Newtonian wont focus

[Shepdog]

Just got a new Newtonian thst will not focus even in daylight...dust cap is off and im usng a 25 mm lense...

Do you think the mirror just needs collimated?

 

[dweller25]

Your scope may have an extension tube on the focuser - remove it and try to focus on a distant object (more than a quarter of  a mile)

[happy-kat]

If it is a 200p check you haven't left the 2 focuser adaptor in as well as the 1.25 adaptor

[Shepdog]

Im a newbie..please explain ..

[Shepdog]

No extension tube...and tried both the 90 degree and 45 degree ...

[CraigT82]

You don't use a diagonal with a newtonian, just the eyepiece directly in the focuser using the correct (for the scope) adapters if necessary. Also in daylight you want to be focusing on something at least a mile away really

[Gfamily]

3 minutes ago, Shepdog said:

No extension tube...and tried both the 90 degree and 45 degree ...

You wouldn't normally use a diagonal on a Newtonian , but it might be worth taking a photo of the focuser with the eyepiece in place.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by Gfamily

[Shepdog]

Removed the diaganol...that was it...thank y'all so much 

[Gfamily]

57 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

Also in daylight you want to be focusing on something at least a mile away really

I wouldn't go that far, if you can find a target that's 200 metres away, it'll only change the focus position by about 5mm (for a 100cm focal length Newtonian). 

Yes, it needs to be something outside your garden, but a distant tv aerial or streetlight should be usable. 

[CraigT82]

8 minutes ago, Gfamily said:

I wouldn't go that far, if you can find a target that's 200 metres away, it'll only change the focus position by about 5mm (for a 100cm focal length Newtonian). 

Yes, it needs to be something outside your garden, but a distant tv aerial or streetlight should be usable. 

5mm can be the difference between perfect focus and completely defocused.

Edited October 13, 2020 by CraigT82

[Gfamily]

1 minute ago, CraigT82 said:

5mm can be the difference between perfect focus and completely defocused.

Yes, but it's very misleading to imply that unless you have a clear view of at least a mile then there's no point. 

If your focuser doesn't have 5mm of travel you have other problems  

[CraigT82]

Just now, Gfamily said:

Yes, but it's very misleading to imply that unless you have a clear view of at least a mile then there's no point. 

If your focuser doesn't have 5mm of travel you have other problems  

Where did I say or even imply there was no point? 

We have no idea what newt the OP has, or what focuser is fitted, or what adapters are in use. So the infinity focus point could be anywhere along the focuser travel.

Being pedantic doesn't help anyone.

 

[Gfamily]

Hmm, I'm trying to be helpful to the OP and to anyone else that has a similar problem.  Saying "you want to be looking at something at least a mile away" is very misleading if taken at face value. 

Most people can find something 200 metres away from their gardens in the daytime, whereas only a minority could see something a mile away. It's not being pedantic to point this out.

 

[banjaxed]

1 hour ago, Shepdog said:

Removed the diaganol...that was it...thank y'all so much 

Glad you got it sorted 👍

[CraigT82]

29 minutes ago, Gfamily said:

Hmm, I'm trying to be helpful to the OP and to anyone else that has a similar problem.  Saying "you want to be looking at something at least a mile away" is very misleading if taken at face value. 

Most people can find something 200 metres away from their gardens in the daytime, whereas only a minority could see something a mile away. It's not being pedantic to point this out.

 

We let's see... I posted earlier in the thread with the advice that actually helped the OP (along with one other), and also with the caveat that they really needed to focus on something very far away, as far away as they could see, and I chose the descriptor of "about a mile" just to reinforce that. I wasn't than trying to be accurate with the distance, seeing as we know next to nothing about the OPs scope setup or general observing situation.

 

Edited October 13, 2020 by CraigT82

[Cornelius Varley]

Play nicely. The problem has been solved and nit-picking about how far away you should focus doesn't help anyone.

[Shepdog]

Im super happy that it was as simple as it was..thank you..fine tuning the red dot as close to perfect as i can get it so i dont have to move the telescope much once im on target ...luckily i can see a telephone pole half a mile away and if i can find something farther I will finish tuning it to that... If y'all are still reading ..will a 114 mm Newtonian give noticeably better views of planets than my Gskyler 70/400? 

The Newtonian is a national geographic 114...model NT114PM..

[Astrid]

35 minutes ago, Shepdog said:

Im super happy that it was as simple as it was..thank you..fine tuning the red dot as close to perfect as i can get it so i dont have to move the telescope much once im on target ...luckily i can see a telephone pole half a mile away and if i can find something farther I will finish tuning it to that... If y'all are still reading ..will a 114 mm Newtonian give noticeably better views of planets than my Gskyler 70/400? 

The Newtonian is a national geographic 114...model NT114PM..

Of course! Usually national geographic scopes are entry level and don't have the best optics quality.

Plus, the bigger the aperture (diameter), the better. So the 114mm will collect much more light than the 70 (almost double).

A bigger diameter will allow you to see much fainter objects and a lot more detail. You know, the job of a telescope is to collect light, and that depends mostly on the diameter of the scope.

[Shepdog]

Currently upgrading components for that very reason .. My woman saw it on sale but im happy to have it for sure.  

Thank you Astrid

[Astrid]

1 hour ago, Shepdog said:

Currently upgrading components for that very reason .. My woman saw it on sale but im happy to have it for sure.  

Thank you Astrid

No problem! I'm sure that with the right eyepieces you will get stunning views that are waay better than the small 70. (you can always check reviews online for both visual obs and imaging/astrophotography, it helps a lot!).

[Alan64]

10 hours ago, Shepdog said:

Im super happy that it was as simple as it was..thank you..fine tuning the red dot as close to perfect as i can get it so i dont have to move the telescope much once im on target ...luckily i can see a telephone pole half a mile away and if i can find something farther I will finish tuning it to that... If y'all are still reading ..will a 114 mm Newtonian give noticeably better views of planets than my Gskyler 70/400? 

The Newtonian is a national geographic 114...model NT114PM..

Initially I thought that you had gotten this one, the long-tube 114/900...

I have one like it, under a different brand.  The main mirror is a spherical, yet it performs quite well at f/8; 1/5th-wave actually, and it's easier to collimate when needed.  It's ideal for close-up views of the planets and other objects.  It's easy to reach those higher powers with eyepieces, with the longer telescope.  The views are sharper as well.

This is the one you received instead...

This is a video of the current model, the 114CF...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMzEHfx45wA

The 114/500 Newtonian will be more eye-opening than the 70/400 achromat.  The main mirror should be parabolic instead of a spherical, but I have my doubts.  It will be rather difficult to reach the higher powers, for the planets.  For example, this a view of Mars through a high-power, 4mm eyepiece inserted into your 114/500... 

The view of same through the longer 114/900...

I think I see a polar-cap in that.

However, Mars is closer to the Earth during this time.  Best of luck.

[Shepdog]

What would you guess is the most powerful magnification this beast will handle Alan64?

[Alan64]

I would hardly look upon a 114/500 as a "beast"; not even this 114/900 as such...

Both, the short refractor and the short reflector, are configured for low-power wide-field views; well under 100x.  At least you'll have the full 114mm aperture, the brightness and resolution, with the reflector; if it's collimated well.  Short Newtonians are more difficult to collimate.  Then, there's the secondary-obstruction: a long 114/900 on the left, and a short 100/400(similar to your 114/500) on the right...

A reflector's secondary-obstruction is like a cataract of the human eye.  The images are not as sharp and contrasty as a result.  The shorter the Newtonian, the larger the obstruction; conversely, the longer, the smaller.  The one on the left is ideal for high-powered, close-up views of the planets; the one on the right, not so much, I'm afraid.

400mm and 500mm focal-length telescopes do not play well with the focal-lengths of eyepieces, in realising the higher powers.  The planets become interesting around 150x.  With your 114/500...

500mm ÷ 150x = a 3.3mm eyepiece; for example... https://agenaastro.com/bst-1-25-uwa-planetary-eyepiece-3-2mm.html (156x)

But I'm not suggesting that you purchase that eyepiece, for I do not know if it will play well with the 114/500; perhaps, perhaps not.  It would be a gamble.  A safer alternative would be a 9mm Plossl eyepiece combined with a 3x-barlow, and for an effective, simulated 3mm(167x).  I would stick with Plossl eyepieces for the 114/500.  Plossls perform well with shorter Newtonians; the cheaper of wide-angle eyepieces, not so much.

Plossls...

https://agenaastro.com/eyepieces/1-25-eyepieces/shopby/gso-gso_plossl.html

A 3x-barlow, for example... https://agenaastro.com/meade-128-3x-barlow-07278.html

To see details, and the natural colouring, of Jupiter, through the 114/500, a variable-polariser is suggested, for example...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1454232-REG/celestron_94107_variable_polarizer_filter_1_25.html?gclid=CjwKCAjww5r8BRB6EiwArcckC2NP7CaaTx33ZFxqisaX_US26SewSrZ9um39UpPWT-2DqQxmVPukuBoCnZ0QAvD_BwE

You've made strides in getting a telescope to see the planets, but you're not there, quite yet.  

Now, all of those eyepieces and accessories can be used with other telescope that may be acquired in future, therefore they're a sound investment, although a 3x-barlow might be too much for a longer focal-length telescope.

For high-powered, close-up views of the Moon, the planets, and the single and double-stars, along with the smaller deep-sky objects, a telescope should have a minimum of 900mm in focal-length.  This telescope of my own has a focal-length of 1900mm, a 127/1900...

  

It's not much larger in aperture compared to your 114/500, and short, too, but its focal-length is almost four times that of your own.  Of course, high-powered views are its forte.  It's like a microscope, but for the night sky.

You might want one of those some day.  It's a Maksutov, a modified-Cassegrain.  

Edited October 14, 2020 by Alan64

[Shepdog]

You are a Gentleman and a Scholar Alan64.

My next will be one like yours for sure..this one just fell in my lap and an upgrade so I'm running with it lol

[Alan64]

9 hours ago, Shepdog said:

You are a Gentleman and a Scholar Alan64.

My next will be one like yours for sure..this one just fell in my lap and an upgrade so I'm running with it lol

Yes, a refractor or Newtonian with a focal-length at 900mm and longer is ideal for the planets, the longer the better.  Unfortunately, that requires the telescope tubes to be longer as well.  Both designs are rather ancient, and from the 1600s.  

An alternative is a Newtonian at f/5, either a 130/650 or a 150/750.  I have the latter...

The 150/750 Newtonian is not all that long, and weighs about 12 lbs. or so, just the optical-tube, or OTA.  But it can be a bit of a beast in its own right.  At f/5, both the 130mm and 150mm are somewhat difficult to collimate, but with barlows both can produce quite good images of the planets, and close-up, and offer low-power wide-field views as well.  These are examples of a smaller 130/650...

https://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes-for-Beginners/Orion-SpaceProbe-130ST-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope/pc/1/c/11/sc/339/p/9007.uts?refineByCategoryId=339

https://www.telescopesplus.com/products/zhumell-z130-portable-altazimuth-reflector-telescope

Still, I prefer telescopes with longer focal-lengths, like this 90/900 refractor...

Note how long it is in relation to your 70/400 refractor.  A 90/900 kit for example... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1061423-REG/meade_216003_polaris_90mm_german_equtorial.html

Now, if you were referring to a Maksutov, those are a bit of a specialty, and for those unfamiliar with one, a Makstov is best used with a go-to mount, for example...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/681797-REG/Celestron_22097_NexStar_127SLT_Computerized_Telescope.html

This is because of the very long focal-length.  It's quite difficult to find objects when using a Maksutov on a manual mount.  The telescope is a bit blind in that, and needs help to find its way around the sky, hence a go-to mount.

But, before you consider yet another telescope, try to exhaust all the possibilities with the 114/500 Newtonian.