DRT

PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT THIS UNLESS YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES LOOK INTO OR STAND BEHIND A TELESCOPE THAT IS POINTED AT THE SUN WITHOUT A PROPER SOLAR FILTER IN PLACE 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just tried a quick experiment with my TV Pronto and a 2" Baader UV/IR Cut filter.

First I set-up the scope with the filter in place on the nose of a 2" diagonal and placed a loosely fitting sheet of paper across the eyepiece end of the diagonal. I then pointed the scope at the sun and a small, very bright disk was projected onto the paper. I left it in place for a few minutes and then slewed the scope away from the sun and removed the sheet of paper. It wasn't remotely warm.

I then removed the UV/IR filter and repeated the experiment. 15 seconds in this happened...

I quickly ended the experiment  

My conclusion is that the UV/IR Cut filter certainly rejects a significant amount of energy/heat. That and Daystar's recommendation to use one is good enough for me  

7 minutes ago, ngwillym said:

To be honest I'm not doing too much testing - just touch at the edges of the quark nosepeice - nice and cool.

While I think of it, i might just fit the quark with its cover on and see if it melts next time :-)

 

I can confirm that the nose of my Quark is never hot when I finish a session but I can also confirm that I have burned a hole through the centre of the lens cap when I forgot to remove it  

I hope the sun comes out tomorrow as I'm itching to test some of this stuff  

12 minutes ago, ngwillym said:

The Baader 35nm Ha filter has proven very effective as an ERF. I have used it successfully with scopes up to 152mm. The beam behind it is cool, even on a 152.

Thanks for your post, Neil - very informative!

Can I ask how you are testing whether or not the beam behind the 35nm Ha filter is cool?

14 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

Did you not recently have issues with your quark? Maybe this is a result of your erf combination ??

 

As you say thought if your happy.

I did, and it has been replaced, but the problem was with the exit window just before the eyepiece and Daystar declared it to be "a known issue" rather than damage from mis-use. I suppose I'll know if the new one develops the same problem but I suspect if Daystar thought that was the issue they would not have replaced it.

I think the key to this is the diagonal, which never gets even remotely warm and suggests to me that harmful UV and IR rays are not getting past the filter. If it isn't reaching the diagonal, it can't reach the Quark.

10 minutes ago, Toxophilus said:

I can see where you are coming from as there is not a 100% clear statement of requirement and it is open to interpretation for simple air spaced type refractors. Perhaps some clarification from Daystar is required on this by asking them directly. However I think the advice at the bottom of the article sums up the best approach:

"In general, if a telescope owner is uncertain or uncomfortable with the application of UV/IR cut filters on the rear of the telescope, then it is best to revert to the standard DayStar Colored glass front mount Energy Rejection pre-filter."

Personally, if I was ro run a 80+mm scope with a quark I would use a front mounted ERF as I would rather not take the chance, but as I'm using an ST80 and ED80 I use an internal IR/UV cut filter.

I understand where you are coming from. My choice to use the UV/IR Cut filter is based on two things: (1) the generally accepted view seems to be that energy rejection is required to protect the Quark (not my eyesight) and (2) given that the risk associated with the UV/IR Cut filter relates to potential damage to the OTA I am happy not to spend twice the price of the OTA on a front-mounted 150mm ERF.

As I said at the beginning of all of this, I have been using this set-up for some time and have never noticed any problem with heat in either the OTA or the diagonal. I'm happy with the set-up and I get great views so my intention is to stick with what works.

2 minutes ago, Toxophilus said:

The link in the text at the bottom of the page that I referred to is actually broken but used to get you to this page: http://www.daystarfilters.com/energy.shtml all of which are front mounted energy rejection filters. 

Personally I see a clear distinction between an Energy Rejection Filter (which is front mounted and rejects energy before it enters the optical system) and a simple UV/IR cut filter (which does not). 

Perhaps the OP should contact Daystar directly for clarification.

But Daystar also have this on their website, which  advises that refractor users can use a UV/IR Cut filter instead of a front mounted ERF: http://www.daystarfilters.com/inout_article_base/index.php?page=view/article/4/UVIR-Cut-Filter-application-for-Refractors

I do understand the difference between the two - I am simply trying to establish what is required versus what is ideal. Those two things are very different and come at vastly different cost.

9 minutes ago, Toxophilus said:

You need to run an aperture mounted ERF over 80mm.

That's not what it says. It says you need an ERF above 80mm - it doesn't say it needs to be aperture mounted.

The only advice I can find on the Daystar website is that when an ERF is required you can fit a UV/IR Cut filter to the nose of your diagonal as an alternative to a front mounted ERF. I can't find any aperture limit where that advice would no longer apply.

6 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I believe the goal of a true front mounted ERF and a "mini ERF" (UV/IR,35nm Baader 2") is to keep heat (energy) from the Quarks filters.

I agree with that. The consistent message across the variable advice from retailers is that an internal ERF can harm your OTA if the light beam is off axis. Mounting a 2" filter to the nose of a well fitting diagonal and a good quality focuser prevents that from happening and the UV and IR go straight back out the way they came into the tube without reaching focus and without touching the sides.

1 minute ago, spaceboy said:

So from what I gather from Altair's site apertures of115mm and over you need a front mounted erf ? So you are correct DRT it's not 75mm ?

I don't think it is clear. The advice on the various sites is different so my instinct tells me to go with what is published by Daystar. These two pages lead me to believe that I don't need a front mounted ERF...

Daystar Quark Flyer

http://www.daystarfilters.com/inout_article_base/index.php?page=view/article/4/UVIR-Cut-Filter-application-for-Refractors

4 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

Says 3" here mate http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/review/miscellaneous/daystar-quark-hydrogen-alpha-eyepiece-filters and I'm positive I have read it in more detail else where??

 

Either way I'm aware moonshane employs a Baader 35nm filter in his PST mod so he may be along shortly to offer a better understanding of the filters for solar. I know he has a Baader d-erf so why he uses a 35nm over a UV/IR I'm not totally sure??

I just read that S@N article. There is a much more detailed description on the Altair Astro website but much of that seems to be the opinion of the retailer rather than advice from Daystar. Is it just a coincidence that Altair also sell all of the ERF options mentioned?  

15 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

Just checked and it's saying over 3" and you need an aperture ERF. Obviously DRT has better knowledge on this than me though!

I wouldn't bet on that  

Where did you see the over 3" advice?

5 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

I thought you had to use a proper ERF over a certain aperture

I have seen that written on some retailer's websites but the Daystar spec doesn't mention any aperture limitations. What is does say is that you should use a UV/IR Cut ERF on the front of your diagonal if using a tracking mount.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the main reason for blocking UV before the Quark is to protect the Quark, not your eyes. Adding the UV filter to the eyepiece would mean that the full dose of UV would enter the Quark.

I use the Baader UV/IR 2" on the nose of my diagonal in my Altair 152 F5.9 and have never noticed any problem with heat in either the OTA or diagonal.

On 31/07/2017 at 12:47, DRT said:

 the M10 to 3/8th adapters seem to be twice that price  

On 31/07/2017 at 12:55, FLO said:

We will be offering Berlebach ones, if you find a cheaper (well made) option please say  

@FLO - it might be worthwhile stocking some of these alongside the Berlebach M10 to 3/8ths adapters as some tripods might just need a replacement bolt to do the job  

17 minutes ago, JonC said:

Any idea what cable is needed to connect this to a synscan hand controller? The handcontroller is RJ45

According to the manual the port on the mount is RJ-12

46 minutes ago, FLO said:

 

 

TaDa  

Berlebach 3/8" Photo Adapter for EQ5/HEQ5 

Thank-you for the suggestion, Helen. 

Steve 

I have just placed my order, Steve. Thanks for getting them into stock so quickly  

Another tip: when replacing the collimation bolts make sure you replace them one at a time so that the secondary mirror does not become loose. Remove one hex bolt and then replace with one of the new ones and screw in until you start to feel resistance from the secondary, then move on to the second one and repeat the process until all three new bolts are in place. You should then find that the secondary hasn't moved very far and collimation should be quite easy to achieve with just a few small adjustments  

7 minutes ago, Floater said:

Or there's always Bob's Knobs. One of the most satisfying mods available ...

(Not the cheapest, I'll admit. But as a Scotsman I know that money's not everything ...??)

As one Scotsman to another, the one's I linked to are identical to Bob's Knobs but about 1/3rd of the price ?

Hi,

I use these bolts on my Newtonians as they are much easier to adjust than having to use an Allen key...

http://www.wdsltd.co.uk/product/3338/adjusting-screw-steel-metric-wds-605/

You need the M4 45mm long version - part number 605-200445

Derek

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Have fun Derek! So, what's the little Red, Green, Blue, White tiny filter thingy in the last image??

It's an LED torch ?

Tomorrow I head for the Galloway coast with the hope of some dark skies. 

My travel kit consists of an Ercole mount on a Berlebach tripod and this lot...

...and a Quark and a box of bits and bobs. 

Slumming it in the south of Scotland ?

I have just had my first look through the repaired Quark and it is fantastic!

The surface detail is much more pronounced than it was before and I haven't spotted any dull zones in the FOV. I am convinced this is effectively a new device attached to the original Barlow section and I must say I am delighted with the outcome. 

Phew! ? 

6 minutes ago, Pig said:

That's great news Derek and you haven't missed any sunshine ?

You're not wrong, mate. I think I've had the Lunt out about three times since the Quark was sent off. 

Guaranteed sunshine for the rest of the summer ?

On 06/06/2017 at 23:46, DRT said:

Simon at Widescreen Centre emailed today to let me know that Daystar have identified/know the fault from the picture and will replace the filter under warranty. 

Windescreen Centre are taking care of logistics. 

?

Less than two months after agreeing to help resolve the problem Widescreen Centre returned my Quark to me today.

Daystar have not supplied any information about what the fault was, how it occurred or what they did to fix it but it looks to me that they have replaced the entire red section of the device. It is a slightly darker colour than I remember and absolutely no signs of use.

The service from Simon at Widescreen Centre has been excellent and I am quite impressed that Daystar turned this around relatively quickly during the period leading up the the total eclipse in the USA.

It is a sunny day tomorrow so I will be testing it out and will report back  

Another solution would be to stick a long 3/8ths bolt through the top connector on an EQ5 pillar extension.