--- title: "Lenard lets cathode rays out of the tube" description: "How could a ray made in a nearly empty tube be studied in ordinary air?" canonical_url: "https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/lenard-cathode-ray-window/" language: "en" page_type: "story" alternate_languages: zh-CN: "https://sandboxphysics.com/zh/stories/particle-evidence/lenard-cathode-ray-window/" last_modified: "2026-10-24" --- [Detecting a passing particle](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/#detectors) Particles · Experiments · Discovery # Lenard lets cathode rays out of the tube How could a ray made in a nearly empty tube be studied in ordinary air? Sandbox Physics · 2026-10-24 Nobel contribution: 1905-1 1. Produce rays in a discharge tube 2. Pass a thin aluminium window 3. Detect light on a phosphor screen The screen reports where the emerging rays deposit energy. ## A window separates two experiments In the 1890s, a cathode-ray tube was a sealed experiment. A high voltage sent a discharge through a gas at low pressure, and the glass opposite the negative electrode glowed. Philipp Lenard wanted to examine the rays after they had left the conditions that produced them. He fitted a very thin aluminium foil over a small opening. The foil held back the surrounding air while allowing some of the rays to emerge. His 1905 Nobel Prize recognised his work on cathode rays; the window experiments belonged to the preceding decade. That small alteration changed the questions an experimenter could ask. Inside the tube, changing the gas also changed the discharge. A brighter screen might mean that the gas transmitted the rays more easily, or simply that the discharge produced more of them. A separate observation region let Lenard vary what the emerging rays passed through while keeping their source apart. The apparatus gave the beam a place to begin and the material under investigation a place of its own. The word window can be misleading. This was not a transparent pane that one could look through to see the rays. The emerging electrons were invisible to an unaided eye. Their presence was revealed by what they did to another material. A phosphorescent coating emitted light where the rays deposited energy, turning a hidden beam into a visible patch. Sources: [1] [3] ## Air both stops and spreads the beam Close to the window the screen shone brightly. Farther away it grew dim. In the arrangement described in Lenard’s lecture, the glow disappeared at roughly eight centimetres in air at ordinary pressure. That distance was a property of the emerging beam and its surroundings, not a universal range for every electron. A faster electron can travel farther, and changing the gas density changes how often it encounters atoms. The beam also spread sideways. Put a hole in an opaque obstacle and place the screen behind it: the illuminated region did not preserve a perfectly sharp geometric shadow. The rays were scattered in the intervening material. A useful picture is a stream of small moving objects repeatedly nudged off course. Each deflection may be small; many together broaden the stream and can send some particles far from its original direction. Scattering and stopping answer different questions. Scattering changes where a particle goes. Stopping concerns the energy it loses. A screen can grow dim because fewer electrons reach it, because the beam is spread over a larger area, or because the arriving electrons deposit less useful energy in its coating. Changing one condition at a time helps separate these possible causes of a change in brightness. Before reaching the observation region, the rays have already crossed aluminium. The foil has to be thin enough to transmit a useful fraction, yet supported well enough to hold the pressure difference. Its thickness is therefore a physical part of the experiment. Electrons that emerge have been selected and altered by their passage through it. The beam outside is the beam after a material interaction. This makes comparison more useful than a single bright spot. Keep the window and source fixed, then compare screens at different distances or place another layer in the path. A change can be associated with that added distance or material. Change the window at the same time and two causes become mixed. The foil teaches a general lesson about beams: the device that makes a sample accessible can also change the sample reaching the measurement. Sources: [1] ## The rays become a probe of matter A thin metal foil and a gas look very different in daily life. To the emerging beam, both are matter that can deflect it and take away energy. Lenard compared materials and related much of their absorbing action to the amount of matter in the path. This encouraged the idea that the beam was probing something shared by different substances. It was an important clue at a time when the interior of an atom was still an open problem. The next decisive step required measuring an electrical property of the rays. Magnetic and electric fields could bend the beam, and J. J. Thomson used those responses to investigate the carriers of negative electricity. Lenard’s window and Thomson’s deflection measurements played different parts in that story. One made the rays available outside their source; the other helped identify a constituent common to matter. The tube was becoming an instrument for asking what atoms contain. Sources: [1] [2] Continue with the physics ## Try the related models ### [Bend a charged-particle beam](https://sandboxphysics.com/labs/charged-particle/) Change the electric and magnetic fields and follow the trajectory. The model follows a nonrelativistic particle through fixed, uniform fields. ## Sources and reading notes 1. [Philipp Lenard, On cathode rays (Nobel lecture, 1906; prize 1905)](https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/lenard-lecture.pdf) Lenard describes the thin window, separate observation chamber, phosphorescent screens and scattering in gases. His proposed atomic model is historical. 2. [J. J. Thomson, Carriers of negative electricity (1906)](https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/thomson-lecture.pdf) Read the charge-collection and electric/magnetic deflection arguments separately from the later estimates of individual charge. 3. [Nobel Prize educational archive, The nature of cathode rays](https://educationalgames.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/vacuum/tube-3.html) The historical tube sequence distinguishes Lenard’s window from Thomson’s charge-to-mass measurements. ## Follow the next question [Thomson finds a common particle in cathode rays](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/thomson-electron-charge-mass/) [Particles, detectors and the rules of matter](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/) [Thomson finds a common particle in cathode rays](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/thomson-electron-charge-mass/) [Wilson turns ionisation into a visible track](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/wilson-cloud-chamber/) [Bothe and Geiger ask whether two signals belong together](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/bothe-coincidence-method/) [Blackett and Occhialini let a particle take its own photograph](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/blackett-counter-controlled-cloud-chamber/) [The pion leaves a second track in photographic emulsion](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/powell-pion-emulsion/) [Glaser makes a particle trail start the boiling](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/glaser-bubble-chamber/) [Alvarez’s group finds short-lived particles in combinations of tracks](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/alvarez-resonance-events/) [Cherenkov follows the blue light to a moving charge](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/cherenkov-light-cone/) [Charpak turns a particle’s position into an electrical signal](https://sandboxphysics.com/stories/particle-evidence/charpak-multiwire-chamber/)