Robert Macy writes:

On May 1, 5:25*am, Robert Macy wrote:
On May 1, 2:47*am, Jeff Urban wrote:

...snip...
Why the hell didn't they just go with electrostatic deflection like in
a scope ?

Think about it, you people out there who know engineering, think about
it. Why not ? I understand about the CRT parameters and the variance
with beam current and I also know about beam density. I know these are
all problems, but using magnetic deflection solved none of them !

THINK THINK about that.

...snip....

Magnetic deflection can bend the beam at a sharper angle than the
electrostatic deflection.

Look inside an old Tektronix scope, which uses electrostatic
deflection. That neck is LONG because the angle of deflection for
physically realizable voltages is so small.

Forgot to mention the obvious:
The required Electrostatic deflection voltage goes UP as the HV goes
up, because the electron spends less time in the gradient between the
plates

Anybody out there confirm the following statement?
In contrast, the required Magnetic deflection goes DOWN as the HV goes
up because the electron is moving faster through the field and gets
'bent' more.

Nope.

--
sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.