h a l f b a k e r y
Trying to contain nuts.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# Synchrotron Projection TV

A long-lasting bright light source
 (+11) [vote for, against]

The biggest problem I know of, for a projection-TV system, is the fact that the light bulb is very bright and gets very hot and has a relatively short lifespan. We need a more energy-efficient source of bright light!

One quite-efficient way to generate light is to cause an electrically charged particle to experience an acceleration. And one way to do that is to force such a particle, travelling at high speed, to follow a curved path.

It is an odd fact of Physics that an object moving at a constant speed, but following a curved path, is nevertheless experiencing "acceleration". That's because the definition of "acceleration" is "ANY change in a velocity" --and the definition of "velocity" encompasses both "speed" and "direction". So, if we change the direction an object is moving, even if its speed is constant, the object can be said to be experiencing acceleration --ANY change, either in speed or direction, suffices.

In various scientific instruments popularly known as "atom smashers" and more accurately known as "cyclotrons" or "synchrotrons", electrically charged particles are accelerated to high speed following a curved path, and they do indeed emit light in the process. One reason modern particle accelerators are built large (the newest one, the Large Hadron Collider, is 8.6 kilometers in Diameter) is because the gentler the curvature that the charged particles travel, the less energy they emit. Obviously it can be difficult to create a high-energy particle beam if most of the energy is lost while simply traveling in a circle! (The lost energy is known as "synchrotron radiation".)

There are some particle accelerators that have been purpose-built specifically to generate synchrotron radiation. That's because, after more than 60 years of development, we can manipulate charged particle beams very precisely, and synchrotron radiation can be a very "pure" light source. It is almost as pure as laser light, but it is easily a great deal brighter, and also is very much more energy-efficient in the way the light is produced, than any laser can yet manage. Not to mention that a synchrotron light source can accomodate an extremely wide range of frequencies, including hard Xrays, which no laser at all can currently do.

See the link. A synchrotron Xray source is quite a large machine, and certainly isn't something you want in your living room for a projection TV! However! The energy of a single Xray photon can be many thousands of "electron volts", and that alone is the main reason a synchroton light source tends to be large. It simply takes a large machine to "pump up" charged particles to the point where it is possible for them to radiate such large amounts of energy.

Photons of ordinary visible light possess approximately 2 electron-volts of energy (not 2 thousand or 2 hundred, just plain 2). This means that a synchrotron light source, designed to create visible light, could actually be a rather small device (on the order of a half-meter, and maybe less)!

I'm envisioning the core of this unit to be triangular-shaped. Each straight tubular section is surrounded by a magnetic field coil, and contains a fairly simple electrostatic acceleration zone for the charged particles in our circulating beam (probably ordinary electrons). Each curved section uses more magnetic fields to force the particles to emit light. We accelerate the particles to slightly different energies in each of the three straight sections, so that red light emerges from one curved section, green light emerges from the second curved section, and blue light emerges from the third curved section (blue light at about 2.5 electron-volts of energy is about twice as energetic as red light). We then combine the beams of colored light appropriately, either before or after modulating them with a TV signal, and project them toward our home theatre screen.

Note that because we use the same circulating electrons over and over and over again, to generate light, this can indeed be an extremely long-lasting light source. The magnetic fields are constant-strength, and the electrostatic acceleration fields are constant-voltage. There is almost nothing changing that can wear out!

(Upon further thought, it appears to be necessary to add some changing electrostatic fields in the vicinity of the curved sections, to ensure the electrons, after following the curve, don't reverse course. Still, this can be electronically controlled, and if not overpowered can still last a long time. <rant>I hate that lots of modern electronics seems deliberately to be operated at such a high power that lifespan suffers. Did you know if you "underclock" the CPU in your computer by maybe half-a-gigahertz the machine likely will last three times as long?</rant> Not to mention any circuit prone to failure can be modularized for easy replacement.)

 — Vernon, Dec 21 2009

National Synchrotron Light Source http://www.nsls.bnl...machine/parameters/
As mentioned in the main text [Vernon, Dec 21 2009]

STFC Daresbury Laboratory http://www.srs.ac.uk/srs/
World pioneer [8th of 7, Dec 21 2009]

US2007273262 http://v3.espacenet...=2007273262A1&KC=A1
Light Source with Electron Cyclotron Resonance [xaviergisz, Dec 21 2009]

Fluorescent Lighting http://hyperphysics...ctric/lighting.html
Some scientific details, for anyone interested. [Vernon, Apr 20 2018]

Surprisingly, this appears to work [+]
 — BunsenHoneydew, Dec 21 2009

 All projection television (as indeed all television) seems to be based on the same idea - scanning a spot (either an electron beam, or a refresh scan, or whatever) rapidly across a screen in front of the viewer. However large the screen, the viewer's eyes condense the image onto the retina, where it is smaller than a postage stamp.

 Therefore, it strikes me that there is a more ergonomic and economic solution. Simply modulate the intensity of three fixed lasers (blue, green, red), all of which are aimed at the eye of the viewer.

Then, use an electromagnetically actuated head-clamp to scan the viewer over the image in synch with the modulation.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 21 2009

[MaxwellBuchanan], I do think the laser approach is under active development. Note it is a personal-viewer device, even if it appears to be widescreen. So, every member of a group would need the device to see a particular video. The advantage of a general projection unit is that you only need one to let the group see the video.
 — Vernon, Dec 21 2009

I agree with your points, Vernon. It's just that I'd like to build a machine which could fire three lasers into the eyes of people watching Big Brother, whilst shaking their head back and forth at a 60Hz scan rate.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 22 2009

How efficient would this be as a source of ordinary lighting in a room? Would it be better than conventional electric lamps?
 — nineteenthly, Dec 22 2009

 [nineteenthly], see the patent that was linked by [xaviergisz]. I sort-of-think the answer is "yes and no", for a couple of reasons. First, the basic light output (quite efficient, yes) is just-one-color, unless specially designed to emit multiple colors (as in triangular version described in main text) --and then the colors need to be mixed with appropriate mirrors and/or lenses, if you want white light. Second, the light will be emitted as a beam more than as a glow. You'll need add more mirrors and/or lenses to be able to illuminate a whole room with it at once. I suspect the price tag will be too high for this purpose.

The price of projection-TVs is easily high enough to allow research into developing this variant for that purpose, though.
 — Vernon, Dec 22 2009

//as indeed all television) seems to be based on the same idea - scanning a spot//
I'm pretty sure this is not how my LCD TV works.
 — AbsintheWithoutLeave, Dec 22 2009

I think it still scans, in the sense that pixels are refreshed dynamically, perhaps row-by-row.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 22 2009

 Though i can see the price would initially be high, i wonder if it might pay for itself. I personally would be happy with monochrome light towards the blue end of the spectrum. I used to use that anyway, the only problem being that it makes a lot of people uncomfortable so it's not conducive to family life or having friends.

 — nineteenthly, Dec 22 2009

It is extremely inefficient to generate Cherenkov radiation. It only occurs when some particle, moving through some medium other than a vacuum (like water), moves faster than the speed of light in that medium. So, in a device specifically intended to do this, you first have to boost the speed of a lot of particles to tremendous velocity (probably in a vacuum), inject them into the relevant other medium, in which the emission of Cherenkov radiation is the mechanism by which they lose energy and slow down to less than the speed of light in that medium -- and then you have to somehow filter them out of the medium so you could accelerate them again. The main energy-wastage will occur after they stop emitting Cherenkov radiation, and lose all the rest of their energy as heat, due to friction-equivalent interactions with particles of the medium.
 — Vernon, Dec 23 2009

Sad. Ah well, stick with synchrotron then. However, presumably that means that transparent media are all very slightly luminous because of the neutrinos.
 — nineteenthly, Dec 23 2009

Sorry, I should have specified "charged" particles. Neutrinos don't qualify
 — Vernon, Dec 23 2009

Really? I'll go on Wikipedia in a sec to be comfortingly misinformed, but i've always thought of it as analogous to a sonic boom, applying to anything which moves particle-wise.
 — nineteenthly, Dec 23 2009

 I'm pretty sure some sort of interaction with the medium is required. Neutrinos mostly just don't interact, passing through solid matter, so there is no reason for them to slow down. Meanwhile, the vacuum of space is full of "virtual particles" of ALL sorts, including things that neutrinos are practically guaranteed to interact with (if actually encountered). That suffices to ensure any hypothetical FTL neutrinos would quickly become STL neutrinos, via sonic-boom-equivalent interaction mechanism.

Otherwise I'd expect a fair amount of heating to take place in our bodies, due to all the sonic booms of all the Solar neutrinos passing through them --and this is not reported, so.....
 — Vernon, Dec 23 2009

 This is a pretty great idea [+]

 You say a synchrotron for X-rays is quite large… how small do you think it would be possible (for me) to make one? How about for gamma rays? For a few years I've wanted to build a portable synchrotron to use as a high-brilliance X- ray/gamma ray source… to be used responsibly, of course.

 // How efficient would this be as a source of ordinary lighting in a room? Would it be better than conventional electric lamps? //

It would be very efficient, but it would have a CRI near zero. However, I think you could modulate the emitted wavelengths by modulating the bending fields, and thereby scan the visible spectrum. If you did that rapidly enough, you could achieve a persistence of vision-integrated CRI near 100. I don't think that would reduce the efficiency much, either.
 — notexactly, Apr 19 2018

 [notexactly], for gamma rays you would almost certainly have to accelerate protons in your synchrotron, instead of electrons. Fortunately for you, lesser acceleration of protons can yield X-rays.

 You will still need a significantly-sized power source. Remember, **each** photon of ordinary visible light carries maybe 2 electron-volts of energy, while an average X-ray photon might carry a thousand times as much energy, and an average gamma photon might carry a million times as much energy. If you can't supply the power, you can't get a lot of the desired photons.

With respect to ordinary room lighting, I'm going to suggest that if we want to use a synchrotron as the primary light-source, it might be simplest to tune it to emit ultraviolet light (about 5 electron-volts per photon; see the link), and then use fluorescence to change that to white light.
 — Vernon, Apr 19 2018

Are there such things as electrons?
 — Ian Tindale, Apr 20 2018

Something has been named and the mesh frame of facts as a model works unbelievably extremely well. So yes. But then a single uncovered fact can show a whole new perspective.
 — wjt, Apr 20 2018

With a sufficiently powerful and focussed synchrotron beam, it should be possible to write directly to the visual cortex, eliminating the bulk and clutter of TVs, lighting and other paraphernalia.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 20 2018

Ah, a picture, a tan (maybe, stain) and a blinding smile. In 2 seconds flat.
 — wjt, Apr 22 2018

 [+] neat... I'm trying to get a handle on this : so,

 electrons are accelerated linearly, then their path is bent enough to emit a photon(s) - tangentially or radially ? - out of the device onto a cinema screen, assumedly losing speed in the process. They then hit a conductive plate (out of the photon escape path), where they're recycled, their remaining energies averaged out. Rinse and repeat. Yes ?

 So the beam would go through a magnetic field which determines its vertical angle (scanline), then through a horizontal field which determines its horizontal angle and also does the photon-release bending.

3 slingshots, one for each colour. hmm... could you get that down to one ?
 — FlyingToaster, Apr 22 2018

 [FlyingToaster], the electrons are not stopped; they move continuously through a triangular loop. The sides of the triangle slowly accelerate them to an appropriate energy; the sharp corners strongly accelerate them to make them emit photons. At any single corner all the electrons emit the same color of light. But every electron emits all three colors as it travels around the overall triangle and pass through the three corners. We want the triangle to contain electrons all around its perimeter, so that light is emitted continuously from the three corners.

The light has to be collected with mirrors. A rotating mirror can be used to make the continuous beam scan.
 — Vernon, Apr 22 2018

 [annotate]

back: main index