Part 6

When I observed and compared the deepest sensible red, and the Colour in the Confine of green and blue, which at the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum was distant from it half the Length of those Sides, the Focus where the Confine of green and blue cast the Species of the Lines distinctly on the Paper, was nearer to the Lens than the Focus, where the red cast those Lines distinctly on it by about 2-1/2 or 2-3/4 Inches. For sometimes the Measures were a little greater, sometimes a little less, but seldom varied from one another above 1/3 of an Inch. For it was very difficult to define the Places of the Foci, without some little Errors. Now, if the Colours distant half the Length of the Image, (measured at its Rectilinear Sides) give 2-1/2 or 2-3/4 Difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens, then the Colours distant the whole Length ought to give 5 or 5-1/2 Inches difference of those distances.

But here it's to be noted, that I could not see the red to the full end of the Spectrum, but only to the Center of the Semicircle which bounded that end, or a little farther; and therefore I compared this red not with that Colour which was exactly in the middle of the Spectrum, or Confine of green and blue, but with that which verged a little more to the blue than to the green: And as I reckoned the whole Length of the Colours not to be the whole Length of the Spectrum, but the Length of its Rectilinear Sides, so compleating the semicircular Ends into Circles, when either of the observed Colours fell within those Circles, I measured the distance of that Colour from the semicircular End of the Spectrum, and subducting half this distance from the measured distance of the two Colours, I took the Remainder for their corrected distance; and in these Observations set down this corrected distance for the difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens. For, as the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum would be the whole Length of all the Colours, were the Circles of which (as we shewed) that Spectrum consists contracted and reduced to Physical Points, so in that Case this corrected distance would be the real distance of the two observed Colours.

When therefore I farther observed the deepest sensible red, and that blue whose corrected distance from it was 7/12 Parts of the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum, the difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens was about 3-1/4 Inches, and as 7 to 12, so is 3-1/4 to 5-4/7.

When I observed the deepest sensible red, and that indigo whose corrected distance was 8/12 or 2/3 of the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum, the difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens, was about 3-2/3 Inches, and as 2 to 3, so is 3-2/3 to 5-1/2.

When I observed the deepest sensible red, and that deep indigo whose corrected distance from one another was 9/12 or 3/4 of the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum, the difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens was about 4 Inches; and as 3 to 4, so is 4 to 5-1/3.

When I observed the deepest sensible red, and that Part of the violet next the indigo, whose corrected distance from the red was 10/12 or 5/6 of the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum, the difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens was about 4-1/2 Inches, and as 5 to 6, so is 4-1/2 to 5-2/5. For sometimes, when the Lens was advantageously placed, so that its Axis respected the blue, and all Things else were well ordered, and the Sun shone clear, and I held my Eye very near to the Paper on which the Lens cast the Species of the Lines, I could see pretty distinctly the Species of those Lines by that Part of the violet which was next the indigo; and sometimes I could see them by above half the violet, For in making these Experiments I had observed, that the Species of those Colours only appear distinct, which were in or near the Axis of the Lens: So that if the blue or indigo were in the Axis, I could see their Species distinctly; and then the red appeared much less distinct than before. Wherefore I contrived to make the Spectrum of Colours shorter than before, so that both its Ends might be nearer to the Axis of the Lens. And now its Length was about 2-1/2 Inches, and Breadth about 1/5 or 1/6 of an Inch. Also instead of the black Lines on which the Spectrum was cast, I made one black Line broader than those, that I might see its Species more easily; and this Line I divided by short cross Lines into equal Parts, for measuring the distances of the observed Colours. And now I could sometimes see the Species of this Line with its Divisions almost as far as the Center of the semicircular violet End of the Spectrum, and made these farther Observations.

When I observed the deepest sensible red, and that Part of the violet, whose corrected distance from it was about 8/9 Parts of the Rectilinear Sides of the Spectrum, the Difference of the distances of the Foci of those Colours from the Lens, was one time 4-2/3, another time 4-3/4, another time 4-7/8 Inches; and as 8 to 9, so are 4-2/3, 4-3/4, 4-7/8, to 5-1/4, 5-11/32, 5-31/64 respectively.

When I observed the deepest sensible red, and deepest sensible violet, (the corrected distance of which Colours, when all Things were ordered to the best Advantage, and the Sun shone very clear, was about 11/12 or 15/16 Parts of the Length of the Rectilinear Sides of the coloured Spectrum) I found the Difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens sometimes 4-3/4 sometimes 5-1/4, and for the most part 5 Inches or thereabouts; and as 11 to 12, or 15 to 16, so is five Inches to 5-2/2 or 5-1/3 Inches.

And by this Progression of Experiments I satisfied my self, that had the Light at the very Ends of the Spectrum been strong enough to make the Species of the black Lines appear plainly on the Paper, the Focus of the deepest violet would have been found nearer to the Lens, than the Focus of the deepest red, by about 5-1/3 Inches at least. And this is a farther Evidence, that the Sines of Incidence and Refraction of the several sorts of Rays, hold the same Proportion to one another in the smallest Refractions which they do in the greatest.

My Progress in making this nice and troublesome Experiment I have set down more at large, that they that shall try it after me may be aware of the Circumspection requisite to make it succeed well. And if they cannot make it succeed so well as I did, they may notwithstanding collect by the Proportion of the distance of the Colours of the Spectrum, to the Difference of the distances of their Foci from the Lens, what would be the Success in the more distant Colours by a better trial. And yet, if they use a broader Lens than I did, and fix it to a long strait Staff, by means of which it may be readily and truly directed to the Colour whose Focus is desired, I question not but the Experiment will succeed better with them than it did with me. For I directed the Axis as nearly as I could to the middle of the Colours, and then the faint Ends of the Spectrum being remote from the Axis, cast their Species less distinctly on the Paper than they would have done, had the Axis been successively directed to them.

Now by what has been said, it's certain that the Rays which differ in Refrangibility do not converge to the same Focus; but if they flow from a lucid Point, as far from the Lens on one side as their Foci are on the other, the Focus of the most refrangible Rays shall be nearer to the Lens than that of the least refrangible, by above the fourteenth Part of the whole distance; and if they flow from a lucid Point, so very remote from the Lens, that before their Incidence they may be accounted parallel, the Focus of the most refrangible Rays shall be nearer to the Lens than the Focus of the least refrangible, by about the 27th or 28th Part of their whole distance from it. And the Diameter of the Circle in the middle Space between those two Foci which they illuminate, when they fall there on any Plane, perpendicular to the Axis (which Circle is the least into which they can all be gathered) is about the 55th Part of the Diameter of the Aperture of the Glass. So that 'tis a wonder, that Telescopes represent Objects so distinct as they do. But were all the Rays of Light equally refrangible, the Error arising only from the Sphericalness of the Figures of Glasses would be many hundred times less. For, if the Object-glass of a Telescope be Plano-convex, and the Plane side be turned towards the Object, and the Diameter of the Sphere, whereof this Glass is a Segment, be called D, and the Semi-diameter of the Aperture of the Glass be called S, and the Sine of Incidence out of Glass into Air, be to the Sine of Refraction as I to R; the Rays which come parallel to the Axis of the Glass, shall in the Place where the Image of the Object is most distinctly made, be scattered all over a little Circle, whose Diameter is _(Rq/Iq) x (S cub./D quad.)_ very nearly,[H] as I gather by computing the Errors of the Rays by the Method of infinite Series, and rejecting the Terms, whose Quantities are inconsiderable. As for instance, if the Sine of Incidence I, be to the Sine of Refraction R, as 20 to 31, and if D the Diameter of the Sphere, to which the Convex-side of the Glass is ground, be 100 Feet or 1200 Inches, and S the Semi-diameter of the Aperture be two Inches, the Diameter of the little Circle, (that is (_Rq x S cub.)/(Iq x D quad._)) will be (31 x 31 x 8)/(20 x 20 x 1200 x 1200) (or 961/72000000) Parts of an Inch. But the Diameter of the little Circle, through which these Rays are scattered by unequal Refrangibility, will be about the 55th Part of the Aperture of the Object-glass, which here is four Inches. And therefore, the Error arising from the Spherical Figure of the Glass, is to the Error arising from the different Refrangibility of the Rays, as 961/72000000 to 4/55, that is as 1 to 5449; and therefore being in comparison so very little, deserves not to be considered.

But you will say, if the Errors caused by the different Refrangibility be so very great, how comes it to pass, that Objects appear through Telescopes so distinct as they do? I answer, 'tis because the erring Rays are not scattered uniformly over all that Circular Space, but collected infinitely more densely in the Center than in any other Part of the Circle, and in the Way from the Center to the Circumference, grow continually rarer and rarer, so as at the Circumference to become infinitely rare; and by reason of their Rarity are not strong enough to be visible, unless in the Center and very near it. Let ADE [in _Fig._ 27.] represent one of those Circles described with the Center C, and Semi-diameter AC, and let BFG be a smaller Circle concentrick to the former, cutting with its Circumference the Diameter AC in B, and bisect AC in N; and by my reckoning, the Density of the Light in any Place B, will be to its Density in N, as AB to BC; and the whole Light within the lesser Circle BFG, will be to the whole Light within the greater AED, as the Excess of the Square of AC above the Square of AB, is to the Square of AC. As if BC be the fifth Part of AC, the Light will be four times denser in B than in N, and the whole Light within the less Circle, will be to the whole Light within the greater, as nine to twenty-five. Whence it's evident, that the Light within the less Circle, must strike the Sense much more strongly, than that faint and dilated Light round about between it and the Circumference of the greater.

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.

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.