead of the metallic speculum, and tried its effects with different terrestrial eye-pieces. With a power of about 35 or 40 times, it gave a beautiful and splendid view of distant terrestrial objects--the quantity of light reflected from them, being considerably greater than when a metallic speculum was used, and they appeared on the whole well-defined. The only imperfection--as I had foreseen--consisted in a double image being formed of objects which were remarkably bright and white, such as a light-house whitened on the outside, and strongly illuminated by the sun. One of the images was bright and the other faint. This was obviously owing to the two reflections from the two surfaces of the mirror--one from the convex silverised side, and the other from the concave side next the eye, which produced the faint image--which circumstance has been generally considered as a sufficient reason for rejecting the use of glass specula in telescopes. But although very bright objects exhibited a double image, almost all the other objects in the terrestrial landscape appeared quite distinct and without any secondary image, so that a common observer could scarcely have noticed any imperfection. When the instrument, however, was directed to celestial objects, the secondary image was somewhat vivid, so that every object appeared double. Jupiter appeared with two bodies, at a little distance from each other, and his four satellites appeared increased to eight. The moon likewise appeared as a double orb, but the principal image was distinct and well-defined. Such a telescope, therefore, was not well-adapted for celestial observations, but might answer well enough for viewing terrestrial objects.

Considering that the injurious effects of the secondary image arose from the images reflected from the two surfaces being formed near the same point, and at nearly the same focal distance, I formed a plan for destroying the secondary image, or at least counteracting its effects, by forming the concavity of the mirror next the eye of a portion of a sphere _different_ from that of the convex side which was silverised, and from which the principal image is formed. But, for a long time, I could find no opticians possessed of tools of a sufficient length of radii for accomplishing my design. At length a London working optician undertook to finish a glass speculum, according to my directions, which were, that the convex surface of the mirror should be ground on a tool which would produce a focal distance by reflection of about 4 feet; and that the concave surface should have its focal distance at about 3 feet 3 inches, so that the secondary image might be formed at about 9 inches, within the focal distance of the silverised side, and not interfere to disturb the principal image. But, either from ignorance or inattention, the artist mistook the radius for the half radius of concavity, and the speculum turned out to be only 23 inches focal distance by reflection. This mirror was fitted up as a telescope, on the aerial plan, and I found, as I expected, the secondary image completely destroyed. It produced a very beautiful and brilliant view of land objects, and even the brightest objects exhibited no double image. The mirror was nearly 5 inches in diameter, but the image was most accurately defined when the aperture was contracted to about 3 inches. It was fitted with a terrestrial eye-piece which produced a magnifying power of about 25 times. When directed to the moon, it gave a very distinct and luminous view of that orb, without the least appearance of a secondary image. But as the focal distance of the speculum was scarcely half the length I had prescribed, I did not apply to it any high astronomical powers; as I find, that these can only be applied with effect, in this construction, to a speculum of a considerable focal length. Happening to have at hand a convex lens 10 feet focal length, and 4 inches in diameter--the one side of which had been ground to a certain degree of concavity--I caused the convex side to be foliated, which produced a focus by reflection, at 13-1/2 inches distant. To this mirror I applied terrestrial powers of 15 and 24, with considerable distinctness. The power of 15 produced a very brilliant and distinct view of land objects. Had the mirror been at least 3 times the focal length, it would have formed an excellent telescope, with the same aperture.

SECT. 6.--A REFLECTING TELESCOPE, WITH A SINGLE MIRROR AND NO EYE-PIECE.

On the same principle as that by which a refracting telescope may be constructed by means of a single lens--as represented fig. 51, (page 234) we may form a telescope by reflection with a single mirror, and without an eye-piece. Let AB, fig. 72, represent a large concave speculum, and C its focus--if an eye be placed at D, about 8 or 10 inches within the focal point C, all the objects in the direction of C, or behind the spectator, will be seen magnified by reflection on the face of the mirror, and strongly illuminated. The magnifying power, in this case, will be nearly in the proportion of the focal length of the mirror to the focal length of the eye for near objects. If for example, the focal distance of the mirror be 8 feet, and the distance from the eye at which we see near objects most distinctly, be 8 inches--the magnifying power will be in the ratio of 8 to 96, or 12 times. I have a glass mirror of this description, whose focal length is 4 feet 8 inches, and diameter 6 inches, which magnifies distant objects about 7 times, takes in a large field of view, and exhibits objects with great brilliancy. It presents a very distinct picture of the moon, showing the different streaks of light and shade upon her surface; and, in some cases, shows the larger spots which traverse the solar disc. This mode of viewing objects is extremely easy and pleasant, especially when the mirror is of a large diameter; and the observer is at first struck and gratified with the novel aspect in which the objects appear.

Were a concave mirror of this description--whether of glass or of speculum metal--to be formed to a very long focus, the magnifying power would be considerable. One of 50 feet focal length, and of a corresponding diameter, might produce a magnifying power, to certain eyes, of about 75 times; and, from the quantity of light with which the object would be seen, its effect would be much greater than the same power applied to a common telescope. Sir W. Herschel states, that, on one occasion, by looking with his naked eye on the speculum of his 40 feet Reflector, without the interposition of any lens or mirror, he perceived distinctly one of the satellites of Saturn, which requires the application of a considerable power to be seen by an ordinary telescope. Such an instrument is one of the most simple forms of a telescope, and would exhibit a brilliant and interesting view of the moon, or of terrestrial objects.

PRICES OF REFLECTING TELESCOPES.

1. Prices as stated by Messrs. W. and S. Jones, Holborn, London.

£ s.
A 4 feet, 7 inch aperture Gregorian reflector, with the
vertical motions upon a new invented principle, as well as
apparatus to render the tube more steady for observation,
according to the additional apparatus of small speculums,
eye-pieces, micrometers, &c. from 80_l._ to 120 0

Three feet long, mounted on a plain brass stand 23 2

Ditto with rack-work motions, improved mountings and
metals 39 18

Two feet long without rack-work, and with 4 magnifying
powers, improved 15 15

Ditto improved, with rack-work motions 22 1

Eighteen inch, on a plain stand 9 9

Twelve inch ditto 6 6

2. Prices as stated by Messrs. Tulley, Islington.

£ s.
1 foot Gregorian Reflector, on pillar-and-claw stand, metal
2-1/2 inches diameter, packed in a mahogany box 6 6

1-1/2 foot ditto on pillar and claw stand, metal 3 inches
diameter, packed in a mahogany box 11 11

2 feet ditto, metal 4 inches diameter 16 16

Ditto with rack-work motions 25 4

3 feet ditto, metal 5 inches diameter, rack-work motions 42 0

4 feet ditto, metal 7 inches diameter, on a tripod stand
with centre of gravity motion 105 0

6 feet ditto, metal 9 inches diameter 210 0

7 feet _Newtonian_, 6 inches aperture 105 0

12 feet ditto, metal 12 inches diameter 525 0

3. Prices stated by Mr. G. Dollond, St. Paul’s Church Yard.

£ s.
Reflecting telescopes 14 inches long, in a mahogany box 9 9

Ditto, 18 inches 12 12

Ditto 2 feet 18 18

Ditto with 4 different powers, and rack-work stand
supporting the telescope in the centre of gravity 36 15

Ditto 3 feet, with ditto 50 0

4. Prices of single speculums and reflecting telescopes, as made by Mr. Grub, Charlemont Bridge works, Dublin.

-----------------------------------------+-+----------------------------------------
NEWTONIAN TELESCOPES. | | GREGORIAN REFLECTORS.
--------+---------+----------+-----------+ +--------+---------+----------+----------
Diameter| Focal | Price of | Price of | |Diameter| Focal | Price of | Price of
in | length | Mirrors | telescope | |in | length | Mirrors | telescope
inches. | in feet.| alone. | complete | |inches. | in feet.| alone. | complete
| | | without | | | | | without
| | | stand. | | | | | stand.
--------+---------+----------+-----------+ +--------+---------+----------+----------
| | £ s. | £ s. | | | | £ s. | £ s.
| | | | | 6 | 3 | 17 10 | 25 0
| | | | | | | |
7 | 7 | 17 10 | 27 10 | | 7 | 3 | 25 0 | 34 0
| | | | | | | |
9 | 10 | 25 0 | 40 0 | | 9 | 4-1/2 | 35 0 | 50 0
| | | | | | | |
12 | 12 | 60 0 | 90 0 | | 12 | 7 | 70 0 | 100 0
| | | | | | | |
15 | 15 | 120 0 | 170 0 | | 15 | 9 | 150 0 | 200 0
| | | | | | | |
18 | 18 | 200 0 | 260 0 | | 18 | 12 | 240 0 | 300 0

ON THE EYE-PIECES OF TELESCOPES.

Although the performance of telescopes chiefly depends on the goodness of the object-glass, or the object-speculum of the instrument, yet it is of considerable importance, in order to distinct vision, and to obtain a large and uniformly distinct field of view, that the eye-piece be properly constructed. The different kinds of eye-pieces may be arranged into two general divisions--_Astronomical_ and _terrestrial_.

1. _Astronomical eye-pieces._--The most simple astronomical eye-piece is that which consists of a single convex lens; and when the focal distance of this lens, and that of the object-glass of the instrument is accurately ascertained, the magnifying power may be nicely determined, by dividing the focal length of the object-lens by that of the eye-glass. But, as the pencil of white light transmitted by the object-glass, will be divided by the eye-glass into its component colours, the object will appear bordered with coloured fringes, and the distinctness of vision consequently injured. Besides, the spherical aberration, when a single lens is used, is much greater than when two or more glasses are employed. Hence astronomical eye-pieces are now formed by a combination of at least two lenses.

The combination of lenses now generally used for astronomical purposes, is that which is usually denominated the _Huygenian eye-piece_, having been first proposed by the celebrated Huygens, as a great improvement on the single lens eye-piece. The following figure (73) represents a section of this eye-piece. Let AB be a compounded pencil of white light proceeding from the object-glass; BF a plano-convex field-glass, with its plane side next the eye-glass E. The red rays of the pencil AB, after refraction would cross the axis in R, and the violet rays in V, but meeting the eye-glass E, the red rays will be refracted to O, and the violet nearly in the same direction, when they will cross each other about the point O, in the axis, and unite. The distance of the two glasses FE, to produce this correction, when made of crown glass, must be equal to half the sum of their focal distances nearly. For example, suppose the focal distance of the largest, or field lens, to be 3 inches, and the focal distance of the lens next the eye, 1 inch, the two lenses should be placed exactly at the distance of 2 inches; the sum of their focal length being 4, the half of which is 2. In other words, the glass next the eye should be placed as much _within_ the focus of the field-glass as is equal to its own focal distance. The focal length of a single lens, that has the same magnifying power as this compound eye-piece--is equal to twice the product of the focal lengths of the two lenses, divided by the sum of the same numbers. Or, it is equal to half the focal length of the field-glass. Thus, in reference to the preceding example, twice the product of the focal length of the two lenses--is equal to 6, and their sum is 4. The former number divided by the latter, produces a quotient of 1-1/2, which is the focal length of a single lens, which would produce the same magnifying power as the eye-piece; and 1½ is just half the focal length of the field-glass. The proportion of the focal lengths of the two lenses to each other, according to Huygens, should be as 3 to 1; that is, if the field-glass be 4-1/2 inches, the eye-glass should be 1-1/2; and this is the proportion most generally adopted. But some opticians have recommended that the proportions should be as 3 to 2. Boscovich recommended two similar lenses; and in this case the distance between them was equal to half the sum of their focal distances, as in the Huygenian eye-piece.

The image is formed at IM, at the focal distance of the lens next the eye, and at the same distance from the field-glass. When distinct vision is the principal object of an achromatic telescope, the two lenses are usually both plano-convex, and fixed with their curved faces towards the object glass, as in the figure. Sometimes, however, they consist of what is called _crossed_ lenses, that is lenses ground on one side to a short focus, and on the other side to a pretty long focus, the sides with the deepest curves being turned towards the object glass. A diaphragm, or aperture of a proper diameter, is placed at the focus of the eye lens, where the image formed by the object-glass falls, for the purpose of cutting off the extreme rays of the field lens, and rendering every part of the field of view equally distinct. This is likewise the form of the eye-piece generally applied to Gregorian reflectors. In short, when accurately constructed, it is applicable to telescopes of every description. This eye-piece, having the image viewed, by the eye behind the inner lens, is generally called the _negative_ eye-piece, and is that which the optical-instrument makers usually supply, of three or four different sizes, for so many magnifying powers, to be applied to different celestial objects, according to their nature or the state of the atmosphere in which they are used.

_Ramsden’s eye-piece._--There is another modification of lenses, known by the name of the _Positive_, or Ramsden’s eye-piece, which is much used in Transit instruments, and telescopes which are furnished with micrometers, and which affords equally good vision as the other eye-piece. In this construction the lenses are plano-convex, and nearly of the same focus, but are placed at a distance from each other less than the focal distance of the glass next the eye, so that the image of the object viewed is beyond both the lenses, when measuring from the eye. The flat faces of the two lenses are turned into contrary directions in this eye-piece--one facing the object-glass, and the other the eye of the observer; and as the image formed at the focus of the object-glass, lies parallel to the flat face of the contiguous lens, every part of the field of view is distinct at the same adjustment, or, as opticians say, there is a _flat field_, which, without a diaphragm, prevents distortion of the object. This eye-piece is represented in fig. 74, where AB and CD are two plano-convex lenses, with their convex sides inwards. They have nearly the same focal length, and are placed at a distance from each other, equal to about two thirds of the focal length of either. The focal length of an equivalent single lens is equal to three fourths the focal length of either lens, supposing them to have equal focal distances. This eye-piece is generally applied, when wires of spider’s lines are used in the common focus; as the piece containing the lenses can be taken out without disturbing the lines, and is adjustable for distinct vision; and whatever may be the measure of any object given by the wire micrometer, at the solar focus, it is not altered by a change of the magnifying power, when a second eye-piece of this construction is substituted.

_Aberration of lenses._--In connection with the above descriptions, the following statements respecting the spherical aberration of lenses may not be inappropriate. Mr. John Dollond, in a letter to Mr. Short, remarks, that ‘the aberration in a single lens is as the cube of the refracted angle; but if the refraction be caused by two lenses, the sum of the cubes of each half will be 1/4 of the refracted angle, twice the cube of 1 being 1/4 the cube of 2. So three times the cube of 1 is only _one ninth_ of the cube of 3.’ &c. Hence the indistinctness of the borders of the field of view of a telescope is diminished by increasing the number of lenses in an eye piece. Sir J. Herschel has shown that if two plano-convex lenses are put together as in fig. 75, the aberration will be only 0.2481, or _one fourth_ of that of a single lens in its best form. The focal length of the first of these lenses, must be to that of the second as 1 to 2.3. If their focal lengths are equal, the aberration will be 0.603, or nearly one half. The spherical aberration, however, may be _entirely_ destroyed by combining a meniscus and double convex lens, as shown in fig. 76, the convex sides being turned to the eye when they are used as lenses, and to parallel rays, when they are used as burning glasses. Sir J. Herschel has computed the following curvatures for such lenses.

_Focal length of the convex lens_ +10.000
Radius of its first surface +5.833
Radius of its second surface -35.000
_Focal length of the meniscus_ +17.829
Radius of its first surface +3.688
Radius of its second surface +6.294
Focal length of the compound lens +6.407

On the general principles above stated, a good astronomical eye-piece may be easily constructed with two proper lenses, either according to the plan of Huygens or that of Ramsden; and, from what has been now stated it is demonstrably certain, that, in all cases where two glasses are properly combined, such an eye-piece is superior to a single lens, both in point of distinctness, and of the enlargement of the field of view. I lately fitted up an eye-piece, on Ramsden’s principle, with two lenses, each about 3 inches focal length, and 1-3/8 inch diameter, placed at half an inch distant, with their convex surfaces facing each other as in fig. 74, which forms an excellent eye-piece for an achromatic telescope, 6 feet 8 inches focal distance, and 4 inches aperture, particularly for viewing clusters of stars, the Milky Way, and the large nebulæ. The field of view is large, the magnifying power is only between 50 and 60 times, and the quantity of light being so great, every celestial object appears with great brilliancy, and it is in general much preferable, when applied to the stars than any of the higher powers. When applied to _Presepe_ in Cancer, it exhibits that group at one view, as consisting of nearly a 100 stars which exhibit a beautiful and most striking appearance.

It may appear a curious circumstance that any eye-piece which is good with a short telescope, is also good with a long one, but that the reverse is not true; for it is found to be more difficult to make a good eye-piece for a short than for a long focal distance of the object-glass.

Celestial eye-pieces are sometimes constructed so as to produce _variable powers_. This is effected by giving a motion to the lens next the eye, so as to remove it nearer to or farther from the field lens; for at every different distance at which it is placed from the other lens, the magnifying power will either be increased or diminished. The greatest power is when the two lenses are nearly in contact, and the power diminishes in proportion to the distance at which the glass next the eye is removed from the other. The scale of distance, however, between the two lenses, cannot be greater than the focal distance of the field, or inner glass; for if it were, the lenses would no longer form an eye-piece, but would be changed into an inverting opera-glass. For effecting the purpose now stated, the eye-glass is fixed in a tube which slides upon an interior tube on which is marked a scale of distances, corresponding to certain magnifying powers; and, in this way an eye-piece may be made to magnify about double the number of times, when the lenses are in one position than when they are in another--as, for example, all the powers from 36 to 72 times may be thus applied, merely by regulating the distance between the two lenses. When the glasses are varied in this manner the eye-piece becomes sometimes a _positive_ eye-piece, like Ramsden’s, and sometimes a negative one like that of Huygens.

_Diagonal eye-pieces._ The eye-pieces to which we have now adverted, when adapted to refracting telescopes, both reverse and invert the object, and therefore are not calculated for showing terrestrial objects in their natural position. But as the heavenly bodies are of a spherical form, this circumstance detracts nothing from their utility. When the celestial object, however, is at a high altitude, the observer is obliged to place his head in a very inconvenient position, and to direct his eye nearly upwards; in which position he cannot remain long at ease, or observe with a steady eye. To remedy this inconvenience, the diagonal eye-piece has been invented, which admits of the eye being applied at the side--or at the upper part of the eye-piece, instead of the end; and when such an eye-piece is used, it is of no importance in what direction the telescope is elevated, as the observer can then either sit or stand erect, and look down upon the object with the utmost ease. This object is effected by placing a flat piece of polished speculum-metal at an angle of 45 degrees in respect to the two lenses of the eye-piece, which alters the direction of the converging rays, and forms an image which becomes erect with respect to altitude, but is reversed with respect to azimuth;--that is, in other words, when we look down upon the objects in the field of view, they appear erect; but that part of an object which is in reality on our right hand appears on our left; and if it be in motion, its _apparent_ is opposite to its _real_ motion; if it be moving towards the west, it will seem to move towards the east.

There are three situations in which the diagonal reflector in this eye-piece may be placed. It may be placed either 1. before the eye-piece,--or 2. behind it,--or 3. between the two lenses of which the eye-piece consists. The most common position of the reflector is between the lenses; and this may be done both in the negative and the positive eye-pieces; but as the distance between the two lenses is necessarily considerable, to make room for the diagonal position of the reflector, the magnifying power cannot be great; otherwise, a diagonal eye-piece of this construction remains always in adjustment, and is useful in all cases where a high power is not required. The following is a description and representation of a diagonal eye-piece of this kind in my possession.

In fig. 77, AB represents the plano-convex lens next the object, which is about 2 inches in focal length, and 3/4 inch in diameter; CD, a plain metallic speculum of an oval form, well polished, and placed at half a right angle to the axis of the tube; and EF another plano-convex lens, about 1-1/2 inch focal distance. The centre of the speculum is about 1-1/4 inch from the lens AB, and about 1/2 or 1/3 inch from EF; so that this eye-piece is a _positive_ one, on the principle proposed by Ramsden. The rays proceeding from the lens AB, and falling upon the speculum, are reflected in a perpendicular direction to the lens EF, where they enter the eye at G, which looks down upon the object through the side of the tube. The real size of this eye-piece is much about the same as that represented in the figure. When applied to an achromatic telescope of 44-1/2 inches focal distance it produces a magnifying power of 36 times, and exhibits a very beautiful view of the whole of the full moon. It likewise presents a very pleasing prospect of terrestrial objects, which appear as if situated immediately below us.

Another plan of the diagonal eye-piece is represented in fig. 78, where the speculum is fixed _within_ the sliding tube which receives the eye-piece, or immediately below it. The part of the tube at AB slides into the tube of the telescope, CD is the speculum placed at half a right angle to the axis of the tube, and EF, the tube containing the lenses, which stands at right angles to the position of the telescope, and slides into an exterior tube, and the eye is applied at G. This construction of the diagonal eye-piece may be used with any eye-piece whatever, whether the Huygenian or that of Ramsden. It will admit of any magnifying power, and if several different eye-pieces be fitted to the sliding tube, they may be changed at pleasure. This form of the diagonal eye-piece, I therefore consider as the best and the most convenient construction, although it is not commonly adopted by opticians.

When any of these eye-pieces are applied to a telescope, with the lens E on the upper part of it, we look down upon the object, if it be a terrestrial one, as if it were under our feet. If we turn the eye-piece round in its socket a quarter of a circle towards the left, an object directly before us in the south, will appear as if it were in the _west_ and turned upside down. If, from this position, it is turned round a semicircle towards the right, and the eye applied, the same object will appear as if it were situated in the east, and inverted; and if it be turned round another quadrant, till it be directly opposite to its first position, and the eye applied from below, the object or landscape will appear as if suspended in the atmosphere above us. This eye-piece, therefore, is capable of exhibiting objects in a great variety of aspects, and the use of it is both pleasant and easy for the observer. But there is a considerable loss of light, occasioned by the reflection from the speculum, which is sensibly felt when very high powers are applied; and therefore when very small stars are to be observed, such as some of those connected with double or triple stars, the observer should not study his own ease so much as the quantity of light he can retain with a high power, which object is best attained with an ordinary eye-piece and a telescope of large aperture.