FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  
reflecting telescopes. They thought that the image of a small circle cannot be distinct, cannot be sharp at the edges, unless the pencil of rays coming from the object in nearly parallel lines, and which enters the eye after having passed through the eye-piece, be sufficiently broad. This being once granted, the inference followed, that an image ceases to be well defined, when it does not strike at least two of the nervous filaments of the retina with which that organ is supposed to be overspread. These gratuitous circumstances, grafted on each other, vanished in presence of Herschel's observations. After having put himself on his guard against the effects of diffraction, that is to say, against the scattering that light undergoes when it passes the terminal angles of bodies, the illustrious astronomer proved, in 1786, that objects can be seen well defined by means of pencils of light whose diameter does not equal five tenths of a millimetre. Herschel looked on the almost unanimous opinion of the double lens eye-piece being preferable to the single lens eye-piece, as a very injurious prejudice in science. For experience proved to him, notwithstanding all theoretic deductions, that with equal magnifying powers, in reflecting telescopes at least (and this restriction is of some consequence), the images were brighter and better defined with single than with double eye-pieces. On one occasion, this latter eye-piece would not show him the bands of Saturn, whilst by the aid of a single lens they were perfectly visible. Herschel said: "The double eye-piece must be left to amateurs and to those who, for some particular object, require a large field of vision." (_Philosophical Transactions, 1782, pages 94 and 95._) It is not only relative to the comparative merit of single or double eye-pieces that Herschel differs from the general opinions of opticians; he thinks, moreover, that he has proved by decisive experiments, that concave eye-pieces (like that used by Galileo) surpass the convex eye-piece by a great deal, both as regards clearness and definition. Herschel assigns the date of 1776 to the experiments which he made to decide this question. (_Philosophical Transactions_, year 1815, p. 297.) Plano-concave and double concave lenses produced similar effects. In what did these lenses differ from the double convex lenses? In one particular only: the latter received the rays reflected by the large mirror of the telescope, a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
double
 

Herschel

 

single

 

lenses

 

concave

 

defined

 

proved

 

pieces

 

convex

 
Transactions

Philosophical

 

effects

 

experiments

 

telescopes

 

reflecting

 

object

 

perfectly

 
visible
 
require
 
similar

amateurs

 

reflected

 

occasion

 

mirror

 

telescope

 

brighter

 

received

 

whilst

 
differ
 

Saturn


Galileo
 
images
 

decisive

 
decide
 
surpass
 
definition
 

clearness

 

assigns

 
thinks
 
question

produced
 

relative

 

opinions

 
opticians
 
general
 

differs

 

comparative

 

vision

 

unanimous

 

nervous