11 replies to this topic

[BGazing]

Have my Chromo Quark for over a year and I settled on -5 and -4 being 'the best' settings. -5 probably a tiny bit better.

 

I have a couple of questions for those who understand the inns and outs of these filters much better than I do.  All of the statements below - please let me know where I got it wrong.

 

Minus setting is cooler and plus is hotter. Going plus gets you into the red, going minus into the blue.

Having best setting at -5 means that you cannot blueshift, only move to the red. What am I missing in blue, better view of the spiculas? Better view of the stuff heading towards me?

 

Daystar stated that settings may be off from 0 due to focuser slop. My focusers are Takahashi and FTF, is it safe to say that the focuser explanation is hogwash?

 

Temperature of the etalon progresses from -5 to +5. So is it safe to say that one with the minus setting has a slimmer margin during the hot weather? Or are they sensitive to extreme hot and cold irrespective of 'the best' setting?

 

There has been also talk about pressure and humidity affecting the 'best' setting. Not sure I saw it so far. What would be the physics behind such speculation/claim?

[Astrojensen]

 

Daystar stated that settings may be off from 0 due to focuser slop.

Focuser slop CAN probably cause it, but I have a telescope with zero slop (Zeiss C63/840 with focusing via moving the objective) and my Quark Chromo shows exactly the same as yours, namely best performance at the -5 setting. It shows this on all telescopes, regardless of focuser type. So, basically their explanation is hogwash.

 

 

What am I missing in blue, better view of the spiculas? Better view of the stuff heading towards me?

Simply turn off the power and see what happens. I often do this with my Quark, because it tends to get too hot in summer and works better with the power turned off for a while. If the images start to lose contrast, I just plug in the power for a few minutes, until the image is back to normal, then unplug it as soon as I see the contrast weaken again, when it gets too hot. On a hot summer's day, it can work without power for quite a long time. 

 

 

There has been also talk about pressure and humidity affecting the 'best' setting. Not sure I saw it so far.

I've not seen this in the four years or so I've had my Quark. 

 

Daystar has time and again been very insistent that their Quarks work best at the "0" position, but this forum has many people that have very different experiences. It seems to be quite common for Quark Chromos to work best at the lowest setting. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[BGazing]

Focuser slop CAN probably cause it, but I have a telescope with zero slop (Zeiss C63/840 with focusing via moving the objective) and my Quark Chromo shows exactly the same as yours, namely best performance at the -5 setting. It shows this on all telescopes, regardless of focuser type. So, basically their explanation is hogwash.

 

Simply turn off the power and see what happens. I often do this with my Quark, because it tends to get too hot in summer and works better with the power turned off for a while. If the images start to lose contrast, I just plug in the power for a few minutes, until the image is back to normal, then unplug it as soon as I see the contrast weaken again, when it gets too hot. On a hot summer's day, it can work without power for quite a long time. 

 

I've not seen this in the four years or so I've had my Quark. 

 

Daystar has time and again been very insistent that their Quarks work best at the "0" position, but this forum has many people that have very different experiences. It seems to be quite common for Quark Chromos to work best at the lowest setting. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

Thanks, Thomas! As always, you are very precise.

We are heading into the thick of the summer. I do have that aluminium shield, it might help with excess heat. Right now, whenever there is a power cut-off (when I use portable battery pack instead of Celestron LifePO4 the disk goes blank pretty quickly).

[Spikey131]

Mine works best at +1, but I honestly see very little change across all the settings.  Seems to me that these filters have a lot of variation and the tuning range mainly allows you to find an acceptable setting for the one you have.

[Astrojensen]

Mine works best at +1, but I honestly see very little change across all the settings.  Seems to me that these filters have a lot of variation and the tuning range mainly allows you to find an acceptable setting for the one you have.

Mine shows visible change from -5 to -4 and very clearly visible change from -5 to -3. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a very large sample variation between these filters. It is VERY IMPORTANT to experiment with your own specific sample to find the optimum setting. Only after spending some hours doing this, did I begin to really see what my Quark could deliver. 

 

There's a funny story to that, actually. My filter have had two owners before me and the first one could never get it to work properly. The second owner was more succesful, but ultimately bought a more expensive filter, so he sold me the Quark. A while after I found out how to tune it, I used it to show the Sun in glorious detail to a crowd at a star party. One of the observers remarked that the filter performed extremely well and that he had had such a Quark himself, but never could get it to work, so he sold it to a certain gentleman. "Oh," I replied, "I got it from him, so this is your old filter!" He was NOT amused, to say the least, seeing his old filter perform so extremely well, after having sold it at a much reduced price... 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Spikey131]

All that being said, I am very happy with the Quark. It is a bit quirky, but what do you expect from something called a Quark?

Quirky Quark!

[BGazing]

Mine works best at +1, but I honestly see very little change across all the settings.  Seems to me that these filters have a lot of variation and the tuning range mainly allows you to find an acceptable setting for the one you have.

Hm. Just as Thomas, I see a lot of difference as I move from -5 to plus 0 and onwards. It becomes very very bland and featureless, proms disappear. 'Very little change' - yes, as I move through off band settings. If your best is +1 at least you know that you had 'run out of tuning options' at one end of the spectrum. 

It is fairly easy to compare settings two clicks apart and somewhat harder those one click apart. Deciding on the final verdict can get tedious (6 mins to re-tune it to the warmer setting, cutting off and warming again to get it lower), as you do so the seeing degrades etc...

[Eddgie]

On the one I owned briefly, temps less than about 80 degrees, I could see changes in one step.  As the temp pushed into the mid 80s, the tuning knob made less and less difference, and past about 85, the filter would not tune.  The green light would never come on and while I could usually see some bright prominences, little surface detail could be seen. 

 

I think the response to temperature of different Quarks can vary a great deal. I have read other accounts where people say that they would not get a green light in some conditions and when that happens, the tuning becomes insensitive because this seems to indicate that the unit is too hot. Turning the knob may not seem to make much difference when this happens. 

 

And this isn't me just yaking. If you read the Quark Manual, it clearly says this but it is talking about the inability to get solid green light which means that the temperature is not being regulated properly. This is a direct quote from the Troubleshooting section of the owner's guide. Emphasis is mine,

 

 

 

If after 20 minutes of the same knob position setting the LED has
not turned green, the ambient temperature may be too hot or too cold for
the Quark to regulate the temperature. However, the filter may still be
usable while slightly mistuned and performance may not be affected.

Now Daystar says that the Quark performance "may not be affected" but that is marketing talk not having to say the performance can be affected. 

 

So, yes, heat can affect tuning behavior on the Quark and at over about 85 degrees, mine simply stopped tuning surface detail though I could still see proms if I moved them to the edge of the field of the quark. 

 

Once again, this seems to vary by individual Quark.  Many report no issues at all, some report that they no longer get a full green light but the Quark is still usable, and apparently some just stop tuning and you get whatever band with it leaves you with, and no amount of turning the knob will improve the view. 

 

If you are getting a solid green light though, this likely would not be the issue. If you are getting a partial green, then suspect that the Quark is no longer capable of regulating the temperature.

 

And now people will rush to defend the Quark, but that has nothing to do with your questions.  You asked if temperature mattered, and the answer that in some Quarks it might matter a great deal but in others, maybe not. I used Daystar words above, so I am not making anything up here. The Quark can be sensitive to heat and cold and the manufacturer very un-clearly states that to be the case.     

[BGazing]

I will certainly not rush to defend it. It has its quirks. 

But a Solar Spectrum or Daystar back etalons or double-stacked dedicated scopes are several orders of magnitude more expensive. Who knows, one day perhaps...

The 'problem' with Quark is that it costs a lot (objectively) but is peanuts money in Ha-alpha terms. So one gets a Schroedinger astronomer, both happy (that he/she is viewing Ha alpha at such price, who would have thought), and unhappy (because he/she has paid dear money and still has to pray that it works).

By the way, how does one double stack back mounted etalons? Is that even possible? I vaguely remember someone tried that with Quark but it was impossible or basically fruitless.

Edited by BGazing, 03 May 2020 - 10:58 AM.

[Spikey131]

Mine works the same, winter and summer.  This in the NE USA, in temps from 20 to 90 F.

[hopskipson]

I will certainly not rush to defend it. It has its quirks. 

But a Solar Spectrum or Daystar back etalons or double-stacked dedicated scopes are several orders of magnitude more expensive. Who knows, one day perhaps...

The 'problem' with Quark is that it costs a lot (objectively) but is peanuts money in Ha-alpha terms. So one gets a Schroedinger astronomer, both happy (that he/she is viewing Ha alpha at such price, who would have thought), and unhappy (because he/she has paid dear money and still has to pray that it works).

By the way, how does one double stack back mounted etalons? Is that even possible? I vaguely remember someone tried that with Quark but it was impossible or basically fruitless.

Some, including myself have had success either using an objective mounted etalon from Lunt or Coronado, or by using it in a single stacked scope.  Since the Quark has a blocking filter you can use it instead of the scope's blocking filter.
 

Edited by hopskipson, 03 May 2020 - 07:55 PM.

[highfnum]

well ill be ....

clicking to left improved image

in quark combo at f15

 

thx for tip