百年镜史（6）——ZEISS在Jena的生产历史

GRAYKNIGHT · 发表于 2002-8-28 03:27

最近在网络上各光学，军事，统计网站搜集了一些有关望远镜历史的资料，放到这里和各位共享，应该都是国内网站上首次发表，转载请注明，资料太多实在没工夫都翻译过来，各位见谅。
 
 
 
 Schomerus, The History of the Zeiss Works in Jena,

ages 241-3, The Zeiss Field Glass
 The field glass was substantially improved in its first twenty five
 years, in several ways including optical improvements. The year 1920
 brought the "wide-angle fieldglass" with the newly invented oculars whose
 70 degree field of view was half again as wide as earlier oculars. In
 1937, f.o.v. was increased to 90 degrees. In 1936 the T-optic [lens
 coating] was introduced, which eliminated light loss by reflection at the
 glass surface and raised the brightness by nearly half. These brighter
 night glasses were especially useful to sailors, hunters and alpinists.
 
 (*As can be learned from an article by Smakula in the Z.W.Z. (Zeiss
 Magazine) of June 1941, "What are Zeiss T Optics": During the passage of
 light through the glass, at the border between glass and air, part of the
 light (about 4-6% per surface) is reflected (thrown back). The reflected
 light is lost; this is termed reflection loss. The more glass surfaces
 there are in the instrument, the more light is lost. For a prism
 fieldglass with ten border surfaces the loss is greater than 40 %. The
 light intensity is diminished by that much, and the image produced by the
 optical system appears darker than it would be without the reflection. To
 eliminate the disturbing reflection had for a long time been the desire of
 the optical industry, but without any expectation of practical
 realization. As late as 1932, Professor M. von Rohr said that nothing
 could be done about it, since the reflection is inextricably connected
 with the refraction. But in 1935 Zeiss succeeded in perfecting a
 procedure whereby the reflection of white light is greatly diminished, and
 at one-color of light is practically eliminated. These optics received
 the name T-optic and were produced at Zeiss since 1935 for expensive
 instruments. In addition to the large increase in light, a contrast
 increase is achieved which is very favorable for microscope objectives and
 especially for complicated instruments with a great number of optical
 parts. See also: Smakula, About the increase of light intensity of
 optical instruments, Magazine for Instrument Science 60, pages 33-36
 (1940). Dr. Albert Koenig initiated these concepts. Dr. Alexander
 Smakula (born 1900 in Dobrowdy, Austria, employed October 1 1934,) has
 succeeded in the development of the procedure.)
 
 Significant reductions in the weight of binoculars were another
 achievement. This was important to the person carrying the fieldglass, as
 an old brass model that weighed 670 grams, was only 330 grams with the
 Elektron metal housing of 1933. This metal is an alloy of aluminum,
 magnesium, and silicium, with corrosion resistance increased by a galvanic
 procedure (Eloxal). The lightweight field glasses and theater glasses
 were made handier in 1926 with the introduction of the flat models with
 roof prisms.
 
 The Zeiss glass remains, in spite of many imitations, one of the most
 popular and widely sold binoculars. Because it was so popular, after the
 first world war, racketeers and profiteers quickly took advantage of this
 and marketed forged field glasses, often with the name, trademark, and
 other markings of Carl Zeiss. The main factory for this forgery was in
 Berlin. Old military stock was bought and freshened up, worn company
 names and trademarks were renewed, model identifications were replaced by
 newer ones, and old and new glasses of other makers were engraved with the
 Zeiss logo. At a police raid, hundreds of forgeries were discovered
 hidden in secret closets. The energetic actions of Zeiss to uncover these
 outrages led to several criminal proceedings, with just one trial
 containing 13 defendants. Forgers, fences, and black marketeers had to
 pay for their deeds with prison sentences and fines to Zeiss. In foreign
 countries, for example in the French ports, these forgeries were executed.
 and they were finally suppressed by the enlightenment of the public and by
 criminal prosecution.
 
 But the value of the Zeiss field glass can also be demonstrated by more
 positive documentation. In numerous letters from famous scientist-
 explorers and seafarers, its resistance against atmospheric influences in
 the desert, the tropics, on the oceans and in airplanes, was praised.
 Characteristic is the following: On the reservoir of the Saale dam a boat
 went down in the spring of 1938. A camera and a Zeiss field glass were
 lost to the passengers. At a depth of 15 meters, the field glass
 slumbered in the mud since that time, and was considered to be a total
 loss. When the water level was lowered 5 1/2 years later, the field glass
 reappeared. With little effort and hardly any cost it could be restored
 to a state that was hardly distinguishable from a new one, and afterward
 served useful purposes.

age 177, Zeiss and Bausch & Lomb
 Another business connection with a foreign country was accompanied by
 many hopes, but was dissolved during the first World War. The very
 important market of the United States of America had already closed itself
 off to imported optical products by exaggerated, high customs tariffs of
 25 to 49% of the product value. To erect a factory in that country seemed
 injudicious and daring; and consequently in 1908 management decided, with
 the approval of the foundation, to enter an alliance with the important
 optical firm of Bausch & Lomb in Rochester, with whom there was already a
 connection through licensing contracts. The firm of Saegmueller entered
 the alliance, as well. Zeiss secured its influence with strong financial
 participation. Also, the sale of Zeiss products in America was to be
 increased. This connection was fruitful, and the invested capital brought
 good interest. Visits by Professor Straubel and Dr. Bauersfeld to
 Rochester supplied information about American production methods which
 could be used in Jena, but also showed many weaknesses , which were still
 at that time part of American business practices. In the World War, even
 before the entrance of the United States, Bausch & Lomb could not resist
 the temptation to deliver strategic instruments to England, which caused
 Zeiss to dissolve the connection. There were no losses, since the sum of
 $817,260 was reimbursed on November 1, 1915.

ages 86-92, Terrestrial Telescopes, and Especially Prism Telescopes
 In the summer of 1893 the rumor went from mouth to mouth in the
 workshop, that professor Abbe, during his spring vacation in Switzerland,
 had invented a new kind of telescope and that trials were already being
 done. Indeed, it was an idea that Abbe already had and pursued in 1873
 but discontinued. The workers at Zeiss had enough to do with the
 requirements demanded by the microsope. The opticians to whom Abbe showed
 his invention at the trade exhibition in Vienna in 1873 did not show any
 interest in it, nor did Carl Zeiss. The Dutch or Galilean telescope was
 considered sufficient, although it only permitted small magnifications
 unless major defects in the image were allowed. They were used as
 Krimstecher (named after the Crimean War where they were used) with three
 or at most five times magnification, and as opera glasses with 1 1/2 to
 three times magnification. The time was not ripe for fundamental changes,
 proven by the fact that a solution from 1853 which approached Abbe's, by
 the Italian engineer Porro, (born November 25, 1801, died October 8, 1875)
 remained without success and was forgotten. (*"

orro, an inventor of
 genius, especially in the geodetic area, died in poor circumstancess and
 depressed mood. That his rich inventive gift was not successful may have
 been caused by the fact that he was not knowlegeable in optical
 calculations and didn't know how to perfect production procedures; also,
 his desire for improvements prevented economical fabrication." - Albert
 Koenig) It probably was mainly the lack of a sufficiently transparent
 glass which precluded an early success, in addition to other technical
 difficulties. Another factor may have been that just like the Galilean
 telescopes, the few Porro prism glasses which came to market were produced
 for monocular use. However, the many varieties of Schott glasses now
 available, which could be adjusted to the different optical requirements
 of Abbe, allowed these prism glasses, along with new types of microscope
 and photographic objectives. The prism telescope was created with the
 especially bright and clear borosilicate crown glass by Schott.
 
 The events included some excitement and tension. On July 8, 1893, the
 firm applied for a patent on the "image reversing prism combination" at
 the Imperial Patent Office. They asked for patent protection for the
 combination of four reflecting prisms in a certain arrangement; and the
 usage of this image reversing prism combination for the production of
 single telescopes, and double telecopes where the objective distance was
 larger than the distance of the oculars and eyes. A prism binocular built
 in such a manner has, like astronomical telescopes, a large doublet lens
 (two lenses cemented together) as an objective for the entry of light, and
 a set of three partly cemented ocular lenses for each eye. The system has
 a long ray passage and at first produces reversed images. Therefore, two
 more prisms are set into the ray passage, which erect the image by several
 reflections of the ray, and fold the long ray passage so that a short
 handy instrument is the result.
 
 While the request was examined at the patent office, trials were done in
 Jena. "If they are promising, we can congratulate ourselves and
 confidently begin a new production.", said in a letter of May 16, 1893 to
 the Foundation Commissioner Councillor Rothe in Weimar. Abbe wrote to him
 in the middle of September 1893: "The experimental production in regards
 to 'handheld telescopes' is advancing well. We now have firm ground under
 our feet for further advancement and for the judgement about the
 anticipated success and are, I hope, very close with the models, to a
 decision on the final forms to execute. In a few weeks we shall probably
 be able to start factory production in full force. We are no longer
 worried about lack of work for the winter and the forseeable future."
 (*This and the following letters of Abbe to Rothe are to be found in the
 papers of Councillor Rothe in his capacity as foundation commissioner of
 the Carl Zeiss Foundation and were graciously made available to me by the
 Thueringer States archive at Weimar)
 
 Into this hopeful mood exploded the patent office report of November 17,
 1893: "The image reversal by four times reflection and the therewith
 connected shortening of the tubes, is already known, compare Eisenlohr's
 Textbook of Physics, 11th edition, edited by Zech, Stuttgart, published by
 J. Engelhorn, 1876, page 317, fig. 3 and fig. 359. Such a Porro telescope
 which can be held by one hand and at the same time be adjusted, is for
 example owned by the Physical Institute of the Technical University of
 Stuttgart. . . . You may want to submit, within a month, new plans which
 are only concerned with the newness." This knowledge of the patent office
 was due to the circumstance that one of its members remembered seeing such
 a prism combination when he was an assistant at the Technical Institute in
 Stuttgart, which the Italian engineer Porro had given to a physicist
 there, a friend of his.
 
 How Abbe reacted to the patent office report, can be seen in two
 paragraphs in letters to Councillor Rothe. On November 27, 1893: "For
 some days now we are terribly busy in regards to the patent application
 for an 'image reversing prism combination? The patent office has rooted
 out an old publication, apparently quite by chance, but not too late for
 our concerns, from the years 1853 and 1857 (coming from an Italian well
 known as a geodetic engineer), which give a complete description of the
 prism combinations in both sequences and at the same time several of the
 applications which we have pursued. Our patent application therefore has
 to be quite limited. . . .The thing is of course very infuriating. But we
 must console ourselves with the fact that, if we had known everything in
 advance, we would have proceeded in essentially the same way. Czapski and
 I must now study the literature which the patent office indicated so that
 we gain assurance about what is still capable of being patented, and
 accordingly write a completely new patent application." (*Of course one
 must not see a reproach against the patent office in this expression of
 Abbe's. The office had to make known what it knew, according to paragraph
 2 of the old patent law) On November 30, 1893: "In regards to the
 telescope affair, we are not at all sorry about the disappointed hopes.
 These delusions have the advantage that they do not impoverish the deluded
 more than he would be without the delusion, but more often make him
 richer. And we find that the latter is true for us: we would hardly have
 had the 'guts' to pursue the affair as extensively as has been done in the
 last half year, if we hadn't had the notion that we could achieve
 something new. As you say yourself, and we are of the same opinion, the
 value of the whole thing for us in regards to our own fabrication is not
 diminished by the abolition of the patent for the construction that is
 expected to be most feasable; only the expectation for good licensing fees
 has vanished. By the way, if the newness is not questioned, we shall
 uphold our patent right, especially since the expenses for it have already
 been paid to a great extent."
 
 The Zeiss field glass has the special advantage of creating an increased
 stereoscopic effect, thus an increased depth perception and a greater
 plasticity of the images, by the increased distance between the objectives
 in comparison to the distance between the oculars. This is in addition to
 the advantage of being handy, which was achieved by the image erecting
 reflecting prisms, but the handiness was not patentable, after the patent
 office proved that it already belonged to the Porro telescope and was
 achieved by the same means.
 
 But the other advantage, the increase of plasticity to nearly double,
 was founded in an idea that Helmholtz had developed in 1857 in a lecture
 about the telescope, but which had not been practically used, and it had
 not occured to anyone so far that it might be useable for the telescope.
 While Porro used his prism combination only to gain a monocular telescope
 of a shortened and handier form, Abbe united two Porro telescopes in a
 binocular telescope in such a way that the Porro prism combination not
 only shortened the tubes, but also separated the objectives to achieve an
 increased stereoscopic effect, and thus unite the two: the handiness of
 the binocular and the heightened plasticity of the images.
 
 In the response to the patent office of December 21, the image erection
 was recognized as Porro's idea. The new patent request was limited to
 image erection in connection with the increase in distance between
 objectives. In regards to the previous patent application, the firm gave
 an explanation which begins as follows:
 
 "The researches in the literature, caused by the declaration of the
 Imperial Patent Office of November 17, 1893, have confirmed that the
 Italian engineer Porro executed two constructions of terrestrial
 telescopes at the beginning of the fifties, and described them; so that
 the supposedly newly specified 4 times reflecting prism combination in the
 application, was already executed. All reports to be found in the
 literature about the Porro telescopes are derived, as far as could be
 detected, from two reports which appeared in the years 1853 and 1856 in
 the French weekly Cosmos. The first of these describes the telescope
 which is mentioned in Eisenlohr抯 Textbook of Physics, first edition, page
 317, and pictured there, and which in the arrangement of the parts
 corresponds exactly to fig. 6 of the submitted drawing. The other report
 gives a description of a telescope, where the reflecting prisms for
 reversal of the image are combined in the way described in fig. 7 of this
 drawing.
 
 揙bviously, these inventions of Porro have not been successfully put
 into practice, and were therefore totally forgotten in practical optics.
 No mention is made of them anywhere in the literature on the subject; and
 among the textbooks of physics, that by Eisenlohr seems to be the only one
 that mentions the idea of Porro. These circumstances will explain, and
 perhaps excuse, the fact that the patent applicant became aware of the 40
 year old work of Porro only after the report of the Imperial Patent Office
 gave a basis for the research in the literature."
 
 On July 5, 1894 the requested patent was granted under the name: "double
 telescope with enlarged objective distance", whereby the increased
 plasticity was protected for 15 years.
 
 It is interesting to learn that Abbe anticipated the possibility of
 failure for the first application and therefore divided the application
 into two parts, that of the image erecting prism combination and that of
 the enlarged objective distance. The patent lawyer in Berlin who was to
 present the application proposed to Abbe that the application for the
 patent be formulated so that the second concept was included. Abbe
 responded to that in a letter of September 6, 1893 as follows: "This
 second claim is, in regards to the first, totally superfluous and even
 pleonastic, if one considers the first claim as being totally assured.
 But we were motivated to add the second claim by the thinking of 'Ben
 Akiba', and we kept in mind the possibility that at some point an
 elementary school teacher may have expressed, even if incompletely, the
 prism combination described in claim one. If that came to light after a
 year and a day, the patent, as far as it is based on claim one alone,
 could perhaps be invalid. Thinking of this possibility was obvious, since
 the undersigned himself had already had this idea and already in 1873 had
 a small telescope of this kind built for his personal use.
 
 揥e believe it certain, that the other uses of the prism combination
 (namely the shortened tube length and the spacing of the objectives to
 achieve stereoscopic effects) will be totally new, even if the idea of
 image erection in the telescope by prisms should turn out not to be new.
 If somebody had recognized before us these advantages allowed by the prism
 system, this would have been noticed."
 
 The Zeiss telescope was not only an economic success for the firm
 itself, but because of its advantages, it also inspired imitations by
 numerous other optical workshops. This was made easier because only part
 of Abbe抯 innovations were patented and the image erecting prism
 combination itself was not protected. The outer form, handy and pleasing,
 of the Zeiss telescope prevailed over others, and the binocular replaced
 the monocular telescope which was common until then, the drawtube Dutch
 telescope. In the following years there were attempts to eliminate the
 limited patent by lawsuits and to declare it null and void. They tried to
 take advantage of the fact that at the time of the patent application the

orro system was not new; and that the publication of Helmholtz in 1857 on
 his telescope showed that when the two objectives had a greater distance
 from each other than the oculars, depth perception and the plasticity of
 the image was increased. But these attempts were without success. The
 Imperial Court said in its decision of March 26, 1898, among other things,
 the following:
 
 "It is indisputable that the use of the Porro system in the binocular
 telescope, not only for image erection but also for increased stereoscopic
 effect by distancing the objectives in relation to the oculars, was new at
 the time of the patent application. It is also no longer disputable, that
 by the combination as demonstrated in the patent application, for the
 first time a binocular telescope with stereoscopic effect was created for
 ordinary, and military, nautical and other uses, which could only be
 achieved without this combination by the doubling of the magnification of
 the telescope. This doubling would make the telescope practically
 unusable for ordinary use.
 
 揟his obviously important economic progress suggests an innovation in
 the combination of the patent, not in a simple construction.
 揥hatever the plaintif contradicts in this is not convincing. It is
 correct that the accused achieves an already known effect in increased
 measure by means that were known individually. Already known was the
 binocular telescope, the Porro prism system, and the idea of Helmholtz to
 cause the stereoscopic effect by enlarging the objective distance in
 contrast to the ocular distance. But before the work of the accused,
 nobody had the idea that the image erecting Porro system in connection
 with the Helmholtz idea could serve to increase the stereoscopic effect.
 The invention is contained in this idea and its execution. The allegation
 of the plaintiff, that this idea should have been obvious to any expert,
 has not only not been proven by the oral deliberation, but was
 contradicted by the facts in their entirety. Both means were known to the
 highly qualified plaintiff. But he didn't formulate the idea that the
 accused did. Therefore the disputed patent has to be upheld."
 
 Another large optical firm, which in 1897 followed the initiative of
 Zeiss in using the Porro prism in binocular telescopes, producing
 binoculars which corresponded precisely to the Zeiss model, but without
 the increased stereoscopic effect which was under patent protection,
 dared, in extensive announcements and cataloges, to direct the reputation
 among the public, for novelty and independent initiative, towards their
 own products, which Zeiss could correctly maintain for itself since 1894.
 The advantages of the terrestrial telescope with image erecting prisms
 were contrasted with the Galilean telescope, and it was advertised as
 their own new construction, though glossing over the fact that the new
 system was already on the market since 1894, and using words and
 expressions which were taken from the scientific publications of Zeiss.
 Zeiss sent out a withering circular against this behaviour, "For Defense
 and Clarification", of July 31, 1897, to their regular business customers,
 where the firm gave strong expression to its hurt feeling of justice and
 announced that it had begun the required steps for a charge of unfair
 competition and to ask for damages according to paragraph one of the law
 against unfair competition. "We plan to resolve the affair with the
 fundamental question: whether the named law is only good enough to catch
 the little tricks of minor false sales, self-awarded exhibition medals and
 so forth; or if this law is also able to protect honest competition from
 the crafty and much more lucrative attempt, to guide foreign waters over
 their own mills, in grand style, which someone undertakes when, with his
 shabby harvest behind the achievements of others, he tries to brazenly
 usurp an aura of originality and well deserved progress, at the expense of
 others."
 
 Zeiss obtained full satisfaction at the trial, since the Royal Court at
 Berlin on July 13, 1899, pronounced a judgement, confirmed on February 16,
 1900 by the civil senate of the Supreme Court, that: 1, the accused firm
 had to stop the further distribution of the catalogue in question, under
 penalty of 100 marks for each case of each violation. 2, that the request
 for compensation was correct. And 3, that the plaintiff was permitted to
 publish judgement 1 in the appropriate journals within three months at the
 expense of the accused.
 
 Only after the surmounting of many technical difficulties and the
 removing of some mistakes in the first execution, which happened thanks to
 the untiring efforts of Jakob Heckel, did Zeiss succeed in producing a
 really faultless precision glass worthy of the firm. (*The difficulties
 which had to be overcome are very vividly described in the paper of the
 Supervisor, Ret., Ernst Michaelis (born January 12, 1867 in Rathenow,
 member of the firm April 17, 1891, pensioned May 5, 1932, reemployed
 October 2, 1939 to March 1, 1941) "The First Field Glasses" in the Zeiss
 Journal of October 1941 is from his own experiences.) The field glass
 reached the public market in the fiscal year 1894/95 with sales of 187,000
 Marks, this rose to 350,000 Marks in 1895/96, in 1896/97 to 548,000 Marks,
 and at the beginning of the new century surpassed the sales of microscopes
 and remained at the top, with both departments reaching the first million
 in sales per year. Even after the expiration of patent protection in
 1908, field glasses, especially the 6 power and 8 power models, remained
 an important sales product of the firm, even though the other optical
 companies didn't miss the opportunity for sales. Here as with the
 microscope, it can be seen how Abbe抯 inventions were economically
 important, and what strong initiative they gave to the whole German
 optical industry.
 
 During this time period, there was further development of the sighting
 telescope for rifles (1892) and for cannons (1894), the relief or scissors
 telescope, and the stereoscopic marine rangefinder. All these instruments
 gained great importance and wide distribution in the following years.
 
 In the time from 1846 to 1886, the little microscope workshop became a
 microscope factory, and during the decade between 1886 and 1896, by the
 incorporation of new and successful branches of production, the
 development was begun which led in the following half century to the vast
 enterprise of Zeiss, working in nearly all aspects of optics. From the
 beginning to the end of this decade the yearly gross rose from half a
 million to 1,875,000 Marks, or by three and three quarters times; the
 number of employees and workers to the two and three quarters times; and
 the expenses for wages and salaries to the three and three tenths times.
 The firm with its 700 employees, to which were added the 250 of the Jena
 glass works, was already an important factor in the community of Jena.
 
 As important as this time period became for the strengthening of the
 firm by the increase in production capacity, even more important for the
 future would be the fact that Abbe changed the privately owned firm to a
 foundation during this time. We shall discuss this in future chapters,
 but first we shall become aware of the importance of the death of the
 founder of the firm, in whose honor Abbe named his great foundation.

耶那蔡司 · 发表于 2002-8-28 15:34

funder,你洋文好！翻译一下！

百年镜史（6）——ZEISS在Jena的生产历史

百年镜史（6）——ZEISS在Jena的生产历史

发表回复