MICROSCOPEOPTICS and J.J. Lister’s Inuence on the Development of the Achromatic Objective 1750–1850 j.c. deiman February 1992 / March 2020 – version 5.1 J.C. Deiman: Microscope Optics 1750–1850 and J.J. Lister’s Influence on the Development of the Achromatic Objective A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London and for the Diploma of Membership of the Imperial College. © 2020, J.C. Deiman. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the writer, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below: J.C. Deiman Br. Gentong, Ds. Tegallalang 80561, Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia. e-mail: [email protected] Dedicated to my beloved parents C. Deiman (1921–2007) en T. Deiman-Visser (1921–2015) Dr. J. van Zuylen (1906–1995) Prof. Dr. G. L’E Turner (1926–2012) Helen Turner (1930–2004) Amsterdam 1992 – Gentong, Bali, March 2020 FOREWORD This is the fth revision of the thesis I originally submitted in February 1992. A second version of 30 copies was published in September 1992, on the occasion of a festive meeting in the Senate Hall of the university of Utrecht. Later another 60 copies of this second version were printed and sold. A fourth version on CD-ROM was published by Savona Books in 2008. All these revisions difer slightly from the original one and of each other, every time I found some small errors that were corrected in these subsequent editions. This fth edition difers from the other ones in one important aspect, it was composed in LaTex, which generates an output PDF le. Apart from this there were again small textual changes, more illustrations could be added, and indexes and cross-references could be added fairly easy in LaTex. iv ABSTRACT A number of microscopes were selected for study from the Utrecht University Museum, the Science Museum and the Wellcome Collection in London, and the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford. On these instruments, optical parameters were measured, namely the focal length of eyepieces and objectives, and the magnication, numerical aperture, and resolving power of objectives. Eighteenth-century English compound microscopes were selected on the cri- terion that two or more examples by a particular maker were available. Nine- teenth-century achromatic objectives were chosen on the basis that they would stand comparison with those improved during the period 1825–1850 by J.J. Lister. For this reason, only objectives by Ross, Smith & Beck, Powell, and Powell & Lealand were studied. As far as possible, the internal construction of these object- ives was also examined. The data on eighteenth-century objectives and eyepieces was used to show that spherical and chromatic aberration were not the main limiting factors in their quality. The work of J.J. Lister was elucidated by a thorough examination and analysis of the Lister Archive that belongs with the collection of the Royal Microscopical Society. This archive consists of plans, drawings, and letters to makers, together with Lister’s lenses, fabricated partly by himself. As a result of this study, it proved possible to answer the question why the achromatic microscope developed so much later, and more slowly, than the achromatic telescope. The sheer complexity, both technological and theoretical, of the compound achromatic objective was found to be the main cause of this slow development. The objectives of Ross, Smith, and Powell were examined to trace Lister’s inuence on their development. His direct inuence did not last long, but his methods of design–a combination of qualitative reasoning and trial and error– were used until they were superseded by Abbe’s rigorous calculations in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. J. van Zuylen (†1995) of the former Nederlandsche Optische Fabriek N.V. C.E. Bleeker, Zeist, Nederland for all the optical know- ledge and experience he so willingly shared with me. Our cooperation over the last six years I will always value greatly. To my supervisor, Professor Dr. G. L’Estrange Turner (†2012) and his wife Helen Turner (†2004), who taught me the art of being English. They both stimu- lated me during the discussions we had in Islip, be it before, during or after meals which I will never forget. Apart from this they both made this project possible, helped me when I was in diculty and encouraged me to continue when I despaired. To my parents, modestly in the background as always. They stimulated my curiosity by never refusing to answer all my questions. To my friends, who had to endure my temper and my bad moods: Peter van der Salm and Heleen Grioen, Jan Teeuwisseand Alice Weve, Hans Rooseboom, Wim Thomas, Leon Dennett, and Chris Frewin Howse–this thesis would not have been possible without their support. Jan Teeuwisse’s laserprinter was a welcome guest for some weeks. Hans Rooseboom found many spelling mistakes and inconsistencies, which he seemed to enjoy greatly. Peter van der Salm brought the design of this book to perfection. Wim Thomas gave me hospitality during my stays in London. Leon Dennett helped me in deciphering Lister’shandwriting and improved the general quality of my English. To my Director drs. S.W.G. de Clercq, my fellow curator drs. J. Schuller tot Peursum-Meijer and my other colleagues from the Utrecht University Museum for allowing me to spend so much time in England during the last three years. To the Director of the Science Museum in London and my colleagues there, especially Dr. D. Robinson, Dr. B. Bracegirdle (†2015), Dr. D. Vaughan,Dr. J. Dar- ius (†1993) and many of their assistants, for allowing me to use their collections. To the Curator of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford and my colleagues Dr. W. Hackmann and A.V. Simcock for their hospitality and help. To the Royal Microscopical Society in Oxford which allowed me to use its historical collection and the Lister Archive. To Dr. L.H.J.F. Beckmann, Delft, for providing me with the optical design program OPDESIGN, without which the greater part of chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 could not have been written. To Mrs. S. Waldman for her kindness and the opportunity she gave me to enjoy a avour of musical culture. To the late Dr. J.G. van Cittert-Eymers (†1988) whose work formed the basis for my research and who set an example of good scholarship and curatorship. To the Renaissance Trust whose generosity made this project possible. To all the colleagues and friends I did not mention. Dr. ir. J.C. Deiman DIC, Amsterdam–Bali, 1989–2020. vi CONTENTS dedication iii foreword iv abstract v acknowledgements vi contents vii List of illustrations xii List of tables xiv 1 introduction 1 1.1 The study of scientic instruments1 1.2 Scientic instruments3 1.3 Purpose5 2 methodology 7 2.1 Introduction7 2.2 The lens and its aberrations8 2.2.1 Refraction8 2.2.2 The Lens8 2.2.3 Spherical aberration 10 2.2.4 Chromatic aberration 10 2.3 Optical calculations 12 2.3.1 Opdesign 12 2.3.2 Angular magncation and distortion of eyepieces 13 2.3.3 Conventions and abbreviations 13 2.3.4 Data of optical systems 14 2.3.5 Spot diagram 15 2.4 Optical tolerances 16 2.4.1 Rayleigh tolerance 16 2.4.2 Spherical aberration 17 2.4.3 Chromatic aberration 18 2.4.4 Ofence against the sine condition, OSC0 19 2.5 Optical measurements 19 2.5.1 Curvatures 19 2.5.2 Focal length 22 2.5.3 Magnication and angle of view of eyepieces 22 2.5.4 Magnication of objectives 23 2.5.5 Numerical aperture 23 2.5.6 Star test 24 vii contents viii 2.5.7 Resolving power 24 2.5.8 Diatom test 26 3 the chromatic microscope in the eighteenth cen- tury 28 3.1 Introduction 28 3.2 Objectives 29 3.3 Eyepieces 32 3.4 Two-lens eyepiece, computer model 34 3.5 Two-lens eyepieces 37 3.5.1 Screw-barrel microscope, Culpeper type (UM1846) 38 3.5.2 Cuf-type microscope (UM578) 38 3.5.3 Cuf-type microscope (A62993) 39 3.5.4 Cuf-type microscope (UM16) 40 3.5.5 Cuf-type microscope (UM18) 40 3.5.6 Culpeper-type tripod microscope (UM13 41 3.5.7 Prince of Wales microscope (1925-136) 42 3.5.8 Culpeper-type microscope (A159980) 42 3.5.9 Jones’s‘Most Improved Compound Microscope’ (A212741) 43 3.5.10 Chest Microscope (1928-850) 44 3.5.11 Pillar microscope (A54219) 45 3.5.12 Miniature drum microscope (1921-189) 45 3.5.13 Huygenian eyepiece ‘×5’ (Utrecht) 47 3.6 Three-lens eyepieces 48 3.6.1 Culpeper-type microscope on box-foot with drawer (A159502) 49 3.6.2 Cuf-type microscope on at folding tripod (A600168) 50 3.6.3 Adams’s‘Compound Compendious Pocket Microscope’ (1918-84) 51 3.6.4 Adams’s‘Compound Compendious Pocket Microscope’ (A645025) 51 3.6.5 Pillar microscope (A159192) 53 3.6.6 Improved Double and Single Microscope (A56301) 54 3.6.7 Chest microscope (A56305) 54 3.6.8 Tripod microscope (A56801) 55 3.6.9 Chest microscope (A50965) 56 3.6.10 Chest microscope (A56304) 56 3.6.11 Dollond’sform of the ‘Most Improved’ microscope (A18469) 57 3.7 Four-lens eyepieces 58 3.7.1 Martin’s‘Universal Microscope’ with between lens (UM0293) 59 3.7.2 Tripod and pillar microscope (A101926) 59 3.7.3 ‘Universal Compound Microscope’, (A159473) 60 3.7.4 ‘Universal Compound Microscope’ (A56523) 61 3.7.5 ‘Improved Compound Microscope’ (A56300) 64 3.7.6 ‘Most Improved Compound Microscope’ (A600166) 66 3.8 Dellebarre-type