astro_al

On 31/07/2020 at 09:23, Solar B said:

FS-128 as well after many years of enquiry ... so there are still some in circulation.

Good to know, but any future astro funds will be going towards a Ha solution. Since the Quark(s) went back I am missing that aspect of the hobby quite a bit. I do already have an adapter for the FS-60 to an SM60 (not sure why) so maybe that is a potential avenue to explore.

A question to ZWO ADC owners please. Step 1 in the manual says "Tighten the centre marker at 'the zero position'". Is the zero position absolute and indicated with an indent in the ADC body or similar?

I was planning on removing the nosepiece and screwing directly to a T2 diagonal, but if the zero position is absolute then I will need to introduce something that allows the whole ADC unit to rotate. If the zero position is relative and the critical part is moving the adjustment levers from zero relative to the horizon, then presumably I can just loosen the centre marker and rotate the ring to the set zero position parallel to the horizon?

Thanks.

On 28/07/2020 at 10:57, Solar B said:

I'm thinking all your needing is a 128 😀

That's a nice thought but if anything I should be going the other way and reducing the collection!

Thanks @JeremyS

Top one is the FS-152. 

Tube arrived at the weekend so I was finally able to assemble an FS-60 from a focuser I already had and an objective and dewshield purchased from a nice chap on UKABS. Had an FS-60 about 8 years ago, nice to have one again. Pictured at the front with the rest of the gang 😁

Makes sense Mark, thanks. My biggest scope is 6" and I have to mount that on a pier in my back garden from where the view south is a bit obstructed. This means that the planets need to be higher to be seen, which is why at the moment I go out the front with a grab and go setup from where I can see to a lower altitude.

Small scopes for low altitude planetary viewing out the front, and larger scope for higher altitude planetary viewing out the back. Maybe not much need for an ADC for me, although I will see how I get on with Mars with the bigger scope later in the year. 

6 hours ago, markse68 said:

Just back from another superb seeing evening with the planets and did a few comparisons of with and without the ADC. This is the last time i’ll do such a thing as there is really no point in looking at them at their current altitudes without. I had my 10mm BCO in the ADC barlowed to 5mm and swapped back and forth with the 6mm BCO on its own. Jupiter Saturn and Mars all had orange tops and bluish bottoms with the 6mm. There was detail to see but it was soft compared to with the ADC. Despite a bit more magnification with the ADC (320x vs 266x) the ADC view was sharper on all of them- there was just more definition. Easiest to see why was when observing Jupiter’s moons. With the 6mm the moon’s were elongated with strong colour smearing stretching their form. With ADC they were perfectly round disks. I know which i prefer.

Mark

Was that in your 8" dob @markse68? I was out with my 4" refractor and didn't see any colour smearing at about 140x. Are the effects of atmospheric dispersion more noticeable with larger scope due to their higher resolution?

23 hours ago, Stargazer McCabe said:

I bought mine after having a cuppa with a friend of mine, Es Reid. One afternoon we were discussing planetary observing (before lockdown brought a stop to our regular face to face natters) and he asked whether I used one. When I confessed that I didn't he explained what a considerable difference he felt his had made to his observing through a number of telescopes and from a number of locations. Given his eminently more qualified eyes and his opinion that he wouldn't  observe the planets without it now, I bought my own and can also appreciate the difference they make... 

I had the exact same conversation with Es when he was servicing one of my scopes! I should really try one but I have the same concerns as some of the other members on this thread i.e. something else to faff with and I only use binoviewers so even more back focus required and more prisms in the optical chain.

Edit: I also saw on the FLO website that the recommendation for the ZWO unit is to get the ADC as close to the eyepiece as possible, which I wouldn't be able to do with a binoviewer. Eye placement when using binoviewers is also key for me. If I am not dead on it is easy to introduce unwanted colour so I may be chasing that with an ADC also.

19 hours ago, Craney said:

This may sound heretical .....  (speaking as a new-to-the-niche  solar imager)....

but,  could a retailer provide a  (paid-for ??)  report on each unit  with perhaps a sample solar image to demonstrate that it does indeed do what it  'says on the tin'. 

That would certainly help us newbies. From reading posts on SolarChat it looks like Rupert at Astrograph used to check each Quark before sending it out to a customer. Astrograph now only appear to stock Solar Spectrum products though, which are a lot more expensive.

I still like the concept of using one of these types of devices on an existing scope, but to @Solar B's point, the last time I used a barlow above 4x was when I was interested in planetary imaging so I can understand why some people see Quarks as an imaging tool.

If my last Quark had worked out I am sure I would have ended up with a shorter FL scope to drop the magnification as I felt that 100x was a bit too much for my typical seeing conditions - but then I would be moving away from F30 (with the scope I had in mind).

Starting again with a PST or a Lunt LS50 wouldn't work for me as I am dependent on using binoviewers. Maybe a front-mounted etalon on an existing scope would be the way to go, but it would be a lot more expensive.

The replacement Quark is going back and I don't have the energy for another round so will be leaving it there. 

I think I will go down the Lunt LS60 route but not sure if that will be sooner or later as it is a big increase in price over the Quark. If sooner then I will need to let some other stuff go, namely the FC-100 and FC-76, and I am not sure about that.

I have learned that I really like Ha viewing though 😀

16 minutes ago, Steve Clay said:

I can see proms and some surface detail at zero(12 oclock) but surface is better at -3 and proms at -6 but a general compromise is -3.

Thanks Steve. If you look at something dark like a filament when at -3 can you move it around the FOV without it disappearing once it is away from the centre?

44 minutes ago, Tomatobro said:

Best views with no power applied?.....That's the same reason why mine has gone back to Flo.

Yes, that is why my first one went back.

+5 is the worst setting of all. Below is an approximation of the issue. The centre of the green zone is the best and I can move a prom or filament up and down and the quality of the image is the same. As I move the object left or right away from the centre of the green it starts to fade as it gets to the yellow zone. Orange is basically a blank disk. So it's a gradual degradation of the view perpendicular to the banding.

Thanks Steve. This is definitely the Quark as the zone/band with the detail rotates with it. I am just finishing testing all of the settings as previously I gave up at +2. So far at +4 it is just getting worse as expected, with the majority of the solar disc blank.

So after the initial excitement of having a Quark that needed power and showed more surface detail than the one it replaced I have now noticed something that's not great. There is a linear zone of maybe 50% of the FOV that shows nice detail, but outside of that it drops off significantly. A prom in the centre of the FOV looks great, but once it moves out of the 'zone' it fades rapidly then becomes invisible. Same for surface detail. If I rotate the Quark the linear zone rotates with it. So originally moving a centred feature up and down was OK and left to right was not but after rotating the Quark 90 degrees then left to right is good but up and down isn't.

Do others see this in their Quarks?

I managed a short session with the replacement Quark this morning, now clouded over. I noticed that after turning on the power and watching the solar disk that the detail crept in from the right as the Quark warmed up. Presumably that's what everyone else sees but I never saw this in my original Quark.

I set the dial to -5 from cold and watched the detail come in from right to left. When the light went green the detail was uniform over the entire FOV. Moving a darker feature to the limb didn't really affect its appearance. As I moved up the settings on the Quark the right hand side of the FOV started to become washed out again. By the time I hit +5 over half of the solar disk was blank and moving the right side of the solar disk to the left side of the FOV was the only was to see any detail on it. Moving a darker feature from the left of the disk to the right of the FOV resulted in it disappearing.

It reminded me of a series of images I saw online when first looking into the Quark  https://solarnutcase.livejournal.com/12257.html - although obviously not the same quality at the eyepiece.

Anyway. I said I would be happy if the replacement had a better view under power than without and if there was a definite setting that was better than the others, so I think I have that. Also, even though conditions haven't been great the replacement has already provided much better views of the solar surface than the one it replaced. 

So it looks like -5 is the best setting for my Quark, at least for 'coverage', but I am curious if this is how others judge their Quarks?

Just grabbed 10 minutes with the new Quark. Windy and cloudy, but there was enough of a break to test even though it was through thin cloud at best.

Firstly, no sign of proms or any sort of detail with no power 👍. Secondly, as power was applied I could see the view improve. Wow! I could easily see surface detail even before the light went green 👍👍. Filaments popped out, the surface was a mass of texture - and the passing cloud seemed to boost the contrast. Totally different from the previous Quark where there was only ever a hint of surface detail.

Conditions weren't clear enough to properly view any proms. I could see them but they weren't bright, I would say due to the clouds. Anyway, so far so good. I haven't even experimented with the dial so it's still on -1 which was the setting out of the box. It looks like it may clear up a bit later so fingers crossed I will get a proper look - although it has just started to rain again.

2 hours ago, Steve Clay said:

Which clicklock it that on the quark?

There isn't one in that picture. Originally there was a 2" clicklock that I attached to the diagonal with a M48 to T2 adapter as below.

I decided to connect that adapter directly to the Quark instead of the 2" skirt and then attached a 40mm T2 extension tube to accommodate the length of the Quark. 

My replacement Quark arrived today but no chance of any meaningful testing with the thunder, lightning and rain. I did power it up to check the light went green, which it did - so that's something. Also I decided to remove the 2" skirt and connect directly to my diagonal rather than using the 2" clicklock. Saves some weight.

I purchased a 2" Feathertouch focuser from another forum member and the adapter to connect it to the FC-76D should arrive tomorrow. Amazingly, having resigned myself to buying and waiting for a new adapter two came up for sale on UKABS. That never happens 😀

With the FT in place I will need to add a longer spacer before the diagonal used for the Quark, but on the plus side the additional back focus with the FT in place will help with the Herschel Wedge and binoviewer combination.

Hopefully the weather will improve by the weekend.

1 hour ago, George Gearless said:

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  :).

I know you are not the first to do this 😀 I swapped the end cap for a translucent one I had lying around because I found the original one was too tight a fit. One day I just couldn't get the sun in focus.... The penny eventually dropped. Surprisingly when I took the Quark out the end cap wasn't even hot, never mind melted. Maybe a combination of it being translucent and that there was a 35nm Ha filter in the nose of the diagonal. 

Anyway, glad to hear you are enjoying it 👍

I just got notified from FLO that my replacement Quark should be here tomorrow.

3 hours ago, George Gearless said:

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.

That's reassuring. Sounds like a good company to deal with.

Hopefully I will also get a keeper. If I get one with no obvious aberrations that has a setting under power that provides the best view for that unit, then I will be happy. If I then took a look through Steve's Quark and his gives better views than mine then I would be jealous but I would accept it. Daystar are clear that there is variation in bandwidths between units. My aim is not to get the best Quark ever (I don't have the experience to do that even if I wanted to), just one that works as designed.

Anyway, problems happen. It is how problems are dealt with that is important and I have no complaints so far. I am looking forward to having a Quark again - and that says a lot. Hopefully I will feel the same at the end of next week  

As a visual planetary observer I also understand how far apart an image of an object and the in-person experience can be. I will say though that Ha did surprise me, at least the proms and the spicules at the edge. To me they really do look like what you see in the images. Not the surface details though (of which I am yet to see a great deal).

1 hour ago, George Gearless said:

May I ask why you needed to replace it?

It gave the best views from cold with no power applied so I had no way of controlling the temperature to bring it on band. My expectation when I test the replacement will be for the view to improve as power is applied. Ideally I will get to a setting where beyond this the view worsens again. That way I will know I have some level of repeatable control at similar ambient temperatures.

I really enjoyed the views of prominences and spicules through the Quark. If the view had been worse with no power than at -5 then I probably would have kept it, although it is my first Ha experience so I have nothing to compare it with to say if it is good or bad. For me the fact that part of the Quark's design is to require power, but applying power to my unit made the view worse, was the reason for the return.

I now have a point of reference at least so I am looking forward to testing next week.

Hope you enjoy yours when the weather clears.

Just heard today that my replacement Quark should be with me early next week 🥳. Glad I bought from FLO 👍.

I have been missing my Ha viewing. Really looking forward to getting back into it.

Hope we get a break in the clouds tomorrow! 

Much better day today with the binoviewers. The 1.7X GPC and the shorter FL EPs still can require a little patience to merge but I have got used to it. I also realised the the barrel design is different between the two 15mm APMs. One tapered, the other straight. Not sure that is helping. Anyway the binoviewers are staying. Great lunar views tonight.