George Gearless

Hi and welcome. Maybe you can trade in a child or two for some realy good kit? 😜

Thanks guys. That SolarHam site looks intriguing. Gonna go have a good browse and come back here and annoy the hell out of you guys with idiotic questions 😉.

Ok, ready for a newbie question? I've browsed Astrobin as well as this site for inspirational pictures since I've recently acquired a Daystar Quark. Often there is a number attached to the picture such as in the title. So I tried to google it and see what came up. Apparently AR2735 is the flight number from Jigaz to Buenos Aires in Argentina. In other words, google was no help. My guess is that it has something to do with the location on the sun. But I have no idea how that works on a (sometimes) featureless object or where I can get more info about it. Maybe there's a helpful soul here that could point me in the right direction?

Brilliant tip. Thanks 👍.

I didn't use a powerpack. I used the mains. As it happens, initialy I got no light at all. This was due to a fautly USB converter. Well, it wasn't precisely the converter, but the clip-on converter that corresponds my countrys outlet. It wasn't making proper contact. No biggie. I have tons of those lying around and soon found a replacement. I set up quick and dirty which means I oriented the mount at approximate north and simply set it running. Even with this clumsy setup, the tracking was remarkably on target. But I think I might just have been lucky. I use a IR/UV cutoff filter before the diagonal (not required for my aperture but recommended by virtualy all suppliers as well as Daystar themselves). But I'd still advise caution. Because being the moron I am, I didn't remove the black protection cap from the Quark before inserting it. Took about 6 second for it to burn through it and clear smoke could be seen emanating from the diagonal. I tell you, it took a while before my heart was back to normal operation *phew*. The smoke particles from the burnt plastic was a worry. But after close inspection the Quark doesn't seem worse for ware. Besides, it works perfectly. Now without the protection cap :). If the noon sun is burning directly on it, I can't help but think that this influences heats ability to dissipate from the Quark. I acknowledge I may just have been too impatient for the light to go green since it takes longer to cool the unit down than it does to heat it up. I'm just thinking that the burning sun on the unit is not helping in this matter.

Disclaimer: I am typing this while doing a happy dance. Oh.....my.......god!! I set up my mount and Skywatcher APO 80mm and tested with my old front sunfilter to begin with. You know, just to make the image clear in my mind. Everything looked normal and the usual bland white disc of nothingness glared back at me dead in the center. Then I put in the Quark. It was AMAZING!!! I had invited my dad for this virgin voyage. And after each of us had a quick peek at the dark-red on black image, we spent the rest of the afternoon equally observing and equally fighting over time at the telescope. I started out with the setting in the middle and found several clear proms and spiculae all around the disc on my/our first try. Absolutely fantastic. I did try and turn it down (from middle position), but seemingly without success. It was very hot and the sun (obviously) was baking the unit. So I never got a green light after turning the knob down. So I think I'll design a sun shield of sorts, so the unit doesn't get direct sunlight. Anyway, I have a lot of playing and fooling around to do this summer to make a proper assesment. But so far my decision to buy the Quark instead of upgrading my EQM-35 Pro mount to an EQ6, seems to be the right one. I am so so so excited about this! *does another happy dance* Hope you get yours soon.

Having a frame of reference is also going to be my problem. I remember the first time I looked through a proper astronomical telescope (many many years ago), how disappointed I was of the image of Saturn. I was expecting the full blown digitaly enhance pictures I was acustomed to see in the astronomy books. But I've learned my lesson. I'm very much aware that I should not expect to see the beautiful orange stacked pictures of prominences and sunspots that usualy pop up when you do a search for 'Quark/sun' on Astrobin or similar sites. But even so, it's going to be a problem for me to distinguish a good Quark from a bad one. So I've put my trust in my dealer to test it properly before sending it off to me. They have assured me that they've tested it by actualy plugging it in and viewed the sun through a telescope. It got the thumbs up and now the rest is up to me. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Just got mine last week. Weather permitting (the forecast looks promising) I'll be testing it for the first time tomorrow. May I ask why you needed to replace it?

Someone on this site said that the perfect amount of telescopes, is n+1, where n is the number of telescopes you currently have. Sorry I can't credit the right person. I just don't remember who it was. Although I'm sure it was meant as a joke, there's a lot truth in it for my part. Four days ago I received my Daystar Quark. Through a combination of work and overcast I have yet to point it at the sun with my Evostar 80 APO. But just moments ago I found myself browsing FLO for a bigger and better refractor to complement my Quark. Unbelievable right? I've come to the realization that it will never ever be enough. No matter how much money I sink into it, there's always something better (or just different). And even if I did buy the best that money can buy today, next year there'll be a new and improved model. I've once again, after my recent purchase, vowed to not buy any more equipment until I've fully explored the capabilities of what I currently have. I hope my determination to uphold my vow does not dwindle as quickly this time :).

True. I'd just like to avoid that hassle of having to send packages back and forth between England and Denmark if I can avoid it. Keep in mind, I am a first time user of both the Quark/Lunt/other sun telescopes. So I have no frame of reference. If I had a professional give it a 'once over' before being shipped, I'd feel so much more comfortable. Through references from this forum in particular, I trust FLOs expertise entirely.

Mind? It's virtualy mandatory! 😉 Nothing beats that first photo. Thanks for sharing it. Just you wait 'till you get your first deep sky object in the bag. Oh boy...you are in soo much trouble now. 🤑 Oh, and welcome, by the way.

Can't think of a better way to go through your mid-life crisis :). Enjoy it and welcome.

I just checked with another supplier, Astroshop.eu in Germany. They said that they test most of the equipment before sending it off, but particularly the Quark is tested because they too are aware of the variable quality. As they put it in their mail "we don't want to send you a bad one ". The only problem is that Astroshop.eu is a VERY expensive place to shop. The Quark at FLO costs £999. Astroshop costs £1193. Yikes! I think I'll wait for the normal operations at FLO and hope they'll test it for me before sending it. But I think I've pretty much made up my mind to go the Quark way.

That's actualy a very good question. I'd like to know that as well.

Here are my astounding examples of engineering at its finest :). The first one I made was for my Mak 127 just like yours. I just used the foam that the telescope came in. Don't worry about the filter not being completely tight like a drumskin. It doesn't matter. Just make sure it's as 'light-proof' around the edges as possible. In fact, you should take extra care NOT to stretch it. That'll ruin the structure of the filter. The second one was made with cardboard and tape for my 80mm refractor. Looks terrible I know. But it works. Just make sure that 'cap' has an edge on the inside, so the edge of the telescope doesn't rest directly on the foil when you put it on. The foil is rather flimsy. Setting esthetics aside, when you look through your eyepiece, you will see no difference between the homemade filter or the 'proffesional' one.

Interesting timing. I was on the verge of purchasing one. But like you, I was worried about the reports of very variable quality. It's 'cheap' as solar telescopes go. But it's a big chuck of money for a telescope/eyepiece that essentialy can only be used for one thing. So I mailed FLO a couple of days ago and got a response yesterday. I asked if they did some sort of quality check before sending it out, or if they just shipped it as they got it from the manufacturer. The answer was this: There has been some variability in the performance of individual quark units. In normal times we could test a unit before despatching but at the current time that is not possible as our warehouse and warehouse staff are working under strict distancing rules and everyone else is working from home. I interprate that as "we don't normaly test before sending. But if you ask us to, we will". And "currently we are not able to test it, even if you asked us to". The answer does not include an estimate as to when they will be operating normaly again. Personaly I have not quite given up on the Quark just yet. I'm reading about the alternatives as much as I can, but it seems to me that price is going to be the deciding factor here. I simply can't afford a solar scope that rivals the EvoStar 80mm (that I already own) and a Quark. On the other hand; it doesn't matter if it's cheap, if it doesn't work. Edit: Daystar says that up to 120mm you do not need an UV/IR filter. Technicaly that may be so. But in their mail to me, FLO did recommend an UV/IR cut filter https://www.firstlightoptics.com/daystar-quark-solar-eyepieces/daystar-2-uvir-cut-filter.html for even my 80mm. That'll set you back another £119. Just thought I'd mention that.

You won't go wrong with what Johninderby has posted. That would be the 'Rolls Royce' of solar filters for your particular size of scope. Allow me to offer an alternative. Like this https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/explore-scientific-solarix-a4-solar-filter-film.html. Took me no more than 20 mins to cut out pieces of cardboard from a box that fits perfectly on my scope and glued the filter on it. I even had some left over to fit on some cheap binoculars I had lying around. Sure, it doesn't look as professional as the premade one. But it works just as well. I'll try and post a pic of it when I get home tonight.

That's true. I was thinking Quark Chromosphere .

Here's the short version: What would you choose if you can only choose one of them? EQ6 or Daystar? The little longer version: By way of persuading my wife to get a second job and leasing my kids to a sweatshop in Cambodia, I've found some cash in the budget that's just begging to be spent on astronomy kit. It's not that I don't have kit at all. It's just that I feel it's time for an upgrade. My current mount is a Skywatcher EQM-35 Pro which has served me faithfully and competently these past couple of years. I usualy use it in conjunction with my EVOstar 80 refractor with good results. Last year I bought a 180 Maksutov which the mount can juuuust handle. But I am pushing boundries here. I would like to get a good sized newtonian for AP at some point, but find that my current mount limits me weight wise. The EQ6 seems to be able to handle pretty much anything I throw at/on it. With all the kit I already have, I feel it is wasted half of the year because of the bright summer nights here in Denmark. Yes, you can still use it for moon gazing when it's out. But DS AP is out of the question in the summertime. So how about looking at the sun? From my 'research' into the matter, the Daystar seems to be a very viable option. The great thing about this option is that it can be used with the telescopes and mount that I already have. But it's pricy. It costs about the same as an EQ6. It's a bit of a luxury to have this 'problem', I know. I also know that if you ask three people you'll get three different answers. But I'd just like to bounce this ball of you guys and see if there are pitfalls or advantages to either option that I just haven't considered. Given the chance, what would you choose? And why?

I did think of that. Unfortunately it'll cost me more to submit a claim than a new camera will cost :(.

Well, the alternative is buying a new one. And given the new purchase price of £333 at FLO, I suspect sending it off somewhere for repair, is not a financialy sound solution either. But, do you think that a lose connection somewhere would cause this behavior?

Ok, I'm afraid this is not good news (for me). I usualy use Stellarmate. So I was 'hoping' that going through that might cause some problem. So I hooked the cameras (in turn) directly into Sharpcap on my 32bit tablet/laptop, and pointed the scope at a far away flagpole. I set the 120mini at exp 0,0350ms. Set the gain for auto and noted it settled at 17. Pretty clear photo and reasonably lightened. Then I put in the 385MC and set the same values as for the 120mm. It was very underexposed. I set the gain for auto, and it jumped up to 145 in order to get a reasonably lighted picture. Reversely I locked the gain at 17 but then had to raise the exp time to something like 0,3ms before getting a decent picture again. Beond acknowledging that the camera is damaged, I realy can't think of anything else to try.

Probably good advice about not panicking :). I do believe I have the latest drivers, but I've downloaded the package once again just to be sure. Next, I'm going to fiddle around with ASIStudio Software (which I did not even know existed) to see if I can determine anything out of the ordinary. Thanks Doc.

So I dropped my ZWO 385MC camera the other day. It wasn't from a great height. Something like 30-40 cm onto a tiled surface. But it was enough to make me worry. I set up last night and pointed the scope roughly at Polaris. My finderscope/guider (50mm with a ZWO 120mm mono camera) easily picked up Polaris and quite a few other stars. But my main scope (Evostar 80ED with said ASI 385MC) showed only a black nothing. I was barely able to get Venus showing. I've desperately gone through all the settings that I can think of to see if I've messed something up somewhere. But so far I haven't found anything out of order (but I'm willing to entertain the idea that I've missed something). I also tried running them both through Sharpcap, and I need many times more exposure to get a light picture on my 385 than on my 120. So, in order to determine if the camera is damaged, I was wondering if there are any progams out there that can run a sort of self-test? I realize the camera is not exactly high end. But to me it's not actualy pocket change either. I'm not about to replace it before I've searched all avenues for a remedy. Any suggestions as to what might be done? Or do I just have to bite the bullet and consider it broken beond repair?

There's no feeling quite like it, is there? I offer both my congratulations as well as commiserations for getting the photo bug. Joking aside; it IS a crack shot. You have every reason to be proud and happy about it.