Using cathode ray for aircraft - possible?

I think with a 'Lenard Window' (small window made of thin aluminium) the cathode ray can escape the tube. Don't know it does anything to the air surrounding the aluminium though...

don't know if troll or not.

"cathode rays" are just electrons. They don't really travel very far in air, and they can't really do anything but ionize it.

>>8514587
Get an accurate scale and a CRT television (the old timey fat back ones). Post results.

>>8514617
You dont need them to travel far. They just need to create a pressure difference right outside the aircraft body.

>>8514587
>Is this realistic?
No. Stop trying to learn physics from /x/-tier sources, it's a waste of time.

>>8514635
Please explain why its not realistic rather than simply dismissing it

>>8514587
what the fuck is ' etheric state'?

>>8514719
>etheric state
>Etheric energy refers to a type of very fine matter or substance. It is all around us, and it permeates all physical matter and space throughout the universe

>>8514718
First, explain what you mean by "etheric state", because that's not a standard physics term so I don't know what you mean by it.

When an electron beam interacts with air, the air gets hot, and if they're high-energy enough the air becomes ionized. Both of these would cause a pressure difference, by PV = nRT. Assuming you heat the air instantaneously, n (the amount of gas), and V (the volume of gas) are both the same since it hasn't had time to expand yet, and T's gone up, so P (pressure)must as well.

However, that pressure difference would dissipate near-instantaneously, because there's nothing keeping that hot air compressed - it would mostly just expand into the surrounding air.

So, let's say we use a pulsed system - dump so much power into the air that the expansion pushes us upwards with significant force, and repeat once the boost from that one wears off. This would work!

However, you run into the other main problem with this idea, which is that batteries and all other methods of direct electrical storage suck at energy density and you need lots and lots of energy to do this. Fuels have much higher density.

So you either have to burn fuel in a generator, or directly use the fuel to deliver power to the air below you. As it turns out, this works! Unfortunately,
>"a system for using nuclear or chemical fuel to deliver a brief pulse of high power to the surrounding volume of air to cause it to forcibly expand"
is the precise definition of
>"a bomb"
so what you've got is a vehicle that achieves lift by dropping bombs beneath it and riding the shockwave. If you do this with small *nuclear* bombs, you can actually ride the blasts all the way to orbit and beyond, which was called Project Orion. (Alas, abandoned after the nuclear test ban, for obvious reasons.)

Oh, you can also do things with the ionization! But that's another post, this one's hitting 2000 characters.

>>8514732
>>8514752

Ah, sorry, I forgot to keep updating the thread while I typed that, and missed your post.

Unfortunately, the "etheric state" you describe is not a thing in known physics, nor speculated in theoretical physics, and cathode rays (electrons emitted from one electrode towards another) definitely don't cause such a thing.

High-energy electrons can "decompose" air, but only in the sense of "the electrons separate from the nuclei", and any high-energy discharge will do that - it's why lightning glows.

If that were real, then yes, if you could maintain a constant low-pressure region above a lifting body, that would allow you to create lift. I'm not sure how efficient it would be, though - you would have to maintain equilibrium between air going ghost and air rushing in to replace it over a fairly large volume.

>>8514587
This is a retarded question. 'Cathode ray' = electron.

>>8514617
This is what he's talking about. Ionization. His science is 100+ years out of date

>>8514619
No, there will be no pressure difference. Perturbations, maybe, but not predictable ones in open air.

File: ehdt_effect.jpg (20KB, 370x180px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 370x180px

>>8514587
Your word selection is all wrong, but I think you mean to ask if we could make an ion propulsion system for atmospheric use, as we have other versions that work in space which work slightly differently.

The answer is yes, we have made small models that work. A larger version would require a good deal of development but is theoretical possibly, although energy consumption and storage may be significant issues. Still i would be interested in more detail studies given how novel thing like this tend to develop into something neat. Apple has a fan-less airflow cooling system based on this, but I worry about harmful ozone byproducts given similar setups in consumer goods like the ionic breeze.

see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/majorde.htm