Daystar Quark Chromosphere Review – A new Era in Amateur Solar Astronomy?

[Drop Of Sun]

14 hours ago, DrRobin said:

That is unfortunate about the replacement. I am not sure how you go on about warranty when you get a replacement. Really you should get a few extra months additional warranty to make sure that the replacement is working correctly, not just to the 12 months on the original purchase, 

I suppose you have opened up another issue, what happens after 12 months, even with a Quark which is good when purchased?  I know all Etalons have a limited life time but one with electronics and a heater must even more susceptible to problems?  I still think Daystar have a winner in the Quark, but they need to make sure the quality/reliability is there as well, even if it increase cost?

Anyway, I like the look of a Lunt 50 and was set to consider one for travelling if I couldn't get a Quark to work.

Robin

I was so careful with my imaging Quark, super careful putting the connector in, disappointing that it broke within 12 months! My heart's not in imaging with the Quark any more. I think my plan is taking shape.

For my processing fix I will play with NASA/SDO data, I am having a blast with it having bumped into it in this thread:

 

 

And longer term get a Lunt 50 for visual.

Here's an effort of mine with NASA/SDO Level 1 data, a bit dark, but I had fun!:

Level 1 data courtesy of NASA/SDO and the AIA, EVE, and HMI science teams.

[DRT]

I finally got a chance to use my Chromosphere Quark for the first time this morning and as far as I can determine it seems to be working just fine

I have had to dodge a few clouds and peer through some thin hazy stuff all morning but have had enough visibility to determine that it shows far more detail, both surface and proms, than my Lunt 50Ha, which I had set-up beside the Quark on the Ercole Mini. I spent about half and hour watching a plume of detached plasma drifting off into space in the Quark and it wasn't visible in the Lunt, even at the sweet spot.

One thing I did observe is that it is very important to have pristine clean lenses on the eyepieces otherwise they can cast reflections or cause dull spots on the image of the disk.

I experimented a bit with the adjustment knob and found that the setting at around 9 o'clock seemed to give the crispest views and a good balance between surface detail and proms. I'm not convinced I nailed this as the seeing conditions kept changing so it was difficult to tell if it was the setting or the clouds that were making the biggest difference. One to re-visit on a clear day with the Sun a bit higher in the sky.

I am very pleased with this first light experience, particularly as the conditions were way off being ideal.

 

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

IF a quark works, it is a very, very good instrument. However, it seems that if is a very big IF. That is a shame. I went for a second-hand Solar Spectrum 0.3Å filter which requires heating like a Quark, but requires a separate tele-centric (I have the Baader TZ-4). Given all the trouble I have seen with the Quark, I am glad I went that way.

 

I am also glad I did not opt for a Calcium Quark, but opted for the tried and tested Lunt CaK module. This is not to detract from all the excellent results people have been getting with those Quark units that do work,

[DrRobin]

On 14/02/2016 at 12:42, DRT said:

I finally got a chance to use my Chromosphere Quark for the first time this morning and as far as I can determine it seems to be working just fine

I have had to dodge a few clouds and peer through some thin hazy stuff all morning but have had enough visibility to determine that it shows far more detail, both surface and proms, than my Lunt 50Ha, which I had set-up beside the Quark on the Ercole Mini. I spent about half and hour watching a plume of detached plasma drifting off into space in the Quark and it wasn't visible in the Lunt, even at the sweet spot.

One thing I did observe is that it is very important to have pristine clean lenses on the eyepieces otherwise they can cast reflections or cause dull spots on the image of the disk.

I experimented a bit with the adjustment knob and found that the setting at around 9 o'clock seemed to give the crispest views and a good balance between surface detail and proms. I'm not convinced I nailed this as the seeing conditions kept changing so it was difficult to tell if it was the setting or the clouds that were making the biggest difference. One to re-visit on a clear day with the Sun a bit higher in the sky.

I am very pleased with this first light experience, particularly as the conditions were way off being ideal.

 

 

Great news Derek, I am pleased you have a good one.  I find that in my setup I need to have the Quark 3 clicks counter clockwise, which is I guess the same as you (9 o-clock)?  The more tilt you have in your set up the more you will need to go back towards neutral or even clockwise, but it is just a case of finding the right tuning for your set up.  Also note that the tuning knob and LED should be facing forwards towards the scope, the Quarks are internally adjusted to compensate for a certain amount of tilt.  Of course if you don't use a diagonal, then face the adjuster knob up.

Whilst your Quark will provide more detail (narrower bandwidth than a single stack and probably in a larger aperture) I would think that the little Lunt will provide more contrast and that might make some features easier to see.  Of course you could always put the Quark on the end of the Lunt, just miss out the diagonal blocking filter for some [super] double stack views.

I am not sure if you image, a shoot out between Quark and Lunt 50 would be good.

Robin

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

On 2/14/2016 at 13:42, DRT said:

I finally got a chance to use my Chromosphere Quark for the first time this morning and as far as I can determine it seems to be working just fine

I have had to dodge a few clouds and peer through some thin hazy stuff all morning but have had enough visibility to determine that it shows far more detail, both surface and proms, than my Lunt 50Ha, which I had set-up beside the Quark on the Ercole Mini. I spent about half and hour watching a plume of detached plasma drifting off into space in the Quark and it wasn't visible in the Lunt, even at the sweet spot.

One thing I did observe is that it is very important to have pristine clean lenses on the eyepieces otherwise they can cast reflections or cause dull spots on the image of the disk.

I experimented a bit with the adjustment knob and found that the setting at around 9 o'clock seemed to give the crispest views and a good balance between surface detail and proms. I'm not convinced I nailed this as the seeing conditions kept changing so it was difficult to tell if it was the setting or the clouds that were making the biggest difference. One to re-visit on a clear day with the Sun a bit higher in the sky.

I am very pleased with this first light experience, particularly as the conditions were way off being ideal.

 

 

Glad you have a good one!

[DRT]

3 hours ago, DrRobin said:

Great news Derek, I am pleased you have a good one.  I find that in my setup I need to have the Quark 3 clicks counter clockwise, which is I guess the same as you (9 o-clock)?  The more tilt you have in your set up the more you will need to go back towards neutral or even clockwise, but it is just a case of finding the right tuning for your set up.  Also note that the tuning knob and LED should be facing forwards towards the scope, the Quarks are internally adjusted to compensate for a certain amount of tilt.  Of course if you don't use a diagonal, then face the adjuster knob up.

Whilst your Quark will provide more detail (narrower bandwidth than a single stack and probably in a larger aperture) I would think that the little Lunt will provide more contrast and that might make some features easier to see.  Of course you could always put the Quark on the end of the Lunt, just miss out the diagonal blocking filter for some [super] double stack views.

I am not sure if you image, a shoot out between Quark and Lunt 50 would be good.

Robin

I hadn't even thought of putting the Quark in the Lunt, Robin - I must give that a go sometime!

I don't image so you are all just going to have to believe me when I describe what I am seeing

[DrRobin]

I do believe you Derek.  I did a shoot out between my Lunt 60 DS and a Quark recently.  On a full disc mosaic, the Lunt won, mostly due to the better contrast, but on a single image the Quark won for fine detail, so it doesn't surprise me the Quark beats your Lunt.

I haven't got round to trying my Quark in my Lunt, but I am told the detail is fantastic, the only problem it might be a little dim for visual, so a black coat might be in order.

Anyway really pleased you have got a good Quark, I am sure you have been a little worried after reading all the posts. What do you think to your Lunt 50, I quite like the look of those and still tempted as a travel scope or grab and go if I ever upgrade my Lunt 60.

Robin

[DRT]

1 hour ago, DrRobin said:

What do you think to your Lunt 50

I love it - it's tiny and very portable and does the whole job in one piece. The Lunt 50 and an 8mm Ethos can keep me amused all day and I wouldn't be without it.

The Quark just adds something different, which is high magnification to an extent that the Lunt cannot provide. Here is a little story that might explain the difference. When I am setting up the Lunt one of the first things I do is tweak the focus so that the limb of the Sun is as sharp as a tack against a nice black sky in full disk mode. I tried to do that with the Quark in my 120ED with a 31mm TV Plossl which shows about one sixth of the disk, if that. I simply could not get a sharp edge to the disk and thought I had a problem. I then focused on an area of surface detail close to the limb and allowed the scope to settle and eliminate all vibrations. I then realised that the fuzzy edge of the limb  that I had been looking at was a layer of the atmosphere that was peppered with thousands of tiny prominences. I could actually see a layer of the Sun's atmosphere with spikes on top and a fuzzy border between it and the next layer. That just isn't possible in the Lunt 50.

[Drop Of Sun]

Great news, Derek! A Quark that works well is a bargain

 

On 14/02/2016 at 12:42, DRT said:

I finally got a chance to use my Chromosphere Quark for the first time this morning and as far as I can determine it seems to be working just fine

I have had to dodge a few clouds and peer through some thin hazy stuff all morning but have had enough visibility to determine that it shows far more detail, both surface and proms, than my Lunt 50Ha, which I had set-up beside the Quark on the Ercole Mini. I spent about half and hour watching a plume of detached plasma drifting off into space in the Quark and it wasn't visible in the Lunt, even at the sweet spot.

One thing I did observe is that it is very important to have pristine clean lenses on the eyepieces otherwise they can cast reflections or cause dull spots on the image of the disk.

I experimented a bit with the adjustment knob and found that the setting at around 9 o'clock seemed to give the crispest views and a good balance between surface detail and proms. I'm not convinced I nailed this as the seeing conditions kept changing so it was difficult to tell if it was the setting or the clouds that were making the biggest difference. One to re-visit on a clear day with the Sun a bit higher in the sky.

I am very pleased with this first light experience, particularly as the conditions were way off being ideal.

 

 

 

[Drop Of Sun]

On 15/02/2016 at 13:42, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

IF a quark works, it is a very, very good instrument. However, it seems that if is a very big IF. That is a shame. I went for a second-hand Solar Spectrum 0.3Å filter which requires heating like a Quark, but requires a separate tele-centric (I have the Baader TZ-4). Given all the trouble I have seen with the Quark, I am glad I went that way.

 

I am also glad I did not opt for a Calcium Quark, but opted for the tried and tested Lunt CaK module. This is not to detract from all the excellent results people have been getting with those Quark units that do work,

Great image, Michael.

From your images I get the impression that your Solar Spectrum is close in performance to the very best Quark I used for imaging, and shows more detail than the average Quark I used.

As said not for everyone but I am getting my processing fix now with the SDO data. I love AIA171! Not possible alas from the surface of our planet I believe, with the atmosphere chomping it up? I think I am now going to ramp up my visual a bit with the Quark and maybe Lunt 50 down the line.