A 3" Fullerscopes refractor.

*
Here is another Fullerscopes telescope. A 3" refractor sitting on a sturdy MkIII. The mounting has the optional cast pot base fixed on a tall pipe pier fitted with the standard, light-alloy, Fullerscopes, cast pedestal feet. Ready to use in an instant without any cooling down required. No grovelling on your knees to reach the eyepiece when the telescope points at high altitudes. No wobbly, undersized, aluminium tripods designed by somebody who has never seen a real telescope. Let alone actually used one. Those who have designed the inadequate mountings and tripods of the 1990s should be forced to use them as penance for their utter ignorance of what really matters under the night sky. Rock steady stability, easy pointing and following are the only the most desirable features. What about the eyepiece always being comfortably placed for the observer regardless of the position of the object under scrutiny? One hundred years of nightly use of their pathetic wares is punishment enough for those churning out today's astronomical tat. Do they think there is nothing above 30 degree altitude worth looking at? A star diagonal is a vital component with any refractor but assumes you can still reach the eyepiece. And do so without silly contortions or constantly muddy knees! Listen to ignoramuses on the astronomy forums telling you that refractors are neck wrenchers. You'll instantly recognise the owner of a modern instrument.

This size of telescope was a very desirable instrument in my youth. A 3" refractor was considered the minimum size for a serious astronomical instrument. Yet a remarkable amount of serious work was carried out with instruments of this size and smaller apertures in the 18th and 19th and well into the 20th Century. Smaller apertures were often used in the days before Chinese mass production brought aperture fever and relative affordability to the ordinary amateur astronomer.

The vast majority of these older instruments were of a so-called "classical" focal ratio. Meaning that they had a very long focal length relative to aperture. F:15 was considered normal. F:18 not that rare. Some instruments ran to much longer focal lengths with F:Ratios well beyond 20:1. The aim was to improve the image quality by reducing the natural false colouration of achromatic aberration. This cannot be avoided in an ordinary flint and crown doublet achromats. Only special dispersion glasses like the so-called ED glasses and the costly Fluorite can remove false colour almost completely. The "slower" the optical system (using the photographic term) and the smaller the aperture the less false colour would be seen in the image by the visual observer using an ordinary achromat. Photography was not a serious pastime with such instruments and the field of view was very small anyway. Film was much too slow or too grainy to capture the relatively dim images on extended objects like the Moon and planets. So they were used visually almost exclusively. Usually they perched on a tall, sturdy, well-designed, wooden tripod. Often fitted with an altazimuth, offset fork rather than an equatorial mounting. The latter was usually reserved for the larger instruments. Which were not so easy to move about and so needed and enjoyed a stable cast iron base for their heavy steel, tin or brass tubes of the time.

What most of these refractors had in common was the ability to push the magnification to the maximum possible for the aperture without the image "breaking down" into a fuzzy ball of light. 50 magnifications (power) per inch of aperture is considered a reasonable maximum for most instruments. A good, long focus refractor might be pushed to 100x per inch of aperture and sometimes well beyond on a good night when the air is perfectly still. The best objective lenses were slowly polished on pitch using the finest optical rouge to obtain a flawless, highly transparent, spherical surface. No doubt the Chinese objectives of today are polished at the highest possible speeds using paper, fibre or cloth laps and rapid but coarse cerium oxide polishing compounds. Thus leaving a much rougher surface due to surface heating effects. I'm a bit out of touch on modern, mass production optical fabrication. So I may be completely wrong.

I watched elderly optical workers just before their retirement back in the 60's and was amazed at their skill and dexterity. They knew by instinct when a surface was no longer spherical or was growing too short or long in radius of curvature and adjusted accordingly. Their movements were precise and entirely automatic with absolutely no excessive gestures or wasted energy. It used to be said that optical workers could be followed home by the trail of red rouge they left in their path. These highly skilled gentlemen were already using Cerium Oxide by then.

Smaller apertures have another serious advantage over larger instruments. They look though narrower "beam" of thermally unstable air than a larger instrument. This makes the image more stable and able to be used with higher powers in inferior "seeing". Which might even make a larger instrument unusable on some nights. For double and variable star work these small instruments were, and are, still fine. Stars do not change in size depending on the size of the telescope. No matter how large you make the telescope or how much they magnify. These small refractors could give a nice view of the moon or the planets. Though it takes a bit more aperture to get really large, sharp images for the illusion of hovering above the Moon's surface. For double stars the high magnification was necessary to split close doubles with such a small aperture. The telescope can magnify the separation between double stars but not the size of the stars themselves. There is a limit on how close a double a particular instrument aperture can manage. Fuzzy star images make separation more difficult because the stray light blurs and bleeds into each separate star. Closing the gap between them. Instead of a nice clean separation with distinct stars and inky blackness between them. Experts still use selected double stars to confirm the optical quality of telescopes under test.

Just look at the length of that dew shield! It fits on the front of the objective cell where it should be. Not hiding the cell half way down the dewshield. As is very common of many commercial refractors today. They do this just to give the illusion that the telescope is shorter than it really is. Perhaps even suggesting it might be an expensive APO? What a total con! What a cheap conjuring trick! The objective gets covered in dew within half an hour of going outside. Believe it or not, specialist firms now make real dewshields to properly protect the glass. By making them long enough and light enough to actually do their intended job. How pathetic is that? A dewshield which isn't anything of the kind? Some dewshields are made of steel which is heavy and unbalances the telescope tube. Making it look as if it has slipped through the rings to finally stop at the cell before it could slip right through onto the ground. Have a look at my 6" F:8 Celestron on the MkIV if you want to see a perfect example of this horribly ugly imbalance. Now look at the 3" and 4" Fullerscopes refractors show here. They stand tall and proud on their mountings like the giant refractors at the great observatories. The shorter the overhang at the eyepiece end of a refractor the smaller distance it covers as the telescope moves through the entire visible hemisphere of the sky. That is worth having because you don't need to keep shifting yourself around the mounting. Wearing out the grass over a large circle. The shorter the overhang at the business end the lower the pier or tripod can be without the eyepiece "scraping on the ground". So the modern refractor is not only a double sales con to impress the beginner. It shoots itself in both left feet. Or all three if you prefer. By making the eyepiece far too low for comfort, dewing up rapidly and making the telescope look downright ugly instead of incredibly impressive. Everybody loves a tall refractor soaring high into the air. It looks like a real astronomical telescope is supposed to look. How does yours look?

Manual slow motions are fitted to both axes on this mounting. Only the polar axis has a flexible control. These universal "stalks" are easily available from astro-equipment vendors if it was thought desirable to add one to the declination axis. Note the solid bronze slow-motion wormwheels. You'll be lucky to find hard-wearing bronze wormwheels on any mounting made today that doesn't cost much the same as a new car!

A small synchronous motor could easily be fitted to the polar worm shaft to enjoy relaxed viewing. I find a motor drive makes observing so much more enjoyable. Instead of having to move the telescope by hand all of the time. Particularly at high magnifications. When an object is rapidly crossing the field of view it is difficult to keep it on the "sweet spot" in the centre of the field of view. You don't even get a chance to focus your eye on the object to see the fine detail before it has gone right out of the edge of the field. A motor also allows you to leave the telescope to follow an object while you do something else. Like downloading your latest images into your computer from your digital camera to check your results so far and warm up a bit indoors. My MKIII drive motor died recently just as I wanted to use the mounting to record a partial solar eclipse. I was amazed to have caught anything with my digital camera while constantly having to turn the slow motion control by hand. Or even nudge the tube between taking my hand-held "snaps". The results of my solar eclipse photographic endeavours can be seen in another chapter under "Transits and eclipses".

The instrument looks beautiful in black wrinkle paint with polished brass fittings. Fullerscopes used to offer an "Export" model of each of their telescopes in this very desirable finish. The brass focussing knob on this 3" has been moved to the lower part of the main tube. A popular position on many classical refractors from the golden days of "brass and glass". I'm not sure about the length of the Polar Axis on this instrument. Perhaps the shaft has been swapped for a better one? It loks as long as the Declination shaft ought to be. My own MkIV has an over-long polar shaft because I haven't cut it in case I need the extra length for something.

The brass finder telescope in its tall, cast, adjustable mounting rings sets off the instrument perfectly. None of your modern spring-loaded finders flopping about as the main instrument is moved. Plenty of room to use the finder wherever it ends up relative to the main instrument as it is moved around the sky on its German equatorial mounting. Modern finder rings are often far too close to the instrument and lose their view simply by being blocked by the mounting. Or cause such gyrations of the neck that it might as well not be there. A good stand-off distance is essential for finder comfort and practical functionality. Look at the great refractors of the observatories and see how tall the finder rings are on those beauties. With two matching finder rings you can also set-off the finder to a nearby star. For example when you want to photograph a dim object which is invisible in the smaller finder.

White gloss painted tubes seem to have become the latest fashion in telescopes. I suppose it makes them easier for the clumsy to miss them in the dark. My tastes are from a period when black wrinkle paint was a sign of luxury. The manufacturer showed he was going the extra mile instead of using plain gloss paint. Wrinkle paint does not show fingerprints, scratches or chips so readily either. It was hard baked on and lasts better than gloss. (or Hammerite for that matter)

This MkIII is fitted with the original, large, white, plastic, setting circles. An excellent combination of clarity, longevity and nice, big graduations. No magnifying glass and bright torch required here to point the telescope at an object using the Right Ascension and Declination coordinates. Look at the size of those setting circles compared with the microscopic graduations seen on small bands fitted as an afterthought to many a modern mounting. Notice the size of the shafts and massive yet lightweight castings compared with the tiny things on offer with many telescopes today. I wonder how many modern mountings will be valued as useful bases for telescopes in 20 or 30 or 50 years time. There is simplicity and strength here allied with function. Many modern mountings suggest the triumph of appearance over functionality and stability. You'll not find the owner having to modify a Fullerscopes mounting just to make it stable enough to use with the usual oversized instruments sold today. Sand filling short, wobbly, aluminium legs and removing useless Chinese grease is not required.

Set up on a tall pier a refractor makes perfect sense in the observer comfort stakes. How many forum threads have you read about adding weights to the eyepiece end of a modern refractor OTA? Just to be able to look through the instrument without having to empty the swimming pool or goldfish pond. Or digging a deep hole. Anything to bring the observer to a lower position so they could actually look through the eyepiece without lying flat on their back on the wet grass. And they call this progress? Don't moan to me about your wobbly knee-high, aluminium tripods. While simultaneously sneering at tall wooden tripods as being "too old fashioned". Nobody can see you observing in the dark whatever your tripod material. Anybody using a tall pier or tripod is going to be doing a heck of lot more astronomy than you with your highly-polished, metallic jelly. And how much did they charge you for that crappy tripod anyway? You could build a decent, tall tripod out of quality hardwood for a fraction of the price. Or sink a simple pipe pier into the lawn. Get yourself an adjustable height chair and you can observe in perfect comfort for hours on end sitting down. You'll need a properly balanced refractor fitted with a star diagonal of course. You wouldn't be daft enough to buy something you couldn't actually use on the whole sky, would you? That wouldn't be an astronomical refractor. It would be a terrestrial. Or a common or garden bird watching telescope but with an inverted image. Wouldn't it? That's what I thought too.

Protected from the elements a refractor and Fullerscopes mounting will give decades of enjoyment exploring the night skies. It becomes an heirloom instead of an irritating burden to be discarded as soon as the doting grandparent goes off into the old people's home. No need to cover and worry about dew and scratches on delicate aluminised reflective surfaces with a refractor. A refractor will last virtually forever without deterioration. The glasses used varied a bit but only slight yellowing occurs over the centuries with some of the the older glasses. They tended to be designed to achieve best focus more towards the yellow. Instead of the yellow green of today's computer-optimised prescriptions. We may be spoiled rotten by cheap APOs and large achromats these days but the sharpness of the image seen through a fine, small refractor is well worth seeing. Perfect star images on either side of focus with textbook diffraction rings are to be expected. A lightweight, compact tube to carry out to the pier or tripod. Where the mounting is already set up and aligned on the Pole Star for instant use. Open the rings. Pop in the telescope, tighten down gently on the thumbscrews and you can start observing immediately.

The images in this chapter were kindly supplied by Richard Day at Skylight Telescopes of London. A vendor of collectible, quality instruments for the discriminating observer who is not fooled by this year's glossy, full-colour advertising spread in the popular magazines. I'm beginning to sound like an advertising man myself. As well as an opinionated, old .. observer.

www.skylightelescopes.co.uk

BTW: The beautiful instrument illustrated here has been sold.

The images in this chapter are not yet clickable for enlargement. Patience will be rewarded.