New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 2004-01-03 06:13:43
- chat
- Member
- From: Ontario Canada
- Registered: 2003-10-23
- Posts: 371
Re: cathode ray tube thrust - TV to the stars
Just curious if anyone has any information on the thrust produced from a common everyday tv tube without the front glass catching the electrons.
Also if anyone knows what speed a cathode ray tube can accelerates electrons up to , that would be a great help.
This is more work on the accelerator engine, and the only stumbling block on the idea was MW usage on a conventional accelerator in space, it's sheer bulk and need for a nuclear reactor to power it.
Nick
The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.
Offline
Like button can go here
#2 2004-01-03 13:15:56
- GCNRevenger
- Member
- From: Earth
- Registered: 2003-10-14
- Posts: 6,056
Re: cathode ray tube thrust - TV to the stars
I think the cathode tube isn't going to get you anywhere... basic rocket physics says that the momentum produced by a engine of any kind is equal to the momentum of the fuel that leaves the engine. Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, the mass of the fuel per-molecule/atom is an important consideration in engine/fuel selection. Since a cathode ray tube fires electrons, the mass would be negligible, so your engine would produce essentially no thrust. Also, such a system would have an extremely hard time keeping electricly neuteral, which would monkeywrench any electric engine pretty fast if not compensated for.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
#3 2004-01-06 07:13:01
- chat
- Member
- From: Ontario Canada
- Registered: 2003-10-23
- Posts: 371
Re: cathode ray tube thrust - TV to the stars
Hi GCNRevenger,
I agree with you that a single cathode ray tube isn't going to do much.
But 100 or 1000 might be a very different amount or thrust.
They are very cheap to produce and require very little power to accelerate electrons up to high speeds.
It all comes down to the electrons escape velocity.
If you trow a bowling ball at 1mph or an electron at close to the speed of light a net thrust is gained.
You might have to trow an awful large number of electrons to gain a useful speed, but producing electricity in space is much easier than making bowling balls, or rocket fuel. 
This idea of an acceleration engine using ions producing .17c final velocity all works in theory with todays technology.
With electrons as the accelerant the final velocity is .51c, but the time to obtain that speed is much longer than with ions due to the small mass of electrons.
No new technology needs to be created.
The main problem for it to come into effect is the power requirements, about 25 to 50 mw. (un invented space based nuclear reactor).
Also putting a large scale accelerator in space would be very expensive and robust project.
I've been bouncing this idea off a few people at NASA and ESA, and all of them think the size of the accelerator and the MW required set this project in the future about 30 to 40 years.
I'm unwilling to wait 40 years more, or 60 years in total .
So that is the reason for the cathode ray tube idea.
Less power, no reactor or one that requires no more than 100kw, and no giant particle accelerator.
But cathode ray tubes might not be the best way to go.
I bet a better solution is out there??
Nick
The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.
Offline
Like button can go here