Quark advice

[pragmatist]

I have ordered a Quark chromosphere and will be using it with a 60mm and 115mm F7. My question is do I need the energy reduction filter on the 115mm as one dealer said absolutely yet another said no.

thanks,

matt

 

[xtreemchaos]

id have one just to be on the safeside, I allways use one ive the baader 2inch ir/uv. charl.

[pragmatist]

6 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

id have one just to be on the safeside, I allways use one ive the baader 2inch ir/uv. charl.

How much are those?

[Freddie]

Daystar say you would not need one but I'm with Charl and would use one just to be on the safe side. You could use 1.25" so you are looking at £40-£50.

[pragmatist]

24 minutes ago, Freddie said:

Daystar say you would not need one but I'm with Charl and would use one just to be on the safe side. You could use 1.25" so you are looking at £40-£50.

Does anyone have a link as to what I need? A dealer quoted me over £600 for some fancy energy reduction filter. I absolutely do not want to pay that much so any help would be appreciated.

[Davey-T]

59 minutes ago, pragmatist said:

How much are those?

https://www.365astronomy.com/Baader-UV-IR-Cut-L-Filter-2.html

Dave

[LukeSkywatcher]

I bought one for my Quark. I think scopes below 100mm don't need one. Scopes over 100mm do. I bought one just to be extra safe. It cost about 45euros. Its a Badder. Now I think about it, I bought it from FLO. It was a returned item, so a bit cheaper. Certainly not over 40 pounds. 

Here's one I bought. I got the 1.25".

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uv-ir-filters/baader-uvir-cut-filter.html

[ngwillym]

I've used the Baader on both my 102mm & 127mm refractors with no problems. I would strongly advise against a generic/no-name uv/ir cut filter - the first one I tried cracked inside 5 minutes - fortunately - no damage done.

Neil

[LukeSkywatcher]

1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

https://www.365astronomy.com/Baader-UV-IR-Cut-L-Filter-2.html

Dave

That one in the link is for imaging

[Davey-T]

53 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

I bought one for my Quark. I think scopes below 100mm don't need one. Scopes over 100mm do. I bought one just to be extra safe. It cost about 45euros. Its a Badder. Now I think about it, I bought it from FLO. It was a returned item, so a bit cheaper. Certainly not over 40 pounds. 

Here's one I bought. I got the 1.25".

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uv-ir-filters/baader-uvir-cut-filter.html

So's that one ?

Dave

[LukeSkywatcher]

4 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

So's that one ?

Dave

So it is. I guess they do both imaging and visual. Here's mine. I didn't read the description before I bought (well not all of it). I thought there was a difference between an imaging filter and a visual one. I stand corrected. 

[Peter Drew]

An in depth report currently on the Solarchat forum has concluded that a uv/ir cut filter does little or nothing to protect the downstream filters from near focused solar heat. In this instance I would think that a Baader 35nm Ha filter would be more appropriate if the input aperture required it. This filter is a "hot" type which reflects heat back towards the Sun.

[Davey-T]

14 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I would think that a Baader 35nm Ha filter would be more appropriate if the input aperture required it. This filter is a "hot" type which reflects heat back towards the Sun.

That's what I use, but Daystar say you only need it over 100mm.

 

Dave

[Peter Drew]

If the manufacturer says so then I would go with that.

[pragmatist]

Quite a price difference for the 2 against the 1.25. Prob go for the 2. Definitely cheaper than a £600 energy reduction filter. 

[Davey-T]

Astrograph recommend this for large refractors as the transmit less heat.

Dave

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

48 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

If the manufacturer says so then I would go with that.

They also say that you should use TV Eps with the Quark for best results. 

OK Daystar, just affiliate yourself with one of the most expensive EP's available. 

I'll stick with my NPLs. 

[pragmatist]

26 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Astrograph recommend this for large refractors as the transmit less heat.

Dave

 

Thanks Dave

[Davey-T]

Depending on focuser travel you may find you need an extension as well if imaging with the Quark without a diagonal.

Dave

[Peter Drew]

@Pragmatist.This is the one I have fitted to both of my recently finished 4" aperture PST mods. They work fine. The 2" fit unit has a clear aperture of 45mm so can be placed further forward from the focus, the 1.25" one should screw straight on to the end of a Quark.

[Piero]

On 29/05/2018 at 22:36, Peter Drew said:

@Pragmatist.This is the one I have fitted to both of my recently finished 4" aperture PST mods. They work fine. The 2" fit unit has a clear aperture of 45mm so can be placed further forward from the focus, the 1.25" one should screw straight on to the end of a Quark.

Peter, I've read about this h-alpha 35nm filter in the past, and in particular how effective was at preventing over heat in the quark. 

Is this inline with your experience? Also, do you find that the air within the tube becomes substantially warmer? 

I don't have any experience with h-alpha, but I'd be curious to know more.

[Peter Drew]

I've had no issues with either the 2" or 1.25 fit Baader 35nm Ha filters for solar use on PST mods. I am not a Quark user but I have it on good authority that the same recommendation applies.

I haven't identified any air heating problems, the same would apply to a white light setup using a Herschel wedge.

[LukeSkywatcher]

My Hershel wedge barely even warms up even with extended use. Same scope for both wedge and Quark. 

[Davey-T]

8 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

My Hershel wedge barely even warms up even with extended use. Same scope for both wedge and Quark. 

That's 'cause you're in Ireland Luke 

Dave

[LukeSkywatcher]

19 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

That's 'cause you're in Ireland Luke 

Dave

Right you are. I retract my last comment.