Next comes the question of testing the quality of the objective. (The
stand is meanwhile assumed, but will be spoken of later.) Point the
telescope to a star of about the third magnitude, and employ
the eye-piece of highest power, if more than one goes with the
instrument--this will be the shortest eye-piece of the set. If the
glass be of high quality, the image of the star will be a neat round
disc of small size, surrounded by one or two thin bright rings (Fig.
8, _a_). Should the image be elliptical and the rings be thrown to the
one side (Fig. 8, _b_), the glass may still be quite a good one, but
is out of square, and should be readjusted by an optician. Should
the image be irregular and the rings broken, the glass is of inferior
quality, though it may still be serviceable enough for many purposes.
Next throw the image of the star out of focus by racking the eye-piece
in towards the objective, and then repeat the process by racking it
again out of focus away from the objective. The image will, in either
case, expand into a number of rings of light, and these rings should
be truly circular, and should present precisely the same appearance at
equal distances within and without the focus. A further conception of
the objective's quality may be gained by observing whether the image
of a star or the detail of the moon or of the planets comes sharply
to a focus when the milled head for focussing is turned. Should it
be possible to rack the eye-tube in or out for any distance without
disturbing the distinctness of the picture to any extent, then the
glass is defective. A good objective will admit of no such range, but
will come sharply up to focus, and as sharply away from it, with any
motion of the focussing screw. A good glass will also show the details
of a planet like Saturn, such as are within its reach, that is, with
clearness of definition, while an inferior one will soften all the
outlines, and impart a general haziness to them. The observer may now
proceed to test the colour correction of his objective. No achromatic,
its name notwithstanding, ever gives an absolutely colourless image;
all that can be expected is that the colour aberration should have
been so far eliminated as not to be unpleasant. In a good instrument
a fringe of violet or blue will be seen around any bright object, such
as Venus, on a dark sky; a poor glass will show red or yellow. It
is well to make sure, however, should bad colour be seen, that the
eye-piece is not causing it; and, therefore, more than one eye-piece
should be tried before an opinion is formed. Probably more colour will
be seen at first than was expected, more particularly with an object
so brilliant as Venus. But the observer need not worry overmuch about
this. He will find that the eye gets so accustomed to it as almost
to forget that it is there, so that something of a shock may be
experienced when a casual star-gazing friend, on looking at some
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account