Interesting thought....

[Altocumulus]

For similar amounts of money, one could get a double stack for a Lunt 60 - or a Daystar Quark Chromo...........! I guess that would fit my 102 very nicely (why don't they include the ERF!?)

With the trouble I'm having with the Lunt The Quark is becoming increasingly appealing






Good job it doesn't have a remote operating option ,,,,,

[Tillibobs]

It's an extra. Like the steering wheel on a car. You can manage perfectly well if you don't go anywhere

[KingClinton]

It's an extra. Like the steering wheel on a car. You can manage perfectly well if you don't go anywhere

Here in SA we have a menace on our roads in the form of mini bus taxis.
These guys will do all sorts!

[Lowjiber]

Here's my $0.02 worth...

From an imaging perspective, I see no need for a DS for my Lunt. The Quark-C on a decent scope will out-perform a DS Lunt every time.

Visually though, Quarks are lousy compared to Lunts in my opinion. The last time my Lunt was out of its box was a party last summer when I set it up for guests to take a peak at the sun from time to time. Ho hum.

[Altocumulus]

Aaah come on John, you're supposed to be dissuading me!

I only image, and imagine

Quark-C on a Williams 102 ought to be 'just right' :crazy:

[Altocumulus]

It's an extra. Like the steering wheel on a car. You can manage perfectly well if you don't go anywhere

Here in SA we have a menace on our roads in the form of mini bus taxis.
These guys will do all sorts!

images (29).jpeg

That's a worse menace - the rain !

[Altocumulus]

mmmm Secret message says, " stick with the Lunt "

[Bikerdib]

I previously owned a PST double stack. I mostly used it as a single though (double stack on a scope that size just didn't work that well IMHO). I sold the PST due to the possible corrosion issue since I live in a very humid area. I since went over to white light with a 1.25" wedge and a celestron 102. I use a Baader Solar Continuum filter as well as an IR cut filter. I do miss seeing the proms however (especially since there isn't much to see in white light these days).

I have been thinking about a quark but now I read that it isn't well suited to visual?

[smp]

<...snip...>
I have been thinking about a quark but now I read that it isn't well suited to visual?

I am not an imager, BUT I use the Quark Chromosphere for Solar viewing. I would say that the Quark is VERY well suited to visual observation.

Indeed, I cannot see the same images as are produced by the great folks here and elsewhere who have the ability to capture images and then do all the processing needed to show the terrific details. However, on most days that I can get out and take a look, I can see all the same prominences that are shown on the GONG website, at greater magnification and detail. It takes some practice, and good seeing to visually be able to discern a lot of details on the Sun's surface. When I had my DS PST, I also could see some of this, again with practice, but only if I shrouded myself under a hood that blocked out all the stray daylight. Quite hot, even with a nice metal reflective hood, I must say. Not to mention the difficulty of keeping an eye on the image while trying to adjust focus or position, and still keep out stray sunlight. Just far too much effort for me. Hence I went to something else. And the Quark allows me to see all that I ever could see with the DS PST and much more - without the stifling hood.

I chose the Quark because it was a good match for my TV-85. If one already has a small refractor like this, I believe it beats the heck out of a dedicated Solar scope. At 85mm, I only needed the UV/UR cut filter prior to my diagonal. Folks elsewhere claim that is all that is really needed all the way up to 125mm, but I don't know that I would go any more than 100mm before going to a front mounted ERF.

I certainly understand that my jump from the 40mm PST to an 85mm aperture is the real reason that I'm able to see so much more detail. The price was the thing for me. With my investment in the Quark, I get to use my TV-85. I would have had to spend quite a bit more to get a 60mm or 70mm Lunt or Coronado scope. And get better aperture than the PST, but not yet as goos as my TV-85. So for me, I made a smaller investment, but I'm able to achieve better aperture because I already had my scope.

I know that I'm rambling here... I just want to disagree strongly with the idea that the Quark is not suited for visual observation. Thanks for listening!

smp

[Bikerdib]

Thanks Stephen. So, it sounds like a Quark would be a better match for my 80mm than my 102mm due to the heat issue? Also, when using a Quark does a triplet work better than a doublet? With the wedge and Solar Continuum filter, a triplet isn't really necessary because the filter narrows the light wavelength enough to make a doublet focus most or all the passed light wavelengths correctly.

[smp]

Thanks Stephen. So, it sounds like a Quark would be a better match for my 80mm than my 102mm due to the heat issue? Also, when using a Quark does a triplet work better than a doublet? With the wedge and Solar Continuum filter, a triplet isn't really necessary because the filter narrows the light wavelength enough to make a doublet focus most or all the passed light wavelengths correctly.

There will be no heat issue with either of your scopes. In fact, many say that the 102 is the absolute sweet spot for the Quark, for visual or imaging. Just add the UV/IR cut filter prior to your diagonal, and you're good to go.

When doing Solar observing, doublets and triplets offer no additional advantage. That's why many times you can see folks picking up older used refractors for use with a Quark or some other HA conversion. With Solar observation, there's no issue with CA or other issues that perturb nighttime observation.

The only thing to pay attention to is DO NOT use an oil-filled doublet or triplet. The Sun will quickly ruin those lenses.

smp

[Bikerdib]

My Celestron 102 is pretty much dedicated for use with my solar wedge, although I have used it for some lunar once or twice. I knew that with the wedge a triplet offered no advantage but was unsure about with a Quark.