Need CRT too for the authentic experience.
It is an interesting problem, though. I noticed in Disney's Loki, they used a combination of VFX and lenses on top of flat panels to give the impression they were using CRTs (notably in their ADM-3 lookalikes). For a 9~14" CRT it'd be a fairly large lens that would need to be optically connected to the panel below (so not to have internal reflections).
Although X-rays are not used to draw the image, they are generated as an unwanted side effect. The phosphorescent screen emits X-rays when struck by the electron beam. To protect the user, the glass must be a special kind of glass to absorb those X-rays, and the accelerator voltage has to be set not too high.
CTRL-F for "X-ray" gives me 1 result, "-ray" gives me 13 results ;)
Absolutely agree that X-Rays are generated in the phosphorent screen, but they are not emitted by the CRT.
> […] and the accelerator voltage has to be set not too high.
Yes, with electrons only so high that they reach the screen, which is low enough to only generate very minor secondary X-rays in the screen, which is then nicely shielded. If the phosphorous screen would be blasted with X-rays, the shielding of the screen would need to be much thicker and expensive.
(I’m working with shielded microCT machines, so speaking with a bit of experience)
CRTs produce a (low-intensity) electron beam that has just high enough energy for exciting the phosphorous screen.
Therac-25 was able to produce both a high-intensity electron beam or an X-ray beam, depending on the therapy need.
The Retrotink 4K has been pretty eye opening (and eye-watering, given the $750 price tag) in terms of where we are with CRT emulation these days.