Sir Patrick Moore

[Saganite]

It occurred to me recently that although I had watched almost everything broadcast by Patrick, and read a good few of his books, I don't recall him talking in depth about eyepieces, specifically what he used, or preferred to use dependent of course  upon what he was observing.I suspect that Orthoscopic eyepieces

would be a strong candidate and certainly the best when he started his observing career, but in later years

did he use widefield oculars, and did he express opinions on Televue as he was still observing in the 1980's when they started to be available, did he infact use them.

I would be interested if someone on this forum can shed any light or is it that ....."We just don't know" 

[ngwillym]

I'm sure I remember him talking about Erfle and Monocentric eyepieces many years ago.

[alan potts]

I can't say I recall anything and I have the last 12 years of the Sky at Night on the computer system, there is nothing in that lot. I guess any older hand at Telly House may know.

Alan.

[jambouk]

A very interesting questions. I've got lots of Patrick's old books, and I can't find anywhere he discusses the different types of eye pieces. In most of his early books on practical astronomy he just talks about focal length of eye pieces and that observers should have "...several eyepieces. A low magnification will give a wide field, and will be suitable for looking at objects such as star-clusters and nebulae; a higher power is to be preferred for the Moon and planets, where the aim is to see as much fine detail as possible; and a still higher magnification is desirable for use on really clear, calm nights..." [from: The Astronomer's Telescope, Moore and Murdin, Brockhampton Press Ltd, 1962].

There are chapters on eyepieces in some of his books, but these have been written by other authors, like H E Dall.

Maybe the intricacies of different types of eyepieces just didn't interest him; it does seem that if something didn't interest him he wouldn't waste any time on that topic.

James

[Highburymark]

In his 1990 book, Amateur Astronomer, he says:

Japanese eyepieces are common, and many are excellent.

It's advisable to have at least 3 eps.

Personally, he dislikes Barlows.

And that's it. Great man, but apparently not that interested in eyepieces.

[LeeB]

I recall in one or two books him describing two types of astronomer , one the observer and the other a telescope maker, he hinted that being both was very rare indeed, I think he was much more the observer, the scope was just a tool. and (eyepieces) also.

[barkis]

I'm not sure sir Patrick was too concerned about the Whys and Wherefores  of Eyepieces, he was strictly an observer, and a Sketcher,

so any EP's he used would mainly be wide angle ones, mainly to forestall too much fiddliing with keeping his target tracked.

I remember mentiong a Military Erfle EP I acquired from a scrap dealer, who specialised in old military hardware,

His place was a veritable goldmine of aero camera lenses, and electronic gadgetry.

I mentioned it to sir P. (during the  BAA Out Of Town Meet in Carlisle),   because of his passion for lunar observing, stating that this brass enclosed 18 mm Erfle was so 

good on the moon.

He did concur, and  that he too had used Erfles to good effect on the moon.

I foolishly parted with that Superb EP, I let it go with Scope I'd made many years ago, I was sick as a parrot for being so 

Daft. However, It is still being put to good use by the Local Astro.  Society member, who bought the telescope.

He still has both Scope and Eyepiece. I haven't the Gall to ask for the Erfle back.

Ron.

 

[RikM]

I asked a friend who should have a good idea what SPM preferred to use. His reply was that Patrick's favourite and most used was a long brass 'Dawes' eyepiece. I have no idea what one of those is but I have no reason to doubt the info.

[paulastro]

There was a time in the 'old days' when people just observed and talked/wrote about their observations, and didn't spend much time (if any) talking about what they used to observe and how they were going to be 'upgrading' their equipment.  I'm not sure when things changed and we started to become almost more obsessed with our equipment and testing it rather than spending time actually observing. 

I started observing in the very late sixties and early seventies, and was pleased to have only a one inch Ramsden for some time when I bought my first proper (six inch reflector) telescope. Though admittedly, only being able to use x48 on the Moon and planets did become a little frustrating during that period !!

Remember, most exciting breakthroughs in visual observations were not made with wide-field eyepieces that can almost show you the back of your head!!  We have only to think back to what eyepieces the great observers used - not an Ethos in sight.

Though I like to use nice equipment, looking back while I can remember a great many observations which have stuck in my memory over the years, for many of them I can't even remember what telescope I used - never mind what type of eyepiece. (without consulting with my observing records of course)

Anyway, back to the original topic.  Patrick was an observer first and foremost, which in my view is why discussing eyepieces was rather low on his priority list.  While Patrick did comment on his favourite telescopes, and his views are well known, this is probably because he was asked about it so frequently and he was responding to other people's needs.

Let's face it, if we had to, most of us could get through life with fairly un-exotic but good standard moderately price eyepieces (an other equipment) and still enjoy our observing.

[Highburymark]

I asked a friend who should have a good idea what SPM preferred to use. His reply was that Patrick's favourite and most used was a long brass 'Dawes' eyepiece. I have no idea what one of those is but I have no reason to doubt the info.

Brief bit of online research told me that a Dawes eyepiece was made in York, England, in late 1800s predominantly for solar viewing - unwanted heat was absorbed by a ring of ivory and ceramic material, then light reached an aperture wheel with bored holes to restrict fov. There were then two further wheels holding London smoke glasses to dim the image. The EP serves 3 functions - alterations of field diameter, magnification, and absorption or dispersion of unwanted heat or light.

A fittingly obscure and fascinating eyepiece for Patrick, then.

[Earl]

He was  Luna man from what I recall so didnt need anything special as its not really taxing on eyepieces.

[alan potts]

I would not mind betting he went for the simple type, Ortho's and the like, probalby older ones too, his scopes were all old that had been refurbished. I can remember photos of his scopes with brass type eyepieces and I guess they all pre-date the 70's. Don't every recall seeing a Meade or Celestron SC in his garden that was his.

Alan

[paulastro]

In response to Earl's post, I must say (being mainly a planetary and Lunar man myself) that to elicit fine planetary and Lunar detail apart from the qualities of the observer it is important that both the telescope and eyepiece (and diagonal if used) must be top notch.  In fact because of the difficulty in picking out fine subtle detail in moments of good seeing I would say that the optical system is more critical than for say deep sky observing.

While it is true many Lunar and planetary observers use optical systems of around f8 or more, which are more forgiving of some eyepiece deficits, it important that contrast and sharpness for instance  are first rate.  It is not the case that any old eyepiece will do by any means. (not that you actually said this Earl). 

Of course it is also true that  super-wide fields are hardly necessary for planetary or Lunar work, though a more modest 70degree field does enable some fine Lunar vistas to be observed.  Perhaps it is truer to say that with planetary and Lunar work you don't have to necessarily spend so much to get a high performing eyepiece because there is not the requirement of super-wide fields and more exotic eyepieces which are more expensive to produce.  This is not saying that they don't have to be of as good quality and fit for purpose.

[Earl]

Yeah this is true, but overall you dont need exotic eyepieces ( a bad term i know but you get my meaning im sure)  and still get good results, even with plossls / orthos of couse the better quality does help

I wonder how good his 14inch newt was? (it was 14?, not sure of the F but it was quiet old so i dont see it been a very fast one)

[Earl]

AH it was a 15 F6 ish, not bad for its age

http://oldsite.astro-sharp.com/pm_restoration_page1.asp

[Saganite]

Thanks for all the responses Guys. I do agree that Patrick as an observer first and foremost, probably regarded eyepieces as tools to

achieve what he wanted, and I would not be surprised to learn that he owned just three, low power ,middle, and high.

I was just curious.

I Think Earl it was15.5"

[LeeB]

To be fair I, quite understand the three eyepiece thing, I'm happiest with two pockets of a fleece (kept specially for the purpose) with an eyepiece in each and one in the scope, that way they are nice and warm no dew, and easy to get at. Which three depends on the scope of course.

[kev100]

I recently bought a copy of Patrick Moore's Observer book of astronomy. I found only one paragraph about EPs in the whole book, which made me chuckle.

[Saganite]

Nice One ! It made me chuckle also, to imagine the scorn and disbelief if I had been able to open my suitcase of glass in front of him !

[Earl]

Patrick was a man of the make do and mend generation im sure this coloured his views

[Saganite]

I meant suitcase full of glass of course !

[Mark at Beaufort]

I don't know what Patrick used for EPs although I understand that he was friendly with Dudley Fuller (Fullerscopes) which became Broadhurst, Clarkson and Fuller (Telescope House).

Members may find this eyepiece page from the 1973 Fullerscopes catalogue interesting.

[Saganite]

Thanks for posting that Mark.

[barkis]

Nice find Mark. The prices look amazingly cheap, but of course relatively  speaking, they will almost match today's.  I think  .

I used to love visiting BC&F years  ago in Farringdon Road.  I used to drool over the scopes, and dreaming one day 

I would have one.

I always felt obliged to buy something, but invariably, it was something small and cheap. 

Ron.

[Earl]

Nice find Mark. The prices look amazingly cheap, but of course relatively  speaking, they will almost match today's.  I think  .

I used to love visiting BC&F years  ago in Farringdon Road.  I used to drool over the scopes, and dreaming one day 

I would have one.

I always felt obliged to buy something, but invariably, it was something small and cheap. 

Ron.

I remember going into Sherwoods in Birmingham to get my Telementor 2 when i was 12 ish... all those scopes and goodies.