Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Quark - Baader UV/IR Cut-Filter VS Baader H-alpha 35nm CCD Filter


Recommended Posts

Im currently using a Baader UV/IR Cut-Filter before a Quark, 127mm ES APO. Everything seems fine. However i have noticed that the a lot of heat still passes thru the filter. I know the Quark can handle the heat, its the UV im mainly hoping to reduce as thats bad for our eyes.

I did some reading and i read that a supplier discovered the  Baader UV/IR Cut-Filter was actually poor at reducing the heat, and that they discovered the Baader H-alpha 35nm CCD Filter does a much better job. Looking at the photos of the filter it looks extremely red! I assume this would greatly change the look of the sun?

Has anyone has experience using the 33nm filter in Quark for visual?

I am thinking 2in 35nm filter before the Quark, and one 1.25in Baader UV-IR Blocker on the barrel of the eyepiece would provide max protection outside of having a full external ERF?

Edited by Pingster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pingster said:

I assume this would greatly change the look of the sun?

The Quarks filters let deep red-656.3 nm through (in "steps down to it") so the wide Baader 35nm Ha filter will not cause a color difference.

Be very careful when considering and using filters ahead of your diagonal for solar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink: 

Where did you see the over 3" advice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DRT said:

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.

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??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :rolleyes2: 

 

Edited by DRT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jetstream said:

Whatever we do here we must not ever consider removing the "little silver" filter (ITF) from the bottom of the Quark.  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.

https://www.andovercorp.com/products/bandpass-filters/standard/600-699nm/

I think moonshane has removed his rusty itf and replaced it with a 2" 35nm. As said before though I'm unsure how it all works as he already has an internal 80mm d-erf which I believe have IR rejection and pass 45nm ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 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??

You need to run an aperture mounted ERF over 80mm. Its on the main Daystar page for the Quark: http://www.daystarfilters.com/Quark.shtml

on the left near the bottom:

All DayStar Hydrogen a filter assemblies applied on telescopes over 80mm in aperture need to be used in conjunction with an Energy Rejection Filter.

Daystar also recommend the use of a IR/UV cut filter on apertures below this simply to reject some of the unnecessary energy before it reaches the Quark: http://www.daystarfilters.com/inout_article_base/index.php?page=view/article/4/UVIR-Cut-Filter-application-for-Refractors

It's not required but in my experience it does seem to improve viewing.

HTH

Edited by Toxophilus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DRT said:

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

 

I don't want to doubt you Derek but I would immediately cease using your combo until you have contacted Daystar directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by DRT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

BTW I use this filter for solar use. Mr Smie did calculate if it was safe based on the f ratio (solar disk size) at the distance inside the tubes using my diagonals. It is an absorptive IR filter (KG3) vs a reflective (Baader UV/IR).

http://beloptik.de/en/left/if-uv-ir-cut-on-kg3-infrared-blocking-filter/

I know its one competitor against another but Baader's site says the trouble with the kg3 filters are they can fail due to absorbing the heat and expansion where Baader UV/IR reflects the heat.

Edited by spaceboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DRT said:

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'f find any aperture limit where that advice would no longer apply.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, spaceboy said:

they can fail due to absorbing the heat and expansion

Very true- but having a filter that "rattles" ( a bit loose in its cell) and figuring out the energy from the solar disk size can prevent this. My 120ED has no issues with this filter (with my diags). I chose KG3 because the nature of the KG3 allows it to filter IR regardless of coating. If the KG3 breaks I'll know it immediately vs a coating failure with the other types which may go un-noticed.

The reflective filters shoot light out the objective...

I guess its all about choices-to each their own.

Edit- I use this filter for keeping IR from reaching my eye as well as protect the Quark or wedge...

Edited by jetstream
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DRT said:

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.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jetstream said:

 

I guess its all about choices-to each their own.

To some degree I agree but we all have an obligation to offer safe and informed advice when it comes to looking at the sun. Solar observing is dangerous and SGL is an open forum. While your KG3 may work fine it is best to point out the pros and con's of absorption filters over rejection filters as someone may not buy one that rattles in its cell and it goes pop. In the same way I questioned your point about never removing ITF filters in case moonshane had overlooked something and I was going to give him the heads up before he damaged his eyesight. I think when it comes to solar observing and if not done with respect the damage it could bring to your life, not just your eyesight, I don't always think "people can do what ever they want" is the best advice!

Edited by spaceboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.