Different Ca-K options, differences?

Use this section to discuss "standard" Baader/Coronado/ Lunt SolarView/ Daystar, etc… filters, cameras and scopes. No mods, just questions/ answers and reviews.
User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Valery »

Mark,

For Ca K and Ca H the best refractors are TOA 130 and 150. All other refractors regardless of manufacturer are poorly corrected at these wave lengths.

If you can use a 6" F/12 achromat, you will be OK with crisp images at Ca K/H. But such a scope is not quite transportable and not easy useable.

Another, best (IMHO) solution is a Marksutov telescope.

Any coating is OK.


Valery


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Astrograph »

Valery, where is the basis for TOA scopes being so wonderful at sub 400nm? They are just pretty ordinary APO's using ordinary glass. Nothing more.

Any coating is not OK. For proof of this see this wavelength test between the Pierro Astro ADC and the cheap ZWO. The PA has fused silica prisms which pass sub 400nm light better and coatings that are designed to compliment this. The difference is quite obvious.

In any case we are getting away from how this thread started.
Attachments
PA - ZWO ADC.jpg
PA - ZWO ADC.jpg (111.21 KiB) Viewed 10259 times


User avatar
Merlin66
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 3970
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:23 pm
Location: Junortoun, Australia
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 615 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Merlin66 »

Does it really matter?
The current CCD cameras dramatically fall in sensitivity in the UV.
The shortest wavelength I've been able to record with the spectroscope is just below 3700A.


"Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few amateurs have gone before
https://groups.io/g/astronomicalspectroscopy  
http://astronomicalspectroscopy.com
"Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" and
"Imaging Sunlight - using a digital spectroheliograph" - Springer
User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Valery »

Astrograph wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:25 pm Valery, where is the basis for TOA scopes being so wonderful at sub 400nm? They are just pretty ordinary APO's using ordinary glass. Nothing more.
Rupert,

Please, no offence. You are not a pro, nor a specialist in the optics as far as I know. But I am.

The basis for TOA scopes being so perfectly corrected is in the design of these objectives. TOA states for Triplet Ortho Apochromat = triplet with equal (close to this) apochromatic correction across spectrum. They are not only corrected for secondary spectrum (common focus for wide spectral range) but they also corrected for spherical aberration for almost entire spectral range they are purposed for. In the ordinary apochromats spherical aberration is corrected only for a single wave length. Usually this is 540nm and near it. In the TOA objectives spherical aberration corrected for ALL wave lengths. Therefore images at 400nm is same crisp as at, say, 540nm and even crisper because of lower diffraction influence.
Similar designs (with widely spaced lenses) are well known for optical designers for a loooong time. The only disadvantage is a poor temperature equilibration with enviromental air. This is a key factor and most designers prefer lower corrected objectives, but with much faster thermal equlibration. Somewhen in a past we have discussed these questions with Roland and Yuri. They too are not fans of orthoapochromatic objectives because of this mentioned above disadvantage. But for a Ca K imaging they are almost a perfect choice in such a size.

Again, for 400nm +/- several tens of nanometers, all coatings are about similar performance +/- a few % in transmission. Of course if an objective consists many lenses with lower transmission in UV, then a final transmission will be about 20% lower - absolutely not critical for imaging there.


Valery.
Last edited by Valery on Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Astrograph »

Valery. I take a pride in helping people to try and understand the reality of what is out there rather than back up marketing BS. Many things look great on paper. In the real world what is delivered is often nowhere near. That applies to Tak as much as any other. TOA's, regardless of their design strategy set no new heights for performance. Being replaced by customers for something better is not uncommon. I don't dispute that in theory it might be better but there are many designs out there that promise much and deliver little new, if anything. Design is one thing, implementing it is another and doing it consistently is another still. I see this all the time. It is constantly frustrating that something that seems so simple as some shaped and polished glass put together can vary so widely in performance on a case by case basis with the same telescope. I see this because I inspect all I sell. What becomes clear is that who makes it is much more important than how or what it is made from.

I am well aware of your own experience and qualifications with optics. I feel no need to question that. You know nothing about me so please don't insult me. I run a professional astronomy business.


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42131
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20240 times
Been thanked: 10113 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by marktownley »

Good discussion chaps.

I've certainly tried all of the CaK options above, and my preferred one is a double stacked CaK PST filter of my own design. If I had to pick from an 'off the shelf' unit I would go for a CaH quark, if cost was no objective I would go with the Lunt B3400 or maybe a custom job from Solar Spectrum.

In terms of scopes i've only ever used 'budget' cheap refractors with CaK and there is significant variance in light throughput (different scopes, same focal ratios, same camera, same day), this can only be glass types or coatings causing the variance. When I reviewed the CaH Quark there was significant variance in brightness visually using different eyepieces. These are just my observations.

As i've become more experienced with my solar imaging i've learned to see the results of spherical aberration when imaging at CaK wavelengths, and, as above there is significant variation between scopes.

I certainly don't have the experience of using the higher end scopes that both Valery and Rupert have, but, being a nerd I do enjoy reading test reports and so I take something from these (and I do appreciate a test report isn't everything!).

For me, in the less than ideal seeing I have a lot of the time, a dream scope for me would be a 5-7" frac and a tri-band (full aperture) ERF, but it would have to cut the mustard at 393nm. To get to that point though I do need to win the lottery! :D


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Hi all,

Just a little update.

I'm tinkering with a Skybender with a 380~395nm pre-filter inside, IR rejection filter on the nose, and two 393nm filters stacked on the camera nose. I used a focal reducer to do the full disc. And I used a 3x barlow for the details. I did some white light too just to compare (white light was done with a baadar solar film & solar continuum filter).

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

What do you guys think? Close? Or is it mainly just white light that looks like it, but not really calcium?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The skybender itself and the filters:

Image

Image

Image

Very best,


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42131
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20240 times
Been thanked: 10113 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by marktownley »

Hi Marty. One of those 393 filters needs to be mounted internally in the skybender - at the moment all it is doing is acting as an extension tube. Apollo has had some success with these setups in CaK.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Hi Mark,

The filter inside the tube is a 380~395nm pre-filter. Then the two 393nm filters. Do you think the pre-filter should be exchanged to one of the 393 filters and then just one 393 on the nose of the camera?

I can see through the 393 filters, but I cannot see through the 380~395, it looks like a mirror on both sides when I take it out and look at it.

Very best,


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42131
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20240 times
Been thanked: 10113 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by marktownley »

I would try a 393 on the 380~395 filter, but, if apollo recommends the configuration it is in go with it.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Yea, I'm only setup this way because that's how he suggested it be used. I didn't notice much difference tilting though. I'm curious if putting the 380~395 on the nose with the IR rejection and then putting a 393 in the tilter and a 393 on the camera would be more appropriate?

I'm trying it out as I didn't buy it, just seeing if there are alternatives to the $1k options (Lunt, Quark) since there really isn't a lot of Ca options out there really, compared to HA. Really bummed the PST CaK is no longer made, as that would have been ideal for me I think for cost.

Long term, I can't decide if a Quark CaH or a Lunt CaK BF would be ideal. I think ultimately I will stay within refractors of 6 inches or less for this, simply due to cost of moving into a big aperture SCT and the ERF required, etc. It's just too costly. I can however manage 6 inch refractors. I'm just not sure if the Lunt BF1200 would be best, if I put a 3x or 5x barlow on the 150mm refractor (one day at least), or if a Quark CaH unit would be more appropriate for something like that. I would like to be able to do full disc and high mag with the device. The Quark CaH still seems to need long focal ratios but at least lacks the barlow so I could do full disc with that. But the Lunt is attractive as well. Just not sure what would really be ideal for imaging (I do 1% visual, with a PST, just to look for morning proms basically).

Very best,


User avatar
Montana
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 34527
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK
Has thanked: 17524 times
Been thanked: 8763 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Montana »

Wow! I think these images are fantastic! lovely and crisp and lots of plage seen around the spots in the centre of the disc. That is impressive! what aperture is the scope and what are the 393 filters?

:hamster: :bow

Alexandra


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Astrograph »

Personally I think you would be better off with the Lunt CaK module is you can just use it with no extra costs and it will work. The Daystar CaH will require an ERF of some kind. Although I have used it on an F6.5 scope visually and it looked 'ok' it really needs to be at least double that. An important consideration with the Daystar is back focus. If you add a telecentric then things can be made to work because the focal point gets moved further back. If you want to use it on its own then your scope must have enough back focus to accommodate the Quark and still allow focus. On many Chinese scopes there is not enough back focus (and hence inward movement on the focuser) to reach focus. This is not an issue with the Lunt as it is fitted internally.


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Montana wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:59 am Wow! I think these images are fantastic! lovely and crisp and lots of plage seen around the spots in the centre of the disc. That is impressive! what aperture is the scope and what are the 393 filters?

:hamster: :bow

Alexandra
Thanks!

Scope is 120mm refractor (Celestron Omni XLT 120; F8.3). The 393nm filters are just 1.25" filters that I received with the Skybender. I'm not sure about their make/origin. Maybe Semrock?
Astrograph wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:21 am Personally I think you would be better off with the Lunt CaK module is you can just use it with no extra costs and it will work. The Daystar CaH will require an ERF of some kind. Although I have used it on an F6.5 scope visually and it looked 'ok' it really needs to be at least double that. An important consideration with the Daystar is back focus. If you add a telecentric then things can be made to work because the focal point gets moved further back. If you want to use it on its own then your scope must have enough back focus to accommodate the Quark and still allow focus. On many Chinese scopes there is not enough back focus (and hence inward movement on the focuser) to reach focus. This is not an issue with the Lunt as it is fitted internally.
I have no issue with backfocus; I use straight-through, no diagonals, and my focuser is linear bearing and I use assortments of extensions to get focus with my current telecentric barlow in my Quark no problem.

Interesting, didn't realize the Quark CaH would need an ERF. I read it just needed the standard UV/IR cutter just like the other Quarks for heat rejection, but beyond that, just had to be at F7 or greater and it was good to go. Unless my understanding is incorrect?

Ultimately I too think the Lunt is the way to go in the long run for CaK for me, if I get to that point. I will keep using this Skybender setup for a little while and see what I can get out of it before moving to something else. I'd love to have both just to compare and see if one really is superior with my setup or not. I like my Quark Chromosphere, but I definitely appreciate the idea of not needing another powered device to manage.

Do you think the B1200 would be a limitation with a 3x or 5x barlow on a 1,000mm scope (120mm aperture, F8.3) using an ASI174MM?

Very best,


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Astrograph »

Hi,

To clarify the back focus comment. A telecentric adds backfocus. You need a telecentric (not a barlow) to allow an etalon to operate correctly and onband. The Quark Calcium does not have a telecentric as its bandpass is wide and scopes from F8 should be OK. The problem is that inserting the Quark Calcium into the light path uses up what back focus you have. With some scopes you will not get focus. You don't need extensions, you need a scope whose focuser retracts further inwards. This is not a factor with the Lunt as it has a collimating lens inside.

The Quark Calcium has a block in it nose which allows no ERF below about 60mm. Above that you can use an UV/IR cut but a 120mm scope needs some better. A Baader blue filter is best as this passes the calcium wavelength. It is also dielectric so reflects energy. The Lunt needs nothing as its ERF is built into the front of it.

I have used a B1200 (this refers to the 12mm size of the block) with an 800mm scope. That was OK. The diagonal of your 173 is just over 13mm so you would get some vignetting. Just use ROI. Don't wast money on a B1800


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Hi thanks, makes sense. The Quark Calcium sounds more fussy than the Quark Chromosphere!

Lunt sounds more simple. I don't mind a little vignetting. Thanks!

Very best,


christian viladrich
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2704 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by christian viladrich »

Hi to All,

It is nice to have such an extensive post on Ca K observation :-)

As I have been observing in Ca K since the last 17 years, and using a Taka TO150 for Ca K observations for more than 7years, I would like to put forward some information.
- The TOA 150 mm is of top optical quality at 396 nm. I have somewhere on my computer the spot diagrams calculated by Taka at 396 nm. There are simply perfect.
- The AR coating does absorb a significant amount of light. The total transmission (for the six air surfaces) at 396 nm is about 60-70% (I have the data on another computer). This is not a big deal.
- In real life, and this is all that matters, the TOA performs splendidly in Ca K.

Here are two examples of images taken at full aperture :
Image

Image

Please note the structure of the chromosphere "surface". What you see is the solar granulation which appears "inverted" (or in negative) compared to visible light. Please note the size of the solar cells. Some cells are darker than other. There is no noise on these images, only actual solar details.

As for the optical performance of Schmidt-Cassegrain. This optical design does suffer from spherochromatism which degrades optical performance in UV. Here are the Strelh ratio versus wavelength of various popular SC:
Image
Remember that to be diffraction limited, an instrument should have a Strelh ratio greater than 0.8.

In other terms, a SC would need a chroma corrector to perform correctly in near UV light.

In a nutshell, all is a matter of pro and cons (and also cost ..).

Best regards


Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42131
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20240 times
Been thanked: 10113 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by marktownley »

A nice contribution there Christian. If you are able to post the data you have on your TOA150 from your other computers on here I would love to see it :)


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by krakatoa1883 »

Astrograph wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:18 pmThe problem is that inserting the Quark Calcium into the light path uses up what back focus you have. With some scopes you will not get focus. You don't need extensions, you need a scope whose focuser retracts further inwards.
Quark-Ca is short, with its 2" nose it requires only 62 mm backfocus, most refractors will have no problem to accomodate it, mine goes to focus even with Quark inserted in a 1.25" diagonal.

The Quark-Ca has an advantage over the Lunt module: it can be used on reflectors, in fact a solar newtonian of medium or even large aperture would be a very powerful scope for imaging in Ca-H. Mine works wonderfully with Quark while I couldn't use it with a Lunt unit.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Astrograph »

You are fortunate that it focuses. It is not always the case.

Have you been using your Calcium Quark on a Newtonian with no ERF or are you talking about one with a mirror with no coating?

Lunt also offer a version of the CaK module as a diagonal. Obviously that only suits certain scopes too but reflectors must have ERF's (if they are normal) and Calcium ERF's are rare.


User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by krakatoa1883 »

It is a newtonian with the primary mirror uncoated (secondary is fully reflective), it still transmits enough light for Quark. The scope is a f/5 but I use a barlow lens that brings it to f/10.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Valery »

krakatoa1883 wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:08 pm It is a newtonian with the primary mirror uncoated (secondary is fully reflective), it still transmits enough light for Quark. The scope is a f/5 but I use a barlow lens that brings it to f/10.
Enough for imaging or for visual?

If you mean for imaging what is the equivalent F/D at the camera chip? Remember, that for full resolution realization
one need to use for Ca an F/D 1,67x greater than diffraction resolution for H-a. I doubt that Quark Ca H transmits enough light for such a scale if to use it wih one uncoated mirror.


Valery


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by krakatoa1883 »

No problem to image at 3760 mm that corresponds to about f/29 at the image plane (sampling for 393nm). And mine is a 130mm only, a larger newtonian can do even better, the problem is not light, is the seeing.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
mdwmark
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:13 pm
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by mdwmark »

Wow, a lot about K-line. This wavelength really doesn't sell to many filters. Only the younger people can really see anything normally. I like K-line, in the days of film it worked fine. With the cameras today and processing you can make the image look like it was shot with a narrower filter.
1) refactors are not usually corrected for that wavelength. If it is an air spaced you can increase the spacing to correct for 393.4nm but you loose the longer wavelength. The old MgF2 AR is still the best low cost AR for a K-line scope. Most common AR today used TiO2 as the high index. TiO2 starts to absorbing at 400nm. It is usually not used for UV optics.

2) SCT's you have already seen from a earlier post that they are not designed for 393.4nm. Even in Celestron's notes,they say the scope is corrected to the green line.

3) Newtonian's, should do better. I would keep to a longer Focal ratios.

The main thing I would worry about is heat. You put a piece of blue glass in a F/8 beam and it will get so hot you can't touch it. Do the same with red and it's not a problem.

All that said, Valery is right about using a corrector. It can be made, but one size does not fit all. And you will need to worry about off axis coma showing up.

The different filters you have talked about. The Lunt's is a single cavity, probably with a low index spacer. So it broadens out fast depending on the focal ratio. I would keep it in the F/20-30 range for best contrast.
The Quark uses a 5 Ang HW two cavity filter. It should be used in the same focal ratio also. This HW should show some plage.
The 5Ang filters is soft coated ,so the wavelength will move red with the extra heat. If the 2.4Ang is soft coated then it will move off K-line even easier. So on hot days you may want to tilt the filter to better center the bandpass.

You really need to be close to 1Ang to get that good contrast your looking for in K-line.

This is my 2 cents
Mark W.


mdwmark
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:13 pm
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by mdwmark »

One more cent,
With refactors, if you stop them down .This will help with correcting for K-line.
Even 50mm at a F/20 or so, does quite well with K-line. And with these HW's you can get away with using a barlow.
Mark W.


User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm
Has thanked: 536 times
Been thanked: 806 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Bob Yoesle »

Just to ad my 2 cents worth, the relatively inexpensive (especially used) Synta 100ED f/9 scopes (Celestron, Skywatcher, etc.) don't do too bad at 394 nm either:
CaK hi res.jpg
CaK hi res.jpg (497.46 KiB) Viewed 9451 times
Equivalent to a 160 mm scope at H alpha BTW... Orion ED 100 f/9, 2x TeleVue Big Barlow, DS CaK home brew, PGR Chameleon.


Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Bob Yoesle wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:38 am DS CaK home brew
Hey Bob,

Do you mind expanding on this double stack CaK home brew setup? I'm really starting to feel like getting into a double stack calcium system with my 6 inch refractor since the resolution would be significantly higher than an HA system and I just really like the look of calcium.

Does your system allow you to see filaments and prominences in Calcium?

I'm curious of course what your system is and how you stacked it and how you manage the thermal energy?

Thanks!

Very best,


User avatar
Bob Yoesle
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm
Has thanked: 536 times
Been thanked: 806 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Bob Yoesle »

See related post How to DS CaK


Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.

Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
george9
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:28 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 426 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by george9 »

Why is the Lunt CaK stated as only for refractors and the Quark for both reflectors and refractors?

I had the Quark CaH and I could tell there was a lot of out-of-band light. My eye could see a bright blue sun with no CaH detail (old eyes). My Lunt CaK produces a very dim purple image, also with no CaK detail. I know part of the reason is that CaK is shifted toward UV compared to CaH, but the difference in not enough to explain a bright blue sun; that's just a lot of extra light coming through. I sold the Quark CaH and the new owner produced a wonderful image with it. My Lunt also seems to produce nice images.

George


User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by krakatoa1883 »

Actually Quark CaH is advertised for refractors only. I used it with some success with my 130mm solar reflector (dealuminised primary mirror) but I wouldn't recommend it for use with ordinary reflectors (both mirrors aluminised) unless a full aperture front ERF is employed.

Yes, Quark passes more light than an ordinary CaK module, however in my opinion it is an imaging device only. I have been able to see some prominent active regions, i.e. the bright zones around large sunspot groups, but the view was nothing compared to the details that can be imaged with the same device.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
george9
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:28 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 426 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by george9 »

I agree on imaging. I actually got the CaH to test my ability to actually see it. That will have to await a cataract operation. So I switched to the Lunt CaK for quicker startup and hope that the 2A bandpass would be better.

For now I have an R2 video, but will eventually get an ASI of some sort. More for realtime watching than processed images.

George


User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by Valery »

george9 wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:23 am I agree on imaging. I actually got the CaH to test my ability to actually see it. That will have to await a cataract operation. So I switched to the Lunt CaK for quicker startup and hope that the 2A bandpass would be better.

For now I have an R2 video, but will eventually get an ASI of some sort. More for realtime watching than processed images.

George
Don't be too hurry in camera choice. Better to buy the lowest read out noise camera (about 1-e), higher sensitivity and higher speed one.
I am now on the market for such a camera. It is a key for CaK imaging (or real time on-screen observing).


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
george9
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:28 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 426 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by george9 »

Right, Valery. Thanks. I was very impressed with the realtime image that a NEAF attendee created with his small refractor, Lunt CAK B1200, and ASI174 camera. Not sure what software he was using. Seems like in theory the pixels would be too big for a short-focal-length refractor and I don't remember seeing a Barlow. But I am in no hurry.

George


User avatar
hopskipson
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:27 pm
Location: Queens, NY
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by hopskipson »

Thanks for the warning!
I realize you get what you pay for especially in this niche of astronomy. What are the most cost effective and reliable ways of Ca-K observing? Is the Quark worth getting or would most agree that the Lunt is a better choice or is there another option? Sorry for the noob questions.


James
These pretzels are making me thirsty! (C.C.)
The Quark introduced me to this wonderful side of the hobby and the sun hasn’t disappointed yet.
Solar Equipment: Solar Spectrum RG-18 0.3A, Coronado Solarmax 90mm etalon Isle of Man SN-001, Tuscon SN-380 and Meade SM2, Lunt LS80 DS, Quark Chromosphere, Lunt 2" wedge, 2-Lunt CaK II 1200, Baader 3.8 and 5.0 solar film in 208mm cells, and 3D printed Sol'Ex SHG, Lunt 40mm
Coming Soon: Solar Spectrum CaK II <1A filter
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42131
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20240 times
Been thanked: 10113 times
Contact:

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by marktownley »

Quark CaH or Lunt CaK are your only choices.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
hopskipson
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:27 pm
Location: Queens, NY
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 191 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by hopskipson »

I have the Quark ha chromosphere and like the way it works but not sure what to expect from calcium h as opposed to k. Will you be able to “see “ prominences, does it need a telecentric or is f ratio not critical? I will be using it with a tri-band derf on a 6” refractor and a 8” sct. Would I be better off with the Lunt and what size blocking filter would you recommend?


James
These pretzels are making me thirsty! (C.C.)
The Quark introduced me to this wonderful side of the hobby and the sun hasn’t disappointed yet.
Solar Equipment: Solar Spectrum RG-18 0.3A, Coronado Solarmax 90mm etalon Isle of Man SN-001, Tuscon SN-380 and Meade SM2, Lunt LS80 DS, Quark Chromosphere, Lunt 2" wedge, 2-Lunt CaK II 1200, Baader 3.8 and 5.0 solar film in 208mm cells, and 3D printed Sol'Ex SHG, Lunt 40mm
Coming Soon: Solar Spectrum CaK II <1A filter
User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by krakatoa1883 »

I have both a Lunt diagonal and the Quark H, they are different devices and I like both. The Quark calcium doesn't need a true telecentric beam to work however it performs best with a light cone slower than f/10, better around f/12 or f/15. It can be used down to f/7 but with a slight loss of contrast.

The Quark has some advantages over most Lunt CaK diagonals:
- has a large BF (23 mm) suitable for most scopes
- costs much less than a B1200/1800 Lunt module, which has a smaller BF
- can be used visually if one has enough eye sensitivity to short WLs
- can be used in both straight-through mode or inserted in a diagonal

The main cons are:
- requires a power supply for tuning
- has a larger BP, around 5A, compared to Lunt units, which means that some features (for example the supergranulation) lose a bit of contrast. In active regions, however, I did not notice much difference with the Lunt module
- can't be stacked with CaK filters or units which are the most commonly used ones in our community (actually I am not aware of anyone using the Quark in DS mode). I tried to stack my own Quark with an Omega optical CaH filter but the resulting image is too dark.

Both Quark and Lunt devices allow to image prominences although they show with less contrast than in H alpha.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

Heya,

So, revisiting this topic, a few months shy of 2 years later. I had gotten a chance a while back to image with PST CaK filters (2.2A to my knowledge?) and got to try them double stacked, the chroma filter, etc. But I have not tried a Lunt module.

I currently have moved my system to a C8 Edge HD for general purpose and I use it for solar. My full aperture D-ERF is tri-band (HA, CaK & Gband).

So my next exploration will be how to best add CaK to this system. Understanding an SCT mirror is not ideal.

PST CaK filters are unicorns, so I don't want to bank on this.

That leaves custom filters (uncertain) and Lunt Cak modules.

So I'm considering how best to look into a Lunt Cak module and potentially how to double stack them later if I get a 2nd filter. I'm curious the real differences between the Cak B600 & Cak B1200 & Cak B1800, etc. I realize these are simply narrowband filters, but I'm curious what is important in the module if you already have an ERF handling system (my tri-band D-ERF and a Baader Blue CCD IR block filter as the 2nd ERF) prior to the Lunt Cak module. I'm also curious about transmission with these filters, and if anything can be removed to improve transmission, knowing thermal is handled.

* Lunt Cak B600 vs B1200, etc, what are the real differences? (again considering thermal is handled)
* How to disassemble and potentially double stack two of these later?
* Reflection issues? I've encountered these before. Easy way to tilt things?

*Any thoughts on transmission difference between a Lunt Cak module and a PST Cak filter?

Very best,


bart1805
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by bart1805 »

* only difference is the size, you can compare it with the different coronado or lunt H-alpha BF's. The tube with the two filters is the same. Don't know if you still need the Baader Blue when using the triband. Valery could tellegen you.
* viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25552
* yes but not extreme with just the B600
* the PST #1 filter has a more narrow bandwith compared to Lunt.


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

bart1805 wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:05 pm * only difference is the size, you can compare it with the different coronado or lunt H-alpha BF's. The tube with the two filters is the same. Don't know if you still need the Baader Blue when using the triband. Valery could tellegen you.
* viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25552
* yes but not extreme with just the B600
* the PST #1 filter has a more narrow bandwith compared to Lunt.
So the B600 is 6mm and will vignette anything with a sensor larger than that? So I would need the B1200 version to be able to use the IMX174 sensor as it's 11mm, right?

Very best,


bart1805
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by bart1805 »

Yes it will vignet, but when you are after HR imaging at 2000mm, maybe that problem is not so big. But I would buy the biggest one you can afford. And then go for the straight through version.


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

bart1805 wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:48 pm Yes it will vignet, but when you are after HR imaging at 2000mm, maybe that problem is not so big. But I would buy the biggest one you can afford. And then go for the straight through version.
Hrm,

Was reviewing your thread where you dissembled the Lunt & PST Cak options. So there's nothing to the lunt other than the two filters sandwiched together? Just seeing if anything could be removed to increase transmission (like whatever is acting as the ERF for the module?). Looks like the PST filter (that yellow one) being removed would be more ideal. But, fat chance of me finding those. So there's likely no way to get just the narrowband filter from the Lunt without the sandwich stuff?

I have a 1.25" & 2.0" skybender set, so just looking at options to be able to put two filters eventually into one of them to be a CaK module that potentially is double stacked. Since the PST CaK is virtually not an option anymore, the only remaining option are the Lunt Cak filters. Or something custom. But I've yet to see anything custom with high transmission and anywhere close to 2.4A that is the same cost range as the Lunt (since Chroma didn't work out).

Very best,


bart1805
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by bart1805 »

There are two pre blockers in the nosepiece. The narrowband element consists of two pieces cemented together, you can't do anything about that.
I thought you had a chroma filter?


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

bart1805 wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:41 pm There are two pre blockers in the nosepiece. The narrowband element consists of two pieces cemented together, you can't do anything about that.
I thought you had a chroma filter?
Heya,

Ahh, so are the pre-blockers necessary if we already have an ERF (Aires tri-band) and a 2nd ERF (Baader Blue CCD IR Blocker)? I'm curious if the pre-blockers in the Lunt module are significantly lower transmission or if they're high transmission? I would have no need of them in my setup. But if they're not lowering transmission much, then I wouldn't destroy the module over it.

I had the first series 1nm Chroma, but it really didn't do anything other than serve as an ERF since its too wide bandpass (10A).

Very best,


bart1805
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:04 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by bart1805 »

In the thread you started yourself there is a lot of information:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=24974
You don't destroy the module by removing the preblockers. You can unscrew the nosepiece. When you use a triband there seems to be no need for these preblockers.


User avatar
MalVeauX
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by MalVeauX »

bart1805 wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:52 pm In the thread you started yourself there is a lot of information:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=24974
You don't destroy the module by removing the preblockers. You can unscrew the nosepiece. When you use a triband there seems to be no need for these preblockers.
Thanks,

Yea, sorry, hard to keep track of where the information goes sometimes. But seeing as you recently worked with these and took them apart, it's reassuring that it's not too difficult.

Very best,


nfotis
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:01 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Different Ca-K options, differences?

Post by nfotis »

Hello there,

maybe a stupid question, but could someone use a Skymax 127 for such a use?
(if I understand correctly, small Maksutovs like this might be useable)

N.F.


Post Reply