*
Here is a complete 4" Fullerscopes refractor on a MkIV mounting sitting on a heavy pipe pier with original cast iron "heavy duty" feet.
Fullerscopes usually offered their 4" refractor on the MkIII. This one enjoys the great pondus, stability and sheer class of the timeless MkIV.
A closer look at the 4" OTA (Optical Tube Assembly) on the MkIV. This achromatic refractor is longer than many of the Chinese offerings of today. Theoretically this provided sharper images with less chromatic aberration and coma. Another advantage with long focal lengths is the ability to use comfortably long focal length eyepieces while still enjoying high powers. This in turn offered increased eye relief without one's eyelashes smearing the surface of the eye lens or obscuring the edges of the field of view.
Now there's a nice point of view! Lots of polished and lacquered brass and black wrinkle paint. Fullerscopes made the classical rack and pinion focussing mount in the same style as the great 19th Century makers. The heyday of brass and glass when makers vied with each other to produce microscopes and telescopes for those who could afford them. The upper and middle classes were the only customers who could afford such luxuries back then. Beautiful refractors like that shown here would grace stately homes and doctors, lawyers and bankers detached, country homes. This may not have been strictly true of Fullerscope's products but they still required a considerable investment for that time. Prices for refractors have fallen dramatically in recent years as Chinese products overwhelmed home markets for these instruments.
These much earlier instruments could also be found in the fee paying (public) schools of the wealthy. The telescopes were often housed in domes like the one shown above which protected a 5" classical refractor in the grounds of a public school. An all brass 6" refractor was stored at the same school but had suffered a broken crown element in the objective lens. The workmanship of the entire instrument was of the quality which only the very best makers could manage. With lots of intricate brass and bronze castings all skilfully hand finished and deep gold, hot lacquered to maintain the superb finish for a lifetime and well beyond.
Another view from the business end of the 4" Fullerscopes refractor. The counterweight might be improved to be more in keeping with the perceived quality of the instrument by fitting a simple, cylindrical, bored turning in steel or iron. A few minutes work for anybody with a lathe and the raw materials.
A closer view of the mounting showing the 6" bronze wormwheels and slip-ring RA circle with metal pointer. These are presumably of a later date than my own MkIV. The main castings were designed to maximise stability by using widely spaced sleeve bearings supplemented by large surface areas on the thrust faces. PTFE sheet was used to reduce friction between these faces. Offering a light, buttery smooth motion without backlash provided the telescope is not too massive. The MkIV could carry up to 15" reflectors but friction may have increased beyond the comfort level when fine pointing the telescope by hand. These castings look rather rough suggesting that they have been cleaned up with a very coarse file by somebody in a hurry.
The large plastic knob jutting from the declination casting actuates a simple clutch via a long screwed rod. This forces a nylon plug against the inside of the relevant wormwheel. There are two knobs. One for each axis. The slow motion worm housings look rather later than my own and these seem to have evolved over time.
The beautifully tapered main castings are strictly to the book. Maximum stiffness where the loads are highest. Reducing in diameter where the loads are least. Russell W Porter, the brilliant designer of the 200" Hale Telescope, suggested this arrangement in his designs for the castings of telescope mountings used prior to the erection of the Hale Observatory. These (and others) were shown in the classic three volumes of "Amateur telescope Making" published by Ingalls around the middle of the last century and earlier. These books can probably still be found in major libraries and specialist bookshops. Particularly those with online search facilities. They are now rather dated but full of useful information for the creative amateur astronomer. Particularly one who likes to build and make things for themselves.
The lacquered, adjustable brass cell showing the first surface of the achromatic objective. (below) It is believed that Wildey was responsible for Fullerscope's refractor objectives. His work is legendary and, if he really was the maker, probably resulted in a very fine lens.
The massive cross sections of the MkIV mounting provide the stiffness and resistance to flexure so essential to real telescope mountings. The eye may be quite forgiving of wobbly mountings but can these cope with photography or imaging? No problem here.
An unconventional view of the instrument. Perhaps the one seen after one has just fallen off a high stepladder while trying to view something near the horizon? ;-)
What is there not to like about this classical refractor on a sturdy, well-designed mounting?
My gratitude for all the images above goes to Richard at Skylight Telescopes of London. I have enlarged his original images in Photofiltre to allow closer views. Any faults in the enlarged images are entirely my own. Richard is a specialist vendor and restorer of quality, older instruments. His website is well worth a visit for those with an interest in instruments of the last century and beyond.
www.skylightelescopes.co.uk
*
5 comments:
Do you know the location of the little observatory? This form was originally designed by a vicar from Romsey, England; the Revd. Edward Lyon in the 1860s. He published plans and instructions in popular science magaines and the Romsey observatory was widely copied for at least 50 years. I am currently trying to locate old photos and surviving examples. Many thanks, Patrick
Hi Neruda and thank you for your fascinating comment. Having the name of the observatory designer means I can do some further research myself. Thank you for that.
The observatory shown on my blog was in the grounds to the west of Kingswood School, Lansdown, Bath. Which I visited probably 40 years ago when it contained a 4" or possibly 5"[?] refractor. It may since have been lost to the sports grounds, tree growth or new buildings. Though I can still see a small square patch near a path on Google Earth.
It should be possible to contact the school for further information and possibly more pictures. I also remember that there was an exquisite, all-brass 6" refractor being restored at the school at the time. The objective lens had been cracked across but the restorer was reluctant to accept my help.
While I was searching for the Kingswood observatory I found an image of a very similar observatory on this website: http://www.davidbrownsundials.com/cc.html
From the description is sounds as if the observatory's concrete base was used for a masonry sundial. Which doesn't sound as if the observatory still exists.
The design has the advantage of avoiding spherical surfaces at the cost of considerable extra rotating weight. I imagine the later use of roofing felt made the rotating roof even heavier and vulnerable to poor maintenance. I can still remember the complexity of the roof woodwork.
The design also cleverly avoided looking too unusual in smart back gardens because it was very similar in form to many Victorian plant conservatories of the time. Hemispherical domes were far too unusual to "fit in" to smart gardens. I have always liked the design from seeing examples in old books at the Bath Reference Library. I seem to remember tents of the same form with roof flaps used for eclipse expeditions. They would not have to rotate if pitched correctly for the eclipse. Sadly it is too long ago to remember which books so long after the event.
I would be very interested to hear if you have more images or drawings. Perhaps I could post the material on my blog if you have no plans to do so yourself? Such observatory designs are a fascinating insight into earlier observational astronomy and ought to be shared with a wider audience.
Best regards,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for your rapid reply! I've sent an email to the school and will let you know their response. Berthon was a fascinating character! I hope to shortly post a bit of history on the stargazerslounge.com forum, I'll also be very happy to share my notes on your blog - give me a few days to get them in order! Perhaps you could send me an email to get in contact at patrickvyvyan at the well-known gmail.com
Hullo,
It is my good fortune to have finally come into the possession of a Fullerscopes Mk. IV equatorial mounting. It is my intention to use it to mount the Fullerscopes 11¾ʺ Export Newtonian I already acquired some years ago.
However I am perplexed by the declination control. There is no declination worm, nor any threaded holes to bolt one to. The brass declination gear wheel (6½ʺ diameter with 359 teeth) apparently locks solidly at the top of the 1¼ʺ diameter steel declination shaft and apparently cannot rotate freely around the spindle by itself. There is a declination lock knob on the very front of the mounting which tightens a steel threaded bar directly onto the declination shaft, but no clutch knob on the top of the mounting, immediately below the crossbar that mounts the O-rings, that tightens onto the declination gear wheel, as seen in the photograph of the Mk. IV mounting a 4ʺ refractor at the end of this blog entry. See images here:
https://i.imgur.com/eh7F46W.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xn4Lg3k.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VTejyI3.jpg
Whilst I'm sure I can obtain and install a declination worm, loosen the declination wheel to allow it to spin freely about the spindle, and install a clutch knob and nylon plug to hold it fast, I am still perplexed wondering about this strange current configuration. Is this a basic model? Was the mount manufactured like this without a declination control? If so why is there a declination worm wheel? Or did someone alter it? What did they think they were doing? I've never seen a Mk. IV up close before; I don't understand!
In the absence of a comprehensive guide to the different configurations of the Mk. IV and other Fullerscopes products, in my search for answers I have been directed to your blog by the Cloudy Nights forum, recommending you as the leading expert on Fullerscopes mountings. Could you enlighten me please?
PS. The following images show the reverse of the primary mirror of the 11¾ʺ Fuller NRT. (I will need to have it resurfaced.) Etching reads: '2225A', 'fl 1515mm (59.65ins)', 'Made in Ɛngland'. There are some bubbles in the glass, which one might think indicated low quality glass. But I suspect that the 'A' in '2225A' signifies the highest quality of mirror Fullerscopes produced, as one might expect for their flagship catalogue offering. Does the handwriting ('Ɛngland' with a rounded capital 'Ɛ') indicate a David Hinds mirror please? And the serial '2225' places date of manufacture in the early 1980s? Am I right?
https://i.imgur.com/jblfI0b.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4PZnxXl.jpg
Hello William,
Congratulations on your obtaining a MkIV.
The wormwheel seems to have been added but without its worm & housing to drive it.
Usually the wormwheel has a thin PTFE/Teflon disk to allow the mounting to turn more freely around the wormwheel. Otherwise it would become completely solid and would need to be driven around the sky at celestial Rate. Bringing a whole new meaning to "Slews." Or rather "slows."
I have a contact who knows all the details about Fullerscopes optics who can help.
Would you like to take this discussion to email? Blog Comments are a but clumsy for exchanging lots of images and longer texts, etc.
christryke [at] gmail.com.
Regards
Chris
Post a Comment