Observer’s Aims.—If the intending observer merely requires a telescope to exhibit glimpses of the wonders which he has seen portrayed in books, and has no intention of pursuing the subject further than as an occasional hobby, he will do well to purchase a small refractor between 3 and 4 inches in aperture. Such instruments are extremely effective on the Sun and Moon, which are naturally the chief objects to attract attention, and, apart from this, appliances of the size alluded to may be conveniently used from an open window. The latter is an important consideration to many persons; moreover, a small telescope of this kind will reveal an astonishing number of interesting objects in connection with the planets, comets, &c., and it may be employed by way of diversion upon terrestrial landscape, as such instruments are almost invariably provided with non-inverting eyepieces. Out-of-door observing is inconvenient in many respects, and those who procure a telescope merely to find a little recreation will soon acknowledge a small refractor to be eminently adapted to their purposes and conveniences.
Those who meditate going farther afield, and taking up observation habitually as a means of acquiring practical knowledge, and possibly of doing original work, will essentially need different means. They will require reflectors of about 8 or 10 inches aperture; and, if mounted in the open on solid ground, so much the better, as there will be a more expansive view, and a freedom from heated currents, which renders an apartment unsuited to observations, unless with small apertures where the effects are scarcely appreciable. A reflector of the diameter mentioned will command sufficient grasp to exhibit the more delicate features of planetary markings, and will show many other difficult objects in which the sky abounds. If the observer be specially interested in the surface configuration of Mars and Jupiter he will find a reflector a remarkably efficient instrument. On the Moon and planets it is admitted that its performance is, if not superior, equal to that of refractors. If, however, the inclination of the observer leads him in the direction of double stars, their discovery and measurement, he will perhaps find a refractor more to be depended upon, though there is no reason why a well-mounted reflector should not be successfully employed in this branch; and the cost of a refractor of the size to be really useful as an instrument of discovery must be something very considerable—perhaps ten times as great as that of a reflector of equal capacity. As far as my own experience goes the refractor gives decidedly the best image of a star. In the reflector, a bright star under moderately high power is seen with rays extending right across the field, and these appear to be caused by the supports of the flat.
Testing Telescopes.—No amateur should buy an instrument, especially a second-hand one, without testing it, and this is a delicate process involving many points to be duly weighed. Experience is of great service in such matters, and is, in fact, absolutely necessary. Even old observers are sometimes misled as to the real worth of a glass. In such cases, there is nothing like having a reliable means of comparison, i. e. another telescope of acknowledged excellence with which to test the doubtful instrument. In the absence of such a standard judgment will be more difficult, but with care a satisfactory decision may be arrived at. The Moon is too easy an object for the purpose of such trials; the observer should rather select Venus or Jupiter. The former is, however, so brilliant on a dark sky, and so much affected with glare, that the image will almost sure to be faulty even if the glass is a good one. Let the hour be either near sunrise or sunset, and if the planet has a tolerably high altitude, her disk ought to be seen beautifully sharp and white. Various powers should be tried, increasing them each time, and it should be noticed particularly whether the greater expansion of the image ruins the definition or simply enfeebles the light. In a thoroughly good glass faintness will come on without seriously impairing the definite contour of the object viewed, and the observer will realize that the indistinctness is merely occasioned by the power being relatively in excess of the light-grasp. But in a defective telescope, a press of magnifying power at once brings out a mistiness and confuses the details of the image in a very palpable manner. Try how he will, the observer will find it impossible to get rid of this, except, perhaps, by a “stop” which cuts off so much light that the instrument is ineffective for the work required of it. The blurred image is thought, at the moment of its first perception, to be caused by the object being out of focus, and the observer vainly endeavours to get a sharper image until he finds the source of error lies elsewhere. A well-figured glass ought to come very sharply to a focus. The slightest turn of the adjusting-screw should make a sensible difference. On the other hand, an inferior lens will permit a slight alteration of focusing without affecting the distinctness, because the rays from the image are not accurately thrown to a point. Jupiter is also a good test. The limbs of the planet, if shown clean and hard, and the belts, if they are pictured like the finely cut details of an engraving, will at once stamp a telescope as one of superior quality. Saturn can also be examined though not, perhaps, so severe a test. The belts, crape ring, Cassini’s division, ought to be revealed in any telescope of moderate aperture. If, with regard to any of these objects, the details apparently run into each other and there is a “fuzzy” or woolly aspect about them which cannot be eliminated by careful focusing, then either the atmosphere or the telescope is in fault. If the former, another opportunity must be awaited. An observer of experience will see at a glance whether the cause lies in the air or the instrument. The images will be agitated by obnoxious currents, if the defects are due to the atmosphere, but if the glass itself is in error, then the objects will be comparatively tranquil but merged in hazy outlines, and a general lack of distinctness will be apparent. Perhaps the best test of all as to the efficiency of a telescope is that of a moderately bright star, say of the 2nd or 3rd magnitude. With a high power the image should be very small, circular, and surrounded by two or three rings of light lying perfectly concentric with each other. No rays, wings, or extraneous appearance other than the diffraction rings should appear.
This, however, specially applies to refractors, for in reflectors the arms of the flat occasion rays from any bright star; I have also seen them from Mars, but of course this does not indicate an imperfect mirror. If there is any distortion on one side of the image, then the lenses are inaccurately centred though the instrument may be otherwise good, and a little attention may soon set matters right. When testing a glass the observer should choose objects at fairly high altitudes, and not condemn a telescope from a single night’s work unless the evidence is of unusually convincing character. If false colour is seen in a silver-on-glass reflector it is originated by the eyepiece, though not necessarily so in a refractor. The object-glass of the latter will be sure to show some uncorrected colour fringing a bright object. A good lens, when exactly focused, exhibits a claret tint, but within the focus purple is seen and beyond the focus green comes out. In certain cases the secondary spectrum of an object-glass is so inadequately corrected that the vivid colouring of the images is sometimes attributed by inexperienced observers to a real effect. A friend who used a 3-inch refractor once called on me to have a glimpse of Jupiter through my 10-inch With-reflector. On looking at the planet he at once exclaimed “But where are the beautiful colours, Mr. Denning?” I replied to his question by asking another, viz., “What colours?” he answered, “Why, the bright colours I see round Jupiter in my refractor?” I said, “Oh, they exist in your telescope only!” He looked incredulous, and when he left me that night did not seem altogether pleased with the appearance of Jupiter shorn of his false hues!
Mounting.—Too much care cannot be given to the mounting of telescopes, for the most perfectly figured glass will be rendered useless by an inefficient stand; a faulty lens, if thoroughly well mounted, will do more than a really good one on a shaky or unmanageable mounting. Whatever form is adopted, the arrangement should ensure the utmost steadiness, combined with every facility for readily following objects. A man who has every now and then to undergo a great physical exertion in bodily shifting the instrument is rendered unfit for delicate work. The telescope should be provided with every requisite for carrying on prolonged work with slight exertion on the part of the observer. Unless the stand is firm there will be persistent vibrations, especially if the instrument is erected in the open, for there are very few nights in the year when the air is quite calm. These contingencies should be provided against with scrupulous attention if the observer would render his telescope most effective for the display of its powers, and avoid the constant annoyance that must otherwise follow.
Huygens’s negative eyepiece.
