Talk:Niccolò Zucchi

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article expanded

Added much from other biographical articles. I have toned down Niccolò Zucchi re: the reflecting telescope. I have found no solid references that he had anything to do with it other than trying to see if he could see the image formed by a bronze mirror he barrowed from someone else. The idea that he observed Jupiter’s belts and spots on Mars with one seems to be a jump in logic, since if it was true, he was using a reflector that was 130 years more advanced than anyone else’s... somebody would have wrote about that. I suspect he was using Keplerian refracting telescopes for those observations. I see only one reference to him giving a reflector to Kepler, and I suspect that one as well. Again it may be someone making the logical jump "if he invented a reflector, he gave one to Kepler". Better references are needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Inspired Gregory / Newton?

rm'ed the following claim to talk:

His book may have inspired James Gregory and Isaac Newton to build reflecting telescopes

Statement is unverified and what i can find actually states the opposite (Alan Elihu Shapiro, Fits, passions, and paroxysms: physics, method, and chemistry and ... - Page 108). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Meeting Kepler in 1632?

"In 1632, Zucchi was a member of a Papal legate sent to the court of Ferdinand II. There he met Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer." That sounds like it'd be rather hard, since the article for Kepler says he died in 1630. I don't know what the correct year is, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. 64.253.109.104 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Many sources say 1632 which is obviously wrong. Added source which says 1623, "Apart from the fact that he met and sought to convert Kepler during a visit in 1623 to the court of the Hapsburg Emperor Ferdinand II at Prague,...."... convert from a heliocentric view? Another source seems to claim it was a Venice meeting in 1621[1]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Britannica Quote Necessary?

Is the Britannica Quote "...if Zucchi conceived himself the inventor of a reflecting telescope why did he conceal it till 1652 and why did he not get a real speculum made to give his idea a fair trial?" necessary. The quote implies that Zucchi was trying to take credit for an invention that was not thought to be useful at the time or for at least a century afterward (reflectors didn't compete with refractors until well after Newton's death). The quote itself has POV problems. If you take the Latin from Zucchi's work and plug it into a translator it seems to be Zucchi simply describing a failed experiment. Warning: Understanding the translated English from the Latin is a bit painful.104.247.234.102 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick note and corrections from the editor who added it: Actually the quote is about Fontenelle's claim, not Zucchi's. The reason for the paragraph is to flesh out and follow the history of the claims Zucchi successfully used his early reflecting telescope. The claims are made by fairly unreliable sources, reliable sources (Watson,King) state it did not work, period. The Latin translation has many secondary sources translating it, I have inserted one. A Latin expert can always fix it up a bit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In reviewing the original text in Encyclopedia Britannica, the quote can be interpreted as pertaining to Zucchi not Fontenelle because it follows a long passage that deals with Zucchi's description of his experiment. I just don't see the need for the quote. Why would you use an unreliable source (1858 Britannica) to refute an unreliable source (Fontenelle's). You already have your "reliable" sources. There is no reason to assume a 150 year old Encyclopedia is authoritative. 104.247.234.102 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A 150 year old Encyclopedia talking about a 400 year old event may be authoritative, they seem to be smarter than the internet on this claim. I have reworded the section to better follow the claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just one added point, I believe the idea Fontenelle's claim that Zucchi used his telescope to view terrestrial and celestial objects was not an Fontenelle's invention but actually extracted from Zucchi's own words in Optica Philosophia. 104.247.234.102 (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can pull that out of the Latin it would be helpful. I have seen no reliable secondary source that has made that observation but it could be there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope I didn't mess with the quote when I cut, pasted, and cleaned it of quotation marks. Maybe someone is good with Latin. It looks like the passage "ejus ope ad terrestria et coelestia" might have something to do with terrestrial and celestial.

Anno 1616, dum aliqua de theoria tubi optici commentarer, apud me statui, eundem eflfectum, qui per refractionem in vitro aliquomodo convexo, ad objecta converso obtinetur, obtineri posse per reflexionem a speculo cavo. Tentavi experimentum diu,sed irrita conatu, ex imperfecta elaboratione hujus modi speculorum, quos reperire poteram sicut per vitra convexa quae emen dandis oculis senum adhibentur, frustra tentavi tubum opti cum qualemcunque mihi optare, cum primo de ipso aliquid pinaudivi, quia inaequalitas configurationis, quae in usu per spiciliorum consueto minus nocet, in tubo parit confusionem. Tandem specum ex aere cavum, e musco viri clarissimi transmissum ad amicum ab experto et accuratissimo artifice elaboratum, nactus, ejus ope ad terrestria et coelestia con versi, adhibito in convenienti situ ad oculum vitro cavo pro portionaliter, ut fit ad excipiendam radiationem refractam vitri convexi in tubo optico expertus sum ita evenire, ut ratio suadebat eventurum.

--104.247.234.102 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It all seems to restate what RS sources say re: "sed irrita conatu, ex imperfecta elaboratione hujus modi speculorum" --- "the effort was vain, because of this defective elaboration of this kind of mirror". Secondary sources specifically quote this passage containing "earthly and heavenly" and translate part of that sentence "ab experto et accuratissimo artifice elaboratum, nactus," as referring to the mirror being "fabricated by an experienced craftsman". So that part is all about the mirror and its use and maybe a rough translation of the whole passage is "The curved brass concave mirror, which was obtained by a friend and fabricated by an experienced craftsman through his earthly and heavenly hand, was (combined?) with a negative eye lens...."...... Just a guess using translate software and all academic, if we don't have RS on the telescope being used we go with what RS says. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)