Giancarlo Truffa recently posted a link to the HASTRO-L mailing list that contains a mention of a surprising claim that Leonardo da Vinci apparently designed a telescope:-
On page 59(b) of Leonardo’s Codex Atlanticus appears this drawing. Bülent Atalay proposed in 2005 that it is Leonardo’s “telescope”. The page also contains a “study of light reflection of a concave mirror”.
And here’s the drawing itself:-
Though (perhaps understandably) skeptical of the basic proposition, Giancarlo kindly listed the literature:
- B. Atalay and K. Wamsley “Leonardo’s Universe: The Renaissance World of Leonardo da Vinci” (National Geographic Books, 2009)
- B. Atalay “Math and the Mona Lisa: the Art and Science of Leonardo da Vinci” (Smithsonian Books, 2004)
Bülent Atalay was convinced enough by his own arguments to get a modern reproduction built, so maybe this is a proto-telescope… though the odds would seem to be against it. Add it to the (long) list of things that Leonardo may have invented (but probably didn’t)…
The image seen is only part of the page left by Leonardo. On the same sheet in the upper left is a study of reflections of rays of light from a concave reflector. The cylindrical tube itself is meaningless. It might as well be a howitzer or mortar.
Regards,
Bulent
Perhaps he wanted to impress by finding a way to repeat the mirrors of Archimedes.
*Damn – should have checked Wiki first. The point has already been made, a lot!
From Athanasius Kircher’s “Ars Magna Lucis”, page 764:
“Archimedes Burning Mirror”
Kircher had a beautiful engraving made of his visit to the harbor of Syracuse. He apparently “did the math” and concluded that Archimedes mirror must have been elliptical, rather than parabolic or spherical.
Nick, I’ve lost a reference to Kircher’s being gifted with the eyepiece of microscope/telescope (?) by which he was able to view some tiny living entitites (bacteria?, pond flagellates?, mites?). He supposedly pondered on “how their little lungs could breathe, and how their little hearts could beat…”
I admit to a “sentimental” reaction to his rather poignant reverie.
It’s a mortar!
I just saw the huge old Italian book “Leonardo DaVinci” by Reynal & Company, with a chapter on this by a historical editor (Domenici Argentieri) who clearly also knew optical engineering. I have a B.S. in Physics (Univ of Michigan), and I analyze and renovate old telescopes for resale. Without going into details (trust me!), Leonardo had at least a dozen details that are instantly recognizable to anyone who works in the field, and make no sense otherwise: dimensions, focal lengths, grinding techniques, concave vs convex lenses, magnification, on and on. The math checks out. It can’t possibly refer to anything else. I’m now amazed this isn’t common knowledge. I guess all the historians who aren’t optical engineers have no idea what they’re seeing, but still control the discourse. (And the tube isn’t a mortar, good grief: it’s in a section on optics.)
You mean the Voynich manuscript has drawings like
Ibn Sahl’s, with lots of geometry? Or like Thomas Hobbes’ with lots of biology? Mark Smith wrote a book about the history of optics from the earliest times. He doesn’t mention the Voynich manuscript, though. (Maybe you should tell him?)
He had no chance in Rome constructing that bigger telescope what with that paranoid German worker and the negative papal staff! But he thought big! I have no doubt that he had at least hobbled together a small spyglass to ogle the moon and probably more. I thought Phillipe Le Roy’s Leonardo was bung on! They say a couple of thousand pages of Leonardo’s notes at the British museum’s clean up got mistakenly thrown in the incinerator! Bloody love!y isn’t it!!!
you need to put this is the other thread .. this belongs with the Mystery stone of https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48212442
i have connected the dots !!!!!!!!