But it's farther to be noted, that the most luminous of the Prismatick Colours are the yellow and orange. These affect the Senses more strongly than all the rest together, and next to these in strength are the red and green. The blue compared with these is a faint and dark Colour, and the indigo and violet are much darker and fainter, so that these compared with the stronger Colours are little to be regarded. The Images of Objects are therefore to be placed, not in the Focus of the mean refrangible Rays, which are in the Confine of green and blue, but in the Focus of those Rays which are in the middle of the orange and yellow; there where the Colour is most luminous and fulgent, that is in the brightest yellow, that yellow which inclines more to orange than to green. And by the Refraction of these Rays (whose Sines of Incidence and Refraction in Glass are as 17 and 11) the Refraction of Glass and Crystal for Optical Uses is to be measured. Let us therefore place the Image of the Object in the Focus of these Rays, and all the yellow and orange will fall within a Circle, whose Diameter is about the 250th Part of the Diameter of the Aperture of the Glass. And if you add the brighter half of the red, (that half which is next the orange) and the brighter half of the green, (that half which is next the yellow) about three fifth Parts of the Light of these two Colours will fall within the same Circle, and two fifth Parts will fall without it round about; and that which falls without will be spread through almost as much more space as that which falls within, and so in the gross be almost three times rarer. Of the other half of the red and green, (that is of the deep dark red and willow green) about one quarter will fall within this Circle, and three quarters without, and that which falls without will be spread through about four or five times more space than that which falls within; and so in the gross be rarer, and if compared with the whole Light within it, will be about 25 times rarer than all that taken in the gross; or rather more than 30 or 40 times rarer, because the deep red in the end of the Spectrum of Colours made by a Prism is very thin and rare, and the willow green is something rarer than the orange and yellow. The Light of these Colours therefore being so very much rarer than that within the Circle, will scarce affect the Sense, especially since the deep red and willow green of this Light, are much darker Colours than the rest. And for the same reason the blue and violet being much darker Colours than these, and much more rarified, may be neglected. For the dense and bright Light of the Circle, will obscure the rare and weak Light of these dark Colours round about it, and render them almost insensible. The sensible Image of a lucid Point is therefore scarce broader than a Circle, whose Diameter is the 250th Part of the Diameter of the Aperture of the Object-glass of a good Telescope, or not much broader, if you except a faint and dark misty Light round about it, which a Spectator will scarce regard. And therefore in a Telescope, whose Aperture is four Inches, and Length an hundred Feet, it exceeds not 2´´ 45´´´, or 3´´. And in a Telescope whose Aperture is two Inches, and Length 20 or 30 Feet, it may be 5´´ or 6´´, and scarce above. And this answers well to Experience: For some Astronomers have found the Diameters of the fix'd Stars, in Telescopes of between 20 and 60 Feet in length, to be about 5´´ or 6´´, or at most 8´´ or 10´´ in diameter. But if the Eye-Glass be tincted faintly with the Smoak of a Lamp or Torch, to obscure the Light of the Star, the fainter Light in the Circumference of the Star ceases to be visible, and the Star (if the Glass be sufficiently soiled with Smoak) appears something more like a mathematical Point. And for the same Reason, the enormous Part of the Light in the Circumference of every lucid Point ought to be less discernible in shorter Telescopes than in longer, because the shorter transmit less Light to the Eye.
Now, that the fix'd Stars, by reason of their immense Distance, appear like Points, unless so far as their Light is dilated by Refraction, may appear from hence; that when the Moon passes over them and eclipses them, their Light vanishes, not gradually like that of the Planets, but all at once; and in the end of the Eclipse it returns into Sight all at once, or certainly in less time than the second of a Minute; the Refraction of the Moon's Atmosphere a little protracting the time in which the Light of the Star first vanishes, and afterwards returns into Sight.
Now, if we suppose the sensible Image of a lucid Point, to be even 250 times narrower than the Aperture of the Glass; yet this Image would be still much greater than if it were only from the spherical Figure of the Glass. For were it not for the different Refrangibility of the Rays, its breadth in an 100 Foot Telescope whose aperture is 4 Inches, would be but 961/72000000 parts of an Inch, as is manifest by the foregoing Computation. And therefore in this case the greatest Errors arising from the spherical Figure of the Glass, would be to the greatest sensible Errors arising from the different Refrangibility of the Rays as 961/72000000 to 4/250 at most, that is only as 1 to 1200. And this sufficiently shews that it is not the spherical Figures of Glasses, but the different Refrangibility of the Rays which hinders the perfection of Telescopes.
There is another Argument by which it may appear that the different Refrangibility of Rays, is the true cause of the imperfection of Telescopes. For the Errors of the Rays arising from the spherical Figures of Object-glasses, are as the Cubes of the Apertures of the Object Glasses; and thence to make Telescopes of various Lengths magnify with equal distinctness, the Apertures of the Object-glasses, and the Charges or magnifying Powers ought to be as the Cubes of the square Roots of their lengths; which doth not answer to Experience. But the Errors of the Rays arising from the different Refrangibility, are as the Apertures of the Object-glasses; and thence to make Telescopes of various lengths, magnify with equal distinctness, their Apertures and Charges ought to be as the square Roots of their lengths; and this answers to Experience, as is well known. For Instance, a Telescope of 64 Feet in length, with an Aperture of 2-2/3 Inches, magnifies about 120 times, with as much distinctness as one of a Foot in length, with 1/3 of an Inch aperture, magnifies 15 times.
Fig. 28.
Now were it not for this different Refrangibility of Rays, Telescopes might be brought to a greater perfection than we have yet describ'd, by composing the Object-glass of two Glasses with Water between them. Let ADFC [in Fig. 28.] represent the Object-glass composed of two Glasses ABED and BEFC, alike convex on the outsides AGD and CHF, and alike concave on the insides BME, BNE, with Water in the concavity BMEN. Let the Sine of Incidence out of Glass into Air be as I to R, and out of Water into Air, as K to R, and by consequence out of Glass into Water, as I to K: and let the Diameter of the Sphere to which the convex sides AGD and CHF are ground be D, and the Diameter of the Sphere to which the concave sides BME and BNE, are ground be to D, as the Cube Root of KK—KI to the Cube Root of RK—RI: and the Refractions on the concave sides of the Glasses, will very much correct the Errors of the Refractions on the convex sides, so far as they arise from the sphericalness of the Figure. And by this means might Telescopes be brought to sufficient perfection, were it not for the different Refrangibility of several sorts of Rays. But by reason of this different Refrangibility, I do not yet see any other means of improving Telescopes by Refractions alone, than that of increasing their lengths, for which end the late Contrivance of Hugenius seems well accommodated. For very long Tubes are cumbersome, and scarce to be readily managed, and by reason of their length are very apt to bend, and shake by bending, so as to cause a continual trembling in the Objects, whereby it becomes difficult to see them distinctly: whereas by his Contrivance the Glasses are readily manageable, and the Object-glass being fix'd upon a strong upright Pole becomes more steady.
Seeing therefore the Improvement of Telescopes of given lengths by Refractions is desperate; I contrived heretofore a Perspective by Reflexion, using instead of an Object-glass a concave Metal. The diameter of the Sphere to which the Metal was ground concave was about 25 English Inches, and by consequence the length of the Instrument about six Inches and a quarter. The Eye-glass was Plano-convex, and the diameter of the Sphere to which the convex side was ground was about 1/5 of an Inch, or a little less, and by consequence it magnified between 30 and 40 times. By another way of measuring I found that it magnified about 35 times. The concave Metal bore an Aperture of an Inch and a third part; but the Aperture was limited not by an opake Circle, covering the Limb of the Metal round about, but by an opake Circle placed between the Eyeglass and the Eye, and perforated in the middle with a little round hole for the Rays to pass through to the Eye. For this Circle by being placed here, stopp'd much of the erroneous Light, which otherwise would have disturbed the Vision. By comparing it with a pretty good Perspective of four Feet in length, made with a concave Eye-glass, I could read at a greater distance with my own Instrument than with the Glass. Yet Objects appeared much darker in it than in the Glass, and that partly because more Light was lost by Reflexion in the Metal, than by Refraction in the Glass, and partly because my Instrument was overcharged. Had it magnified but 30 or 25 times, it would have made the Object appear more brisk and pleasant. Two of these I made about 16 Years ago, and have one of them still by me, by which I can prove the truth of what I write. Yet it is not so good as at the first. For the concave has been divers times tarnished and cleared again, by rubbing it with very soft Leather. When I made these an Artist in London undertook to imitate it; but using another way of polishing them than I did, he fell much short of what I had attained to, as I afterwards understood by discoursing the Under-workman he had employed. The Polish I used was in this manner. I had two round Copper Plates, each six Inches in Diameter, the one convex, the other concave, ground very true to one another. On the convex I ground the Object-Metal or Concave which was to be polish'd, 'till it had taken the Figure of the Convex and was ready for a Polish. Then I pitched over the convex very thinly, by dropping melted Pitch upon it, and warming it to keep the Pitch soft, whilst I ground it with the concave Copper wetted to make it spread eavenly all over the convex. Thus by working it well I made it as thin as a Groat, and after the convex was cold I ground it again to give it as true a Figure as I could. Then I took Putty which I had made very fine by washing it from all its grosser Particles, and laying a little of this upon the Pitch, I ground it upon the Pitch with the concave Copper, till it had done making a Noise; and then upon the Pitch I ground the Object-Metal with a brisk motion, for about two or three Minutes of time, leaning hard upon it. Then I put fresh Putty upon the Pitch, and ground it again till it had done making a noise, and afterwards ground the Object-Metal upon it as before. And this Work I repeated till the Metal was polished, grinding it the last time with all my strength for a good while together, and frequently breathing upon the Pitch, to keep it moist without laying on any more fresh Putty. The Object-Metal was two Inches broad, and about one third part of an Inch thick, to keep it from bending. I had two of these Metals, and when I had polished them both, I tried which was best, and ground the other again, to see if I could make it better than that which I kept. And thus by many Trials I learn'd the way of polishing, till I made those two reflecting Perspectives I spake of above. For this Art of polishing will be better learn'd by repeated Practice than by my Description. Before I ground the Object-Metal on the Pitch, I always ground the Putty on it with the concave Copper, till it had done making a noise, because if the Particles of the Putty were not by this means made to stick fast in the Pitch, they would by rolling up and down grate and fret the Object-Metal and fill it full of little holes.
But because Metal is more difficult to polish than Glass, and is afterwards very apt to be spoiled by tarnishing, and reflects not so much Light as Glass quick-silver'd over does: I would propound to use instead of the Metal, a Glass ground concave on the foreside, and as much convex on the backside, and quick-silver'd over on the convex side. The Glass must be every where of the same thickness exactly. Otherwise it will make Objects look colour'd and indistinct. By such a Glass I tried about five or six Years ago to make a reflecting Telescope of four Feet in length to magnify about 150 times, and I satisfied my self that there wants nothing but a good Artist to bring the Design to perfection. For the Glass being wrought by one of our London Artists after such a manner as they grind Glasses for Telescopes, though it seemed as well wrought as the Object-glasses use to be, yet when it was quick-silver'd, the Reflexion discovered innumerable Inequalities all over the Glass. And by reason of these Inequalities, Objects appeared indistinct in this Instrument. For the Errors of reflected Rays caused by any Inequality of the Glass, are about six times greater than the Errors of refracted Rays caused by the like Inequalities. Yet by this Experiment I satisfied my self that the Reflexion on the concave side of the Glass, which I feared would disturb the Vision, did no sensible prejudice to it, and by consequence that nothing is wanting to perfect these Telescopes, but good Workmen who can grind and polish Glasses truly spherical. An Object-glass of a fourteen Foot Telescope, made by an Artificer at London, I once mended considerably, by grinding it on Pitch with Putty, and leaning very easily on it in the grinding, lest the Putty should scratch it. Whether this way may not do well enough for polishing these reflecting Glasses, I have not yet tried. But he that shall try either this or any other way of polishing which he may think better, may do well to make his Glasses ready for polishing, by grinding them without that Violence, wherewith our London Workmen press their Glasses in grinding. For by such violent pressure, Glasses are apt to bend a little in the grinding, and such bending will certainly spoil their Figure. To recommend therefore the consideration of these reflecting Glasses to such Artists as are curious in figuring Glasses, I shall describe this optical Instrument in the following Proposition.