Talk:Cathode ray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Older discussion

In /60) vessels exposed to electric field (in contemporary terms)

  • 1858 Geissler: invents pump with mercury pistons: à p~10-4
  • 1858-59 Plücker (Bonn) No glowing in the gas, but there are glowing spots on glass next to cathode… . Goldstein gives the name Cathodenstrahlen (cathode rays)
  • 1869 Plücker Rays can be deflected by magnetic filed
    • Plücker, Hittorf: Rays can be blocked by solid objects (shadows)
  • 1871 Varley: speculates cathode rays are negatively charged small bits of matter
    • Plücker: rays = molecules of cathode material? Observed thin film of platinum on glass1…
    • Crooks (English): rays = gas molecules picked up negative charge from cathode?
    • Goldstein noted that cathode rays have range of 90 cm at p=10-5, while molecules—about 1 cm. - rays cannot be molecules of any sort…
  • 1883 Hertz (Berlin): cathode rays cannot be deflected by electric filed (Now we know that the pressure was not low enough: ionized gas made E=0 inside tubes)
  • 1891 Hertz: cathode rays penetrate thin foils (like light through glass) - rays must be waves of some sort (deflectable by magnetic filed, though)
  • 1895 Perrin (French): used charge collector at the end of a glass tube to check if they have charge.- rays do have negative charge!
  • 1895 Röntgen (German): discovers X-rays (produced by cathode rays striking the glass wall…)
  • 1896 Becquerel (French): discovers radioactivity (by searching for sunlight-induced X-rays…)
  • 1897 J. J. Thomson (Professor of the Cavendish Lab at the University of Cambridge): First quantitative characteristics of rays: m/q-ratio

But can't find good hard source. Possibly useful but not available to me are:

  • Alfred Romer. "The Speculative History of Atomic Charges, 1873-1895". Isis 33(6): 671-683. 
  • (2001) The Historical Development of Quantum Theory. Springer, 170-171. ISBN 0387951741.  here

There are some useful wesites:

There is so much contradictory I don't want to proceed without a good set of materials.Cutler 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cathode ray → Electron beam — I propose this page be moved to Electron beam, because that is the more common modern name for it. "Cathode ray" is kind of antique. Electron beam currently redirects here, but electron beams are a much broader topic than things that would conventionally still be called "cathode rays". The article should use the broader and more common name. —Srleffler (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. Agree that a little of the material on electron beams does not belong in this article, it belongs in the stub currently at electron beam technology, or perhaps in the article on charged particle beams which is was the original target of the redirect at electron beam. But cathode rays are very important historically, easily important enough to warrant an article. And probably even still important enough in current applications such as cathode ray tubes to have an article of their own. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cathode rays were important in the 20th Century and are important now, and therefore merit an article. Even if these uses become obsolete, they will still warrant an article for historical reasons (in the same way as there are articles on old ships, or aircraft that are no longer in service). It would be very confusing to have to hunt through an article on all the 21st Century uses of electron beams to find the material relevant to Cathode Rays. If someone wants to write an article on broader use of electron beams, they should write such an article - but that article will be different from the one on Cathode Rays.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.