Want an 100mm solar scope but can't afford one? Think again! Daystar Quark
Hi folks,
Just a quick review of my newest gadget, a Daystar Quark solar filter.
I've been debating about getting a dedicated solar scope for some time. What stopped me has been not just their cost, and that they are another scope...
Then I came across the Daystar Quark filter that makes use of your ordinary garden variety refractor, and turns it into a cracker-jack H-alpha solar scope!
I've had my Quark for less than a week, used it twice, and it is stunning! Mine is the Prominence model which is where I want the majority of my viewing to be done. The chromosphere is less prominent, but still visible, and a steady mount goes a long way to revealing detail here. The Quark Chromosphere model has a bias towards the chromosphere (surface of the sun), so the prominences are less pronounced. Like everything, no free lunch here...
I had a quick session with it today, and the detail I was getting is just fabulous. I just had to do a sketch of a spectacular spicule that had a very busy base with a jet of bright material shooting up - gorgeous image that changed before your eyes!
Now, here's a wonderful gadget that is no bigger than a large eyepiece (but half the weight), and turns a modest f/5 refractor into a spectacular daytime proposition. As with all H.alpha scopes, tuning of the filter needs to be done, but with the Quark this is done electronically, automatically tuning the filter for optimal performance at a given setting. The Quark is not an electronic projection eyepiece - the electronics just regulate the configuration of the etalon filter within it (if I got my terms correct).
And my scope? A humble little 100mm f/5 achromat, In the photos below I had it stopped down to 50mm f/10 as I was waiting on the UV/IR filter to arrive. As per Murphy's Law, it arrived no sooner that I packed away the scope...
But what about the heat!!! Well, there is none. The heat that is present is regulated by the filter as it would be by a dedicated solar scope.
But the inside of the refractor would get hot!!! Nope, it doesn't. Put it this way, remember that magnifying glass you used to zap poor unsuspecting ants with? If you held it at focus, yes the sun's image burns. But have the image OUT of focus, and there is no heat - the image isn't concentrated enough to burn. This is where the Quark comes in. The unit is set within the focus of the refractor, so the heat that comes in, is focused within the filter itself, just like in a solar scope, and the energy leaving the filter is safe for eyepieces and our eyes.
So why the UV/IR filter!!! Well, a UV/IR filter is recommended for apertures over 80mm, or when prolonged viewing is done. My session today was brief, so I was comfortable just to stop down the scope to 50mm. But I will keep this UV/IR filter with the Quark. The filter sits in the front of the 2" diagonal, as the solar image is very unfocused here there is no danger of overheating the filter or its coatings.
Now I can spend my daytime hours at the scope too, WOOHOO!
The solar finderscope you see on the refractor I made myself. Very simple bit of gear that took a whole of 10 minutes to make, , and cost nix as I just used stuff I had at hand. Easy.
I'll look to do a more comprehensive review once I get to use the Quark in my un-stopped down refractor.
Oh, and for the photophiles, yes, the Quark can be used for imaging:
The Baader Herschel wedge is a white light filter. It give images of the sunspots and surface granulation. This Daystar Quark is a Hydrogen alpha filter. You see prominences and other surface features that cannot be seen with a white light filter. It give the same image as Coronado and Lunt solar scopes, and of comparable image quality. White light and Hydrogen alpha filters are very different. A comparision between these is not possible as they offer different features. If you want to see prominences, spicules, plages, flares, etc, a Hydrogen alpha will, a Herschel wedge won't.
The link in my first post to photos taken with Quark filters will show you what I mean. Herschel wedges don't do the same job as their application is different. Another good source of the difference between white light and Hydrogen alpha filters is in the Solar System imaging forum. There you will see examples of both.
So better? I cannot answer that, as I mentioned above, their application is different. Me, I wanted to see the prominences and other surface details. A white light filter doesn't give this. Dramatically different views? Oh yeah!
And if used on a bigger refractor (say 110mm) where would you get the UV/IR filter (is it just a standard 2" that goes on the front of the diagonal?
Would my old celestron 80mm f11 be better ?
The exchange rate going down the chute saw me shell out close to $1500, plus the UV/IR filter. Am I disappointed? No way! I now have an excellent H alpha scope for really very little when compared to dedicated H alpha scopes, and to the aperture I want.
The Quark has a built in 4.2X barlow within it. So it is better suited to faster focal ratio refractors. The Daystar info says best between f/5 and f/9. Otherwise the resulting magnification is just too much. A 25mm plossl is really all I need here, giving me 84X with this scope & Quark combination. Image quality quickly drops during the day if pushing magnification too far.
An 80mm f/11 refractor may be a bit long. But, I don't know for sure,
Another thing too is the whole disk being visible at once is limited to scopes with a focal length less than 450mm (Daystar suggestion), or 500mm with a focal reducer in the eyepiece in a 500mm scope (my direct observations). The small field stop in the filter is the reason for this. Here using a 68deg, 82deg, 100deg or even 120deg eyepiece won't be of use. You just won't fill the AFOV. Even Daystar suggests sticking with long focal length plossl eyepieces. If you do use a focal reducer, DO NOT place it in the barrel of the Quark! This point in the optical train does see heat, and enough to stuff the coatings - Steve Massey has experience with this!!! Place the focal reducer in the barrel of the eyepiece only.
The UV/IR filter, yes it is just a standard UV/IR filter, and yes, it always sits in front of a 2" diagonal. I would steer away from a 1.25" diagonal as this puts the diagonal, and so the filter, closer to the focal point of the lens.
I looked up the stats for the scopes you mentioned. From what I can see, your TSA120 would be the better suited of the two, along with the 50mm EP. You might, just might squeeze in the whole of the disk, but I would say the Sun will fill the entire FOV.
Safety wise, according to the Daystar site, a UV/IR filter or a full aperture energy rejection filter be used for apertures over 80mm. I suggest you read the Daystar Quark pages carefully to best inform yourself:
I find the ST-80 is just right for it (although it needs a better focuser). A 40mm Plossl gives you a full disk visually and the closeup shot below is with a QHY5Lii.
I have the chromosphere version.
It's not a very good mosaic of the full disk but I've used the same frames for both the surface and proms, rather than recording separate exposures.
I haven't seen the two versions side by side although there's no lack of proms with mine. I suspect they may be similar with proms and the chromo showing a bit more in the chromosphere.
What blows me away is how much detail I can see with a humble ST-80.
I too feel it would have been good to be able to use both prom and chromo models side-by-side. There are so few Quarks in Oz, so I've put my faith in Steve's experience to decide to go with the prom model (Ken, ). It certainly breathes a new and very exciting life into a modest little frac!!!
My first session with the Quark was on a very shaky mount . Blooming horrendous mount at anything other than low power. My second session was on a very sturdy eq mount, and the difference in observable detail in the chromosphere was noticeable. But like all things with astro, patience and time lead to experience and seeing more. The excitement of the first session passed and I was able to see more the second time round (yes, a more stable mount helped).
I am very happy with this unit. Does it have limitations? I'm sure it does, but it offers me what I want. There will always be folks who will look down their nose at such a unit - I for one make no claims that the Quark is the be all and end all. But there are also people who know how to extract as much detail from a Quark as with dedicated H-alpha scopes.
If there are any other H-alpha solar scopes at the coming IISAC, I would be interested to compare the images of these with the Quark. If someone would be happy for me to try out the Quark in their ED refractor, that would be nice too to see if there is any image difference.
PS, nice pics Steve. Wasn't sure what filter/scope you used for them, so I imagine it is with the Chormo Quark.
Last edited by mental4astro; 05-03-2015 at 08:51 AM.
Reason: toned down language...
Alex,
I'm sure there's no one who has had any experience in solar observing who would look down their nose at a Daystar Quark.
Over the years Daystar have produced some of the best solar filter elements available.
The only limitation to the Quark design is the need to accommodate the built in x4.5 barlow element - this, out of necessity - limits the FOV and means that suitable scopes (f7 or there about) must have a good focuser to maintain alignment.
I'm sure you will have some great views with your Quark.
I have been considering one of these for a while now, the price is OK but then again I would be wanting a new refractor to go with so then the price doubles or possibly even more if you need an ERF.
That said some of the imaging results I am seeing coming from these things is spectacular.
Ken, I know at release you had questions about the Quarks performance in hot weather, did you ever see any results or feedback on this potential issue?
That is something I'd be interested in knowing too.
Jarrod,
I haven't seen any user comments related to the Quark tuning at high ambient temperatures.
Sean at Daystar did finally get back to me and said that they could probably construct a "special" for me which would require a higher temperature to get on band ( i.e. more heating than normal). This he thought would put the control temp. above 40 degrees.....
I didn't go for it, so I can comment on the solution.
Just a little update on the review I'm preparing. I've completed the practical testing of 6 scopes all up (I deleted the photo of one meaning I need to set up the whole thing again for the pic... ). I've been able to use 4 ED80 scopes for this exercise too, ranging from f5.5 to f/7.5. Freaking marvelous!
I hope to get the review finished in the next couple of weeks. I've learned a lot with this exercise, and the modest little 1.25" focal reducer turns out to be a real hero here!
Alex Steve Massey from Astroshop your cousin eh, sorry about that.
I have the Chromsphere model, initially I had it on a 50/330 f6.6 scope and awesome views till I got a Opticstar 80/400 f5 then I got the double WOW factor.
Just don't like having to wait till it warms up to view with.
I use a Vixen 40mm eyepiece for full disc views.
With the 50/330 I had real balance problems with the diagonal Quark and eyepiece bigger and heavier than the scope itself.
I had to return my Quark to Daystar to be tuned and a USB port problem which they fixed and it came back better than before I sent it.
I have the Quark and scope mounted on a dual mount side by side with a double stack PST, but I've just recently finished setting it all up and haven't had a real chance to compare.
In the photos below I had it stopped down to 50mm f/10 as I was waiting on the UV/IR filter to arrive. As per Murphy's Law, it arrived no sooner that I packed away the scope... 
Well, there is none. The heat that is present is regulated by the filter as it would be by a dedicated solar scope. 
, Steve Massey from Astroshop for this marvelous piece, 
. Blooming horrendous mount at anything other than low power. My second session was on a very sturdy eq mount, and the difference in observable detail in the chromosphere was noticeable. But like all things with astro, patience and time lead to experience and seeing more. The excitement of the first session passed and I was able to see more the second time round (yes, a more stable mount helped).
