Replacement Quark

[George Gearless]

On 18/06/2020 at 16:27, Davey-T said:

Using second hand one that I purchased to keep me going, got to send the last replacement one back to Daystar when the current situation sorts itself out, the one they supplied before that one sounds like yours, nice proms no surface detail, it actually had no lettering on it to state which it was unlike previous ones that had Chromosphere printed on the end, I've an idea it may have been a prom' version as it did the best proms of the five I've tried.

Doesn't say much for Daystar QC that they could send it out like it but I get the impression that the Daystar QC department is the end user 😥

Dave

This might be silly Davey, but have you tried a different cable and/or mains plug?

I found the supplied mains adapter sub par. It was like a clip-on job and the connection was terrible. I initially didn't get a light either until I wiggled the cable about and saw the LED blink a few times.  I used one of the many mains/USB converters I had lying around and now it works fine. The cable itself is also sub par. The connectors/plugs are quite low quality. The metal suffers from fatigue too quickly (like the cheap cables you can buy from Wish.com and the like) and so after a couple of weeks use, they'll lose contact altogether.

I feel that Daystar have cut a realy big corner on this seconday, but integral, part of the Quark package. It's certainly worth checking up on, if you haven't already. 

[astro_al]

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?

[Steve Clay]

30 minutes ago, astro_al said:

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?

Yep pretty much. As soon as I go clockwise the view gets progressively worse. Minus 3 gives me the better view.

The effect you describe about the view coming in from left to right I've seen that too, I put it down to changing seeing as it was also associated with the blackness around the disk going a washed out orange.

So much to learn and discover with these devices and as you have said previously being new at it we have no point of reference.

Steve

[Davey-T]

2 hours ago, George Gearless said:

This might be silly Davey, but have you tried a different cable and/or mains plug?

Tried all sorts and sent pictures / videos to Daystar, the one where the LED wouldn't turn green would sometimes manage to after about thirty minutes but shortly after would go back to orange using different 12v to 5v and mains supplies..

Dave

LED just turning green after 29 minutes, indoors in the warm, if it was cold outdoors it never turned green.

[astro_al]

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?

Edited June 22, 2020 by astro_al

[Steve Clay]

No I'm using mine now and nothing like that. I do get a bit of vignetting but I think that's the optical train.

I've just started using the vixen NPL 40, 30 and 25. They offer a quantum leap over the unbranded 32mm plossil i was using.

[astro_al]

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.

[astro_al]

+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.

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by astro_al

[Tomatobro]

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

[Steve Clay]

58 minutes ago, astro_al said:

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.

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.

[astro_al]

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.

[astro_al]

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?

[Steve Clay]

2 hours ago, astro_al said:

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?

I've not seen a filament yet. But with a prom I can move it about the FOV and still see it.

[astro_al]

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 😀

Edited June 24, 2020 by astro_al

[Steve Clay]

12 hours ago, astro_al said:

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 😀

Thats a real shame.

[George Gearless]

On 24/06/2020 at 21:41, astro_al said:

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 😀

Sorry to hear that.

I'm worried now that mine is actually the same, but that I just don't have the experience to see the problem. I'm still quite happy about mine though. I'll just put my fingers in my ears and go 'lalalalalalaaaa' whenever someone starts talking Lunt, because I simply can't afford it. But quality costs. As is the case with most commercial items.

[Peter Drew]

If anyone is interested in high resolution Ha telescopes, send me a PM.     🙂

[Rusted]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

If anyone is interested in high resolution Ha telescopes, send me a PM.     🙂

That's very generous of you!
Form an orderly queue people.
I was here first! 

[Solar B]

On 24/06/2020 at 20:41, astro_al said:

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 😀

I wouldn't be letting go of any of the above named scopes and certainly not 

for any Lunt .... I have a feeling the quark may be worth some perservation , both I've 

tried worked well around the 6 o'clock position / what about the 60mm SS to ?

However I have always recommended commencing HA viewing with the likes 

of a PST and learning from that platform which is always good 🌞

Brian 

[Craney]

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'. 

I've been tempted by the Quark,  but like a few correspondents on here, would not be exactly sure if the thing is performing to the specification claimed by the manufacturer.  Maybe I am not experienced enough to coerce the hardware into a maximum theoretical performance.....Ok, maybe not  a maximum, but there should be an accepted agreed minimum.

It seems that this product still generates a slight cloud of apprehension upon purchase ..... surely you cannot have a  lucky-dip lottery associated with a piece of scientific equipment costing £1000 !!!!

I for one would feel a lot more at ease in purchasing if I knew a seasoned solar viewer/imager had given the thumbs up on a specific unit.

Is there is legal thing that states that retailers cannot open the packet and test the item before sale? Does this infringe warranty?

Oh well..... shame really, on what should be an absolute barn-stormer of a product.  <heavy-sigh>..... or am I being swayed unfairly by an internet 'perception' ?

 

Sean.

[Steve Clay]

5 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'. 

I've been tempted by the Quark,  but like a few correspondents on here, would not be exactly sure if the thing is performing to the specification claimed by the manufacturer.  Maybe I am not experienced enough to coerce the hardware into a maximum theoretical performance.....Ok, maybe not  a maximum, but there should be an accepted agreed minimum.

It seems that this product still generates a slight cloud of apprehension upon purchase ..... surely you cannot have a  lucky-dip lottery associated with a piece of scientific equipment costing £1000 !!!!

I for one would feel a lot more at ease in purchasing if I knew a seasoned solar viewer/imager had given the thumbs up on a specific unit.

Is there is legal thing that states that retailers cannot open the packet and test the item before sale? Does this infringe warranty?

Oh well..... shame really, on what should be an absolute barn-stormer of a product.  <heavy-sigh>..... or am I being swayed unfairly by an internet 'perception' ?

 

Sean.

I think you're right. Scopes can be tested and a report given. I have a quark and I love the view. However, I have no experience to qualify what I'm seeing. I see proms and spiculae with ease but not a massive amount of surface detail as yet. I missed the sunspots the other day due to work. I do see a bit of granulation on the surface with patches of different intensity.  I do need more practice at observation to see more I know that and I need to try stopping down the ed80 to reduce surface brightness. All that said I'm persevering and enjoying what I'm seeing so far.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Steve Clay

[Solar B]

Quarks have been out for 5 or 6 yrs now and there consistency does not appear to be 

improving imho .... I had to obtain mine from Sweden at first as they were just not 

available in the UK after launch .... but that and another early model I've tried were good 

however they do take a lot of getting used to and are quite seeing dependant , one thing 

I always ask someone considering one is..... do you like barlows ? and would you ever 

consider using a 4.3 x one under any circumstance ?

Brian 

[nfotis]

I was initially interested in the Quark, but after reading all kinds of problems and inconsistencies from owners here and in other forums, I am leery of risking my money into one 😞

And it requires some real financial commitment - you need a 400mm scope (don't own one yet), a monochrome camera etc.  - we are approaching 3k pounds with this set-up.

N.F.

[Rusted]

Some good points made and precisely why I won't burn the plastic at the focus of one.

Why does the Sale of Goods Act not apply?

As in: "Not of merchantable quality..."

Or has consumer law been diluted to cope with the massive influx of cheap, Chinese imports?

[astro_al]

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.

Edited July 5, 2020 by astro_al