Yet another display...

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).

This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
come down (which may be likely)...

Check it out...

http://www.canon.com/technology/de [...] d_display/

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:22:39 -0500, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
>developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
>this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
>mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
>
>This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
>come down (which may be likely)...
>
>Check it out...
>
>http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/
-------------------
Neat!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

"Ed T" <ed.wilson@acsalaskanospam.net> wrote in message
news:414b8c32$1@news.acsalaska.net...
> Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and
> Plasma
> though.

probably more in line with direct view CRT burn, which is lower than PDP or
RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>
>
>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
>
>
> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP phosphors?
>

If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

"Joseph S. Powell, III" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:10km0ncd5ifhf52@corp.supernews.com...
> The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
> developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
> this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
> mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
>
> This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the
> prices
> come down (which may be likely)...
>
> Check it out...
>
> http://www.canon.com/technology/de [...] d_display/
>

Field-emission Displays (FED) have been proposed for a number of years:

http://optics.org/articles/news/8/7/29/1

Progress has been slow because of several technical hurdles. However, it
does sound like Cannon and Toshiba are overcoming some of the problems.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

"Neil" <ThisIsNotAReadAddress@xyzabc1234.com> wrote in message
news:LIi3d.70259$MQ5.5925@attbi_s52...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:v7ydnZ2OyIZAftHcRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>> news:10kp5jp2mqvvo47@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>>>> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
>>>> phosphors?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
>>> stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>
>>
>> the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron
>> phosphors (rp/crt)
>>
>> yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot
>
> To all:
>
> If there is less burn-in for the phosphors in a direct view TV when
> compared to a rear projection TV, it is because the electron guns of the
> CRTs of the rear-projection TV must be driven very hard ...correct?
>
> The idea behind the SED (and similarly the FED, Field-emission Display) is
> that there are millions of tiny electron emitters, each of which operates
> at very low voltages, perhaps as low as 12V. In an SED or FED, the
> distance the electron must travel is very minute before it strikes the
> phosphor. (By contrast, the electron gun in a direct view TV operates in
> the thousands of volts.)
>
> Bear in mind too the ratio of emitters to pixels. In direct view TV you
> have one electron gun (emitter) for all of your pixels. In the rear
> projection TV you have 3 tubes, each with up to a million pixels and each
> with just one emitter. In the SED you have hundreds of thousands or
> millions of emitters for perhaps as many pixels. Considering the low
> voltage used and the ratio of emitters to pixels, I would think that at
> the instant that an electron hits the phosphor in a SED or FED, the
> instantaneous energy delivered would be thousands of times less than that
> delivered to the phosphor in a direct view TV. Wouldn't that suggest that
> any phosphor damage in the SED or FED would be at worst equal to that of a
> direct view TV?
>
> Forgive me if my "facts" regarding SED and FED are not totally precise. I
> am far from an expert on this subject, though I have been reading about it
> for many years. Feedback is most welcome.
>
> Neil
> Salem, MA USA

some comments

it's not really the voltage (electron velocity) that determines brightness,
it's the number of electrons, the flux ... the current
but to confuse things, the current is related to the voltage, and of course
there is a minimum energy required to excite the lower orbital electrons of
the phosphor

in a crt rp, the area of three 7"/9" tubes must create enough light to
illuminate a screen many many times larger in area... so these tubes are
pushed hard to generate the light

in a direct view (FED/SED/CRT), the relationship between area of phosphor to
area of screen is 1:1, so direct view phosphors run much less intensely at
any given screen brightness