Boredom is dangerous (Quark Daylight question)

[George Gearless]

Ok, so I'm sitting here on the nightshift and there realy isn't much to do or keep an eye on. So naturaly I started browsing various telescope sellers websites (such as FLO)  to see what I can spend the money I don't have on :).

Long story short: I was looking at solar telescopes. Yikes 😱 ! It seems that I need to win the lottery (twice!) to be able to afford one of those.  So I started looking for alternatives. The Quark Daystar seems like a viable and quite good alternative. They are not within my immediate financial means. But with a bit of planning they don't pose an insurmountable obstacle  (i.e living in a tent for a year and selling a kidney on the Chinese black market).

Since I already own a Maksutov (Skywatcher 180mm and also a 127mm)  the Daystar Quark Combo seemed ideal. So I read the description. And as expected, I ended up with more questions than when I started reading.

1. It seems strange to me that there is one for Chromosphere and one for Prominence. I have understood that this has something to do with wavelength (Ångstrøm). But is it realy beond the wit of man, or in this case Daystar, to create something that can do both?

2. In the description I read the following relevant to my telescope: "Maktsutov telescopes operating at a native ~F/15 focal ratio do not need to reduce the aperture of the telescope but must use front mount energy rejection to prevent overheating of the optical tube assembly". It begs the question: What the heck is front mount energy rejection? Could it be like the solar filter that I already have that you mount at the front of the telescope (you know, the foil sheet you can buy and cut to fit)? Or is it a special filter that you put on the Quark like the filter on an eyepiece?

3. Apart from my telescope, my mount and the abovementioned 'front mount energy rejection', what else would I need in order to start observing/photographing the sun?

 

Hoping to hear from some of the 'I-used-to-be-rich-before-I-bought-a-solar-telescope' members in here.

 

[Merlin66]

42 minutes ago, George Gearless said:

'I-used-to-be-rich-before-I-bought-a-solar-telescope'

I certainly fall into that category!!!!

The Quark solar filters - the Chromosphere version has a slightly narrower bandwidth which allows better contrast and definition on surface features - sunspots, filaments, spiculae etc.

The Prominence version has a much wider bandwidth which allows the Doppler shift in the proms to be included in the view, giving a more pleasing rendering of the various features - hedgerow, surges and sprays etc.

Having said that many (I mean most) users go for the Chromosphere version to try to get the best of both worlds.

An energy rejection filter (ERF) is an expensive filter which allows the Ha light to get through but basically blocks all the other light and heat energy. These can cost hundreds of dollars!

https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-d-erf-energy-rejection-filter-(75---180mm).html

Without an ERF on a scope like the Mak you run the risk of cooking it! Overheating the secondary etc etc etc. Don't do it!

The Quark is basically designed to be used on a >f5 refractor. With smaller apertures <100mm you can get away with using a UV-IR filter close to the Quark as an ERF. Larger scopes need an up-front $$$$ ERF.

For solar imaging a fast frame mono camera is the way to go. I use an ASI 174MM and an ASI 1600MM with FireCapture software for my imaging. ( I use a double stacked SM60 on my ED80 with a BF15 blocking filter)

 

 

[Stu]

@George Gearless Ken (Merlin66) wrote the book on solar observing so you have all you need in his answer 👍👍.

I will only point you at the Daystar Solar Scout as an item of potential interest, in that it combines a Quark with a 60mm refractor to provide a full solution. As you've heard, funding a full aperture front ERF will likely make the quark prohibitively expensive on your Mak, so either a Scout, or using the Quark with a refractor is likely to be a better (cheaper) answer.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/daystar-solar-h-alpha-telescopes/daystar-solar-scout-ss60-ds-60mm-h-alpha-solar-telescope.html

@johninderby had one for a little while so may be able to give an opinion. It is possible (if I recall correctly) that he found it better for imaging than visual but I may have that wrong.

I used a Quark in a range of range from 60mm to 120mm and whilst it had its quirks (a quirky quark? 🤣) it delivered some excellent views; full disk in the smaller scope and high power/more detail in the larger ones.

They do vary in performance and have experienced reliability issues in the past, so buy from somewhere with a good returns policy.... mentioning no names 😁😁

[Carbon Brush]

Suggestion that may keep a roof over your head and avoid surgery.

Buy a used PST. This can be about 50% of new cost. It is as near to 'grab and go' as you are going to find in Ha solar.

See how you get on. When you sell on, the loss should be small. My PST kept me from further spending for several years. 

For Mercury transit in the work car park I had my LS60 alongside a colleagues PST. He had the easier setup and equal view. On the day the sky limited the view rather than the scope.

David.

[Alan64]

Mirrored telescopes, even advanced ones like the modified-Cassegrains, are not what I think of for advanced solar-observations.  Still, I'm thinking that you're wanting the ability to use the telescopes you have on hand, and perhaps for their ease in reaching the higher magnifications. 

The prices are utterly out of reach for myself, else I would have a specialised refractor, like one from the Meade Coronado series.

 

[johninderby]

Yes I had a Solar Scout 60DS for a while and also used to have a Lunt 60. Found the Lunt better for visual. The Daystar never showed much detail visually but was good for imaging. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by johninderby

[joe aguiar]

well to me I don't think the quark is cheap and I think it may be better to just buy a solar telescope.

ok heres what I mean the quark in can is $1699 plus taxes that's like $1850 in UK that's still about $999 when its on sale. anyway ill talk about cdn money and u guys in Uk since that's most here can just divide by 1.60.

ok anyway that's getting close to $1900 cdn and yes as up above was said anything over 80mm aperture u may need a erf filter with the quark or it may get too hot. it also needs to be plugged in to power and you can dial in the control, and as the filter warms up it may give you better views but this takes few minutes and u now need a power source. they sell a portable charger $200. 

meade's solarscope as an example sells for $1969 ok b4 tax but that's for the whole scope bf10 blocking filter ep case filter etc.

I thinks that's a much cheaper price. meade has the coronado111 I know but the 2 version is still fine. even the original Coronado is fine.

if that's still too much (which is fine) Coronado and lunt sell smaller 35mm version and 50mm versions much cheaper then the bigger ones.

maybe once my channel becomes big daystar will send me a unit to try side by side and I can compare then to my Coronado and do a video on it BUt until I get huge I am too small for them to send me a unit for testing

joejaguar

Edited November 28, 2019 by joe aguiar

[Owmuchonomy]

Great advice at the top.  Bear in mind what @Stu says and the numerous threads on here about the Quark; they have in the past suffered from a lack of quality consistency in the performance obtained.  I was lucky with mine and it gave pretty good views but not sufficiently better than my Lunt solar scope to warrant keeping both so I sold the Quark on.  My opinion is that the Quark is better suited to imaging than observing.  I too use the ASI174MM for solar imaging.  There are some of my solar images at the flickr link in my signature.

[Davey-T]

Quarks are like that girl with the curl in the ditty by H W Longfellow, when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad they are horrid 

Dave

[joe aguiar]

6 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Quarks are like that girl with the curl in the ditty by H W Longfellow, when they are good they are very very good but when they are bad they are horrid 

Dave

well this gave me a laugh

 

[Stu]

3 hours ago, joe aguiar said:

well to me I don't think the quark is cheap and I think it may be better to just buy a solar telescope.

ok heres what I mean the quark in can is $1699 plus taxes that's like $1850 in UK that's still about $999 when its on sale. anyway ill talk about cdn money and u guys in Uk since that's most here can just divide by 1.60.

ok anyway that's getting close to $1900 cdn and yes as up above was said anything over 80mm aperture u may need a erf filter with the quark or it may get too hot. it also needs to be plugged in to power and you can dial in the control, and as the filter warms up it may give you better views but this takes few minutes and u now need a power source. they sell a portable charger $200. 

meade's solarscope as an example sells for $1969 ok b4 tax but that's for the whole scope bf10 blocking filter ep case filter etc.

I thinks that's a much cheaper price. meade has the coronado111 I know but the 2 version is still fine. even the original Coronado is fine.

if that's still too much (which is fine) Coronado and lunt sell smaller 35mm version and 50mm versions much cheaper then the bigger ones.

maybe once my channel becomes big daystar will send me a unit to try side by side and I can compare then to my Coronado and do a video on it BUt until I get huge I am too small for them to send me a unit for testing

joejaguar

Joe, Quarks make more financial sense when you already have a suitable refractor or two to use one in. In my case I had scopes ranging from 60mm up to 120mm at the time. A 120mm solar Ha scope is not cheap!

[joe aguiar]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

Joe, Quarks make more financial sense when you already have a suitable refractor or two to use one in. In my case I had scopes ranging from 60mm up to 120mm at the time. A 120mm solar Ha scope is not cheap!

true stu but for solar viewing u don't need a big scope anyway, most popular size is the 60mm solarscope by either Coronado or lunt is more then fine.

joejaguar

[Stu]

Just now, joe aguiar said:

true stu but for solar viewing u don't need a big scope anyway, most popular size is the 60mm solarscope by either Coronado or lunt is more then fine.

joejaguar

Incorrect. They are popular because they are more affordable.

Have you ever looked through a 120mm Ha scope? 😱😱 The resolution gains from aperture are quite dramatic, infact the worst thing I ever did was look through a Double Stack Solarmax 90. Full disk views with amazing proms AND amazing surface detail. My 100mm PST mod vs a standard PST shows what you gain from additional aperture. Stick a Quark in a 152 f5.9 scope and you will also be impressed.

Aperture counts for solar viewing too, not because of brightness but because of resolution. So long as you don't go so large that the seeing conditions become the dominant factor. 100mm is great, 150mm amazing when conditions are right.

[joe aguiar]

nope I haven't but how much would 120mm solar scope cost? its not only about cost but how often you will use it, many people may only use it once a month that's how often I use mine.

I don't think u need a 6" refractor for the sun still. the sun and moon are the same size from our point of view and many people have used tiny scopes like 60 to 70mm acros for both with great results.Like anything sure going bigger will show you more.

going from a 30mm pst to a 100pst tho is a huge difference, same as going from the pst to the 60mm solarscope its 2 times the aperture but 4x the tlight collecting by surface area

the quark will also need another erf filter for bigger scopes so then the cost again goes up and it has to be powered too for it to work again another item to carry outside and another power tank to buy. Ok if you buy their rechargeable battery back now you need to charge it b4 hand and the hydro to power it isn't free either.

I guess we could say that about anything tho don't buy any 4" scope unless its a tak tec televue or astro physics cause the gain from the best quality scope will blow everything else away even if they are scopes made with 53 glass. 

joejaguar

 

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

nope I haven't but how much would 120mm solar scope cost?

That's the whole point. I really don't want to derail this thread any further, but if you (as I did) have a 60mm, 85mm, 100mm and 120mm apo refractors the quark is a very cost effective way of getting a range of view from full disk in the 60mm which matches a Lunt 60, up to high mag/partial disk large aperture views which will blow a 60mm scope away for detail.

In most instances you can use a smaller filter with the Quark, even just a 2" attached to the diagonal and do not need a full aperture D-ERF. Power requirements are trivial, we all have power tanks these days that will easily power a Quark for a long time.

13 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

I don't think u need a 6" refractor for the sun still

Of course you don't need a 6" scope to view the sun. I normal use 4" these days. This thread is about Quarks, and my point is that the benefit and financial efficiency comes from when you own existing scopes that are maybe 100 or 120mm and can be dual purpose for astro and solar viewing. That is all.

[George Gearless]

Thanks everyone for the very good replies.

As I said, I'm not in any immediate need for purchase advice. Regardless whether I go for the Quark or a 'proper' solar telescope. Ever since I bought a foil filter for viewing sunspots I've wondered why I didn't see what I saw on professional photos of the sun. You know, that deep orange hue with lots of details of the surface and beautiful prominences.

I was a bit surprised about the quality control of the Quark that Davey-T mentioned. Even if the Quark is the cheaper alternative (if you already have a scope) it's not exactly pocket change we're talking about. So you would have thought a better quality control would be included in the price.

The Coronado Solarmax definately looks the business. But being a one trick horse (as solar telescopes are) the price seems extravagant. The Daystar Scout looks more likely to be in the realm of financial possebility for me. Or the Quark, combined with my trusty Evostar 80. Once I've sold a kidney, that is :).

Thanks again everyone.