Transit time of particle in a particle accelerator question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the transit time of a charged particle, specifically an electron, in a cathode ray tube (CRT) under an electric field. The initial focus is on determining the time of flight (TOF) from the cathode to the CRT screen, with the assumption that the electron is not deflected sideways. The participants clarify that the electron is rapidly accelerated to its final velocity within a few centimeters, after which it travels at a constant speed. A formula based on energy balance, 1/2 mv^2 = qV, is deemed sufficient for this calculation. Additionally, a method involving a longitudinal magnetic field is mentioned as a way to experimentally determine the mass of the electron by observing its motion.
bitrex
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the behavior of a charged particle being accelerated in an electric field. I know that it is possible to find the approximate final velocity of the particle (assuming it doesn't reach too great a fraction of the speed of light) simply by an energy balance, 1/2mv^2 = qV. However, I'm interested in learning how to find the "time in flight" of an electron in the same potential field, and I don't think I can use the above equation to find it out because I need the average velocity, not the final velocity. Particularly I'm interested in the case of knowing the flight time of an electron in a small electrostatically-deflected CRT. I know there should be a straightforward way to do this, but I'm blocking on it. Thanks for any ideas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you want to know the TOF during the acceleration of the electron up to speed, or the time spent being electrostatically deflected?
 
I'm interested in figuring out the TOF from the cathode to the CRT screen, assuming the electrons in the beam aren't being deflected sideways by the electrostatic deflection plates, for now. So yes, the first one. :biggrin:
 
Here is a description of both TV and oscilloscope cathode ray tubes. As I recall, the accelerating voltages range from about 5,000 volts to 15,000 volts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
The acceleration occurs in the first few cm, and the electron drifts the rest of the way at constant velocity. Your foumula, 1/2 mv2 = qV is adequate.
 
Thanks, Bob. I wasn't sure if the electron was quickly accelerated to its final velocity, or whether it underwent a constant acceleration all the way down the barrel. I was reading about a neat experimental way to determine the mass of a charged particle (in this case an electron) by putting the CRT in a longitudinal magnetic field and giving the electron a sideways deflection as it leaves the gun. The magnetic field causes the particle to rotate (I guess because the magnetic field is always providing a force tangential to the particle's velocity component that's perpendicular to the longitudinal field) with an angular frequency of w = \frac{q}{m}B. Like a cyclotron essentially. So if you can get the electron to complete one complete rotation, and you know the travel time down the tube, you know the angular frequency, and if you know the magnetic field strength you can calculate the mass of the electron.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top