Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NED (Nano-Emissive Display) Monitor

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 2, 2005 6:47:27 PM

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

I want my new NED computer monitor and NED-HDTV (Ned Head TV).

Dubbed "nano emissive display" (NED), the new technology
developed by Motorola, Inc. enables manufacturers to design
large flat panel displays that exceed the image quality
characteristics of plasma and LCD screens at a lower cost.
Motorola currently is in discussions with electronics
manufacturers in Europe and Asia to license the technology for
commercialization.

NED technology is potentially the cheapest and best alternative
to CRT and LCD screens and is easily scalable. The technology
could be used by ad agencies erecting monolithic 100-inch
roadside billboards. With technology like this being available,
who in their right mind would purchase a plasma display.

Converting a liquid crystal display, or LCD, production facility
to NED manufacturing would require about half its equipment to
be replaced, while a plasma display facility would require about
a quarter to be replaced. Hopefully, plasma manufacturers will
quickly make the conversion to the NED technology.

Of course, until consumers and manufacturers see a nano-emissive
display running the latest Hollywood blockbuster or are able to
surf the Web on a 60-inch prototype, the carbon nanotube
alternative will remain an attractive experiment.

http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/05/wo/wo_052405br...
sp

http://news.cnet.co.uk/monitors/0,39029684,39189021,00....
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 4:17:42 AM

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

"Liberal Among the Wolves" <gehpxre@arjfubfgvat.pbz> wrote in message
news:Xns96876C8CE8A08itsasecret@63.218.45.20...
> I want my new NED computer monitor and NED-HDTV (Ned Head TV).
>
> Dubbed "nano emissive display" (NED), the new technology
> developed by Motorola, Inc. enables manufacturers to design
> large flat panel displays that exceed the image quality
> characteristics of plasma and LCD screens at a lower cost.
> Motorola currently is in discussions with electronics
> manufacturers in Europe and Asia to license the technology for
> commercialization.
>
This is a wind-up, surely.
Regards Mike.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 4:17:43 AM

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

"Mike GW8IJT" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3iolkiFmf7m9U1@individual.net...
| "Liberal Among the Wolves" <gehpxre@arjfubfgvat.pbz> wrote in message
| news:Xns96876C8CE8A08itsasecret@63.218.45.20...
| > I want my new NED computer monitor and NED-HDTV (Ned Head TV).
| >
| > Dubbed "nano emissive display" (NED), the new technology
| > developed by Motorola, Inc. enables manufacturers to design
| > large flat panel displays that exceed the image quality
| > characteristics of plasma and LCD screens at a lower cost.
| > Motorola currently is in discussions with electronics
| > manufacturers in Europe and Asia to license the technology for
| > commercialization.
| >
| This is a wind-up, surely.

No I think it'll run from the mains ;-))

T.W.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 12:45:33 PM

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

> | > I want my new NED computer monitor and NED-HDTV (Ned Head TV).
> | >
> | > Dubbed "nano emissive display" (NED), the new technology
> | > developed by Motorola, Inc. enables manufacturers to design
> | > large flat panel displays that exceed the image quality
> | > characteristics of plasma and LCD screens at a lower cost.
> | > Motorola currently is in discussions with electronics
> | > manufacturers in Europe and Asia to license the technology for
> | > commercialization.
> | >
> | This is a wind-up, surely.
>
> No I think it'll run from the mains ;-))
>
LOL.
5 to 10 volts actually if you read the articles!
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 2:12:11 PM

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

"Mike GW8IJT" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3iolkiFmf7m9U1@individual.net...

>>
> This is a wind-up, surely.
> Regards Mike.
>

Absolutely not. The idea is that the screen is made up of a conventional RGB
matrix, but each individual Red, Green or Blue cell within the matrix is, if
you like, a microminiature CRT . Each individual CRT uses a carbon nanotube
as the electron source aimed at a microminiature R, G or B phosphor screen.
Thus the intensity of each individual RGB element can be modulated. It has
all the advantages of a conventional matrix (LCD or plasma) screen, ie no
distortion/flicker or alignment problems, plus all the advantages of the CRT
(correct colour rendition, self emissive, etc etc) plus less power
consumption. They are also much simpler to manufacture and thus have the
potential for lower consumer cost. I really think this is the display
technology of the not-so-distant future.

Quiche
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 4:07:35 PM

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

In article <42c7abe9$0$41940$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>
>The idea is that the screen is made up of a conventional RGB
>matrix, but each individual Red, Green or Blue cell within the matrix is, if
>you like, a microminiature CRT . Each individual CRT uses a carbon nanotube
>as the electron source aimed at a microminiature R, G or B phosphor screen.
>Thus the intensity of each individual RGB element can be modulated. It has
>all the advantages of a conventional matrix (LCD or plasma) screen, ie no
>distortion/flicker or alignment problems, plus all the advantages of the CRT
>(correct colour rendition, self emissive, etc etc) plus less power
>consumption. They are also much simpler to manufacture and thus have the
>potential for lower consumer cost.
>
It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
technology. There are major issues still to be resolved and the article
only addresses how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which
other manufacturers have alternative solutions. Other issues involve
the emitter lifetime (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out
of them) and the colour range (although the concept of exciting a
phosphor is the same as CRT, the phosphors are completely different
since the electron energy available to energise them is much lower).

I bought a FED display (monochrome, 2/3", QVGA) more than a decade ago -
it is long since dead and they haven't moved on significantly since
then. Those original FEDs used conical emitters which were expensive to
make, and there have since been numerous attempts to get the cost down,
including Canon's surface emission and a number of groups working with
nano-tubes.

>I really think this is the display
>technology of the not-so-distant future.

And it probably always will be. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 3, 2005 7:55:40 PM

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

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...

> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter technology.
> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only addresses
> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other manufacturers
> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)

Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.



>and the colour range (although the concept of exciting a phosphor is the
>same as CRT, the phosphors are completely different since the electron
>energy available to energise them is much lower).

Utter twaddle. The phosphor in a CRT has to charge up on average in 66ns,
and give light out for 20ms - a ratio of 300,000 to 1.
These phosphors are more than sensitive enough for continuous bombadment
throughout a field period using nanotube emitters - and thus colour
rendition is as goosd as CRT.


>
> I bought a FED display (monochrome, 2/3", QVGA) more than a decade ago -
> it is long since dead and they haven't moved on significantly since then.

... ummm you in touch with the latest R&D then?


>Those original FEDs used conical emitters which were expensive to make, and
>there have since been numerous attempts to get the cost down, including
>Canon's surface emission and a number of groups working with nano-tubes.
>
>>I really think this is the display
>>technology of the not-so-distant future.
>
> And it probably always will be. ;-)
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when
> replying)


Quiche
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 4, 2005 2:31:54 AM

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

In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter technology.
>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only addresses
>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other manufacturers
>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>
>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>
Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
display increases as it is used.
>
>>and the colour range (although the concept of exciting a phosphor is the
>>same as CRT, the phosphors are completely different since the electron
>>energy available to energise them is much lower).
>
>Utter twaddle. The phosphor in a CRT has to charge up on average in 66ns,
>and give light out for 20ms - a ratio of 300,000 to 1.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

>These phosphors are more than sensitive enough for continuous bombadment
>throughout a field period using nanotube emitters - and thus colour
>rendition is as goosd as CRT.
>
Rubbish. FEDs of all types use completely different phosphors from CRTs
- and always have done. Even the link that the OP provided mentioned
that the colour rendition was not as good as CRTs.
>
>>
>> I bought a FED display (monochrome, 2/3", QVGA) more than a decade ago -
>> it is long since dead and they haven't moved on significantly since then.
>
> ... ummm you in touch with the latest R&D then?
>
Pretty much, as least the published stuff.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
July 5, 2005 4:15:12 PM

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

"Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy" <ergonomic@winthrop.org> wrote in message
news:42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> "Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>> technology. There are major issues still to be resolved and the article
>> only addresses how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which
>> other manufacturers have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the
>> emitter lifetime (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of
>> them)
>
> Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
> already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
> display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
> twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>

Its still not as good as a CRT. If it were used as a computer monitor it
would only last about 3 years.

What's the half live on the OLED displays ?
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 5, 2005 8:31:02 PM

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

Agamemnon wrote:

>
> What's the half live on the OLED displays ?
>

From my readings ~10,000 hours. It will take a while to get to the
40,000+ hours deemed to be required.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 6, 2005 12:56:52 AM

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

In article <42ca6bb3$0$13699$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
Agamemnon <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>
>"Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy" <ergonomic@winthrop.org> wrote in message
>news:42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>
>> "Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>>> technology. There are major issues still to be resolved and the article
>>> only addresses how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which
>>> other manufacturers have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the
>>> emitter lifetime (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of
>>> them)
>>
>> Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>> already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>> display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>> twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>
>
>Its still not as good as a CRT. If it were used as a computer monitor it
>would only last about 3 years.
>
>What's the half live on the OLED displays ?
>
Half life is not an indicator of display life, it is a metric of
technology stability - what use is a display when half of the pixels
have failed? Even the life to half output intensity is an extremely
optimistic figure for a display, since you can see display
non-uniformities that have a contrast of less than 1% of the peak level
and colour inconsistencies at even lower levels.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 6, 2005 12:56:53 AM

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

On 7/5/2005, Kennedy McEwen managed to type:
> In article <42ca6bb3$0$13699$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Agamemnon
> <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> writes
>>
>>"Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy" <ergonomic@winthrop.org> wrote in message
>>news:42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>>
>>> "Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>>>> technology. There are major issues still to be resolved and the article
>>>> only addresses how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which
>>>> other manufacturers have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the
>>>> emitter lifetime (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of
>>>> them)
>>>
>>> Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>>> already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>>> display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>> twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>>
>>
>>Its still not as good as a CRT. If it were used as a computer monitor it
>>would only last about 3 years.
>>
>>What's the half live on the OLED displays ?
>>
> Half life is not an indicator of display life, it is a metric of technology
> stability - what use is a display when half of the pixels have failed? Even
> the life to half output intensity is an extremely optimistic figure for a
> display, since you can see display non-uniformities that have a contrast of
> less than 1% of the peak level and colour inconsistencies at even lower
> levels.

But that isn't what half-life means.

Half-life is defined as the time from starting the test (in this case,
the first use of a device)until half of the devices have failed.

In the case of LCD displays, for example, it would be the time until
50% of the displays are bad, not 50% of the pixels on each display.

In the case of radioactive material the devices are individual atoms,
so perhaps you could argue that you should define half-life on a pixel
basis, but I won't buy it :-)

One serious question here is, what do "they" mean by the failure of a
device? For LCDs, one company, might say it's when you get to 5 dead
pixels, and another company might say "failure" means the backlight
goes 100% dark. One can hope there's an industry standard, but I have
no knowledge in this area.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 6, 2005 12:56:54 AM

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

"Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.2bba7d57afa02634.1980@nobody.invalid...
> But that isn't what half-life means.
>
> Half-life is defined as the time from starting the test (in this case, the
> first use of a device)until half of the devices have failed.
>
> In the case of LCD displays, for example, it would be the time until 50%
> of the displays are bad, not 50% of the pixels on each display.
>
>

Actually, in the case of many displays, such as plasma and CRT, the half
life is usually considered to be the point at which the light output of the
display is 50% of the light output it started with. I haven't seen a
definition of half life for LCDs.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 6, 2005 12:56:55 AM

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

On 7/5/2005, Mike Rush managed to type:
> "Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.2bba7d57afa02634.1980@nobody.invalid...
>> But that isn't what half-life means.
>>
>> Half-life is defined as the time from starting the test (in this case, the
>> first use of a device)until half of the devices have failed.
>>
>> In the case of LCD displays, for example, it would be the time until 50% of
>> the displays are bad, not 50% of the pixels on each display.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, in the case of many displays, such as plasma and CRT, the half life
> is usually considered to be the point at which the light output of the
> display is 50% of the light output it started with. I haven't seen a
> definition of half life for LCDs.

I guess the definition can be flexible enough to meet different
people's needs :-)

Thanks for the new perspective.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 7, 2005 1:56:42 AM

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

In uk.tech.digital-tv Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>>
>>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter technology.
>>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only addresses
>>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other manufacturers
>>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
>>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>>
>>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>
> Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
> display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
> display increases as it is used.

It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
as possible.
Digital framestores and a convolver arn't too expensive any more.
July 7, 2005 12:36:25 PM

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

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42cc539a$0$6276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> In uk.tech.digital-tv Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
>> Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>>>
>>>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>>>> technology.
>>>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only
>>>> addresses
>>>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other
>>>> manufacturers
>>>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
>>>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>>>
>>>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>>>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>>>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
>> display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
>> display increases as it is used.
>
> It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
> and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
> as possible.

If the phosphor is decayed then you will need even more current to the most
decayed pixels to give the required brightness as before, which of course
will make the most worn out pixels decay even more to the point of requiring
more current than you can supply.

> Digital framestores and a convolver arn't too expensive any more.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 7, 2005 12:36:26 PM

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

Agamemnon wrote:
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42cc539a$0$6276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
>>
>>It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
>>and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
>>as possible.
>
>
> If the phosphor is decayed then you will need even more current to the most
> decayed pixels to give the required brightness as before, which of course
> will make the most worn out pixels decay even more to the point of requiring
> more current than you can supply.
>

If that scheme manages to push the half life up to 40,000 hours before
the power supply falls over it might just be worth doing.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 7, 2005 3:41:29 PM

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

In uk.tech.digital-tv Agamemnon <agamemnon@hello.to.no_spam> wrote:
>
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42cc539a$0$6276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> In uk.tech.digital-tv Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
>>> Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>>>>
>>>>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>>>>> technology.
>>>>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only
>>>>> addresses
>>>>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other
>>>>> manufacturers
>>>>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
>>>>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>>>>
>>>>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>>>>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>>>>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>>>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
>>> display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
>>> display increases as it is used.
>>
>> It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
>> and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
>> as possible.
>
> If the phosphor is decayed then you will need even more current to the most
> decayed pixels to give the required brightness as before, which of course
> will make the most worn out pixels decay even more to the point of requiring
> more current than you can supply.

Oh, right, I was assuming it was the nanoemitters that decayed.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 7, 2005 7:43:06 PM

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

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42cd14e9$0$2891$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> In uk.tech.digital-tv Agamemnon <agamemnon@hello.to.no_spam> wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:42cc539a$0$6276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>> In uk.tech.digital-tv Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
>>>> Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter
>>>>>> technology.
>>>>>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only
>>>>>> addresses
>>>>>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other
>>>>>> manufacturers
>>>>>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter
>>>>>> lifetime
>>>>>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>>>>>
>>>>>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes
>>>>>has
>>>>>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a
>>>>>domestic
>>>>>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>>>>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as
>>>>>much.
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
>>>> display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
>>>> display increases as it is used.
>>>
>>> It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
>>> and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
>>> as possible.
>>
>> If the phosphor is decayed then you will need even more current to the
>> most
>> decayed pixels to give the required brightness as before, which of course
>> will make the most worn out pixels decay even more to the point of
>> requiring
>> more current than you can supply.
>
> Oh, right, I was assuming it was the nanoemitters that decayed.


..... ummm it is!
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 8, 2005 1:01:03 AM

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

In article <mn.2bba7d57afa02634.1980@nobody.invalid>, Gene E. Bloch
<spamfree@nobody.invalid> writes
>
>Half-life is defined as the time from starting the test (in this case,
>the first use of a device)until half of the devices have failed.
>
>In the case of LCD displays, for example, it would be the time until
>50% of the displays are bad, not 50% of the pixels on each display.
>
That depends on whether you are measuring the half life of the display
or the half life of the nano-tube emission pixels - the latter being the
topic of the thread.
>
>One serious question here is, what do "they" mean by the failure of a
>device? For LCDs, one company, might say it's when you get to 5 dead
>pixels, and another company might say "failure" means the backlight
>goes 100% dark. One can hope there's an industry standard, but I have
>no knowledge in this area.
>
Generally "they" would define an MTTF against a specification. For most
commercial devices you are unlikely to find a published specification.
For some panels that are provided to OEMs, the OEM is likely to be
provided with both the MTTF and the spec it is assessed against.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
July 8, 2005 1:19:00 AM

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

In article <42cc539a$0$6276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Ian
Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In uk.tech.digital-tv Kennedy McEwen <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <42c7fc69$0$30819$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
>> Quiche Mash 'n' Mushy <ergonomic@winthrop.org> writes
>>>
>>>"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:GA7PJjB3b8xCFwbl@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> It is just a field emissive display with (yet) another emitter technology.
>>>> There are major issues still to be resolved and the article only addresses
>>>> how Motorola have overcome one of those, one for which other manufacturers
>>>> have alternative solutions. Other issues involve the emitter lifetime
>>>> (the bucky-tubes fray apart as electrons tear out of them)
>>>
>>>Half life in excess of 10,000 hours at full emission for 2.7nm tubes has
>>>already been achieved, this yields a half life expectancy for a domestic
>>>display, average use 6 hours per day, of in excess of 4.5 years - about
>>>twice that of a typical plasma display which costs 2 or 3 times as much.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, half life in this case is misleading because the entire
>> display does not decay at the same rate, thus non-uniformity of the
>> display increases as it is used.
>
>It should be possible to include a means of measuring electrode current,
>and compensating with a built in device, to keep uniformity, as long
>as possible.
>Digital framestores and a convolver arn't too expensive any more.

Possibly, but you would have to measure the actual beam current at each
pixel because they are driving for most of the frame time. That is not
trivial given the manufacturing technology and the available space.
These aren't huge slices of silicon than you process on a semiconductor
line. The complexity of the circuitry you can put in the active pixel
area is quite limited.

If it wasn't an issue, you could put a photocell in each pixel and
correct for other issues like phosphor decay. The same approach could
be used on plasma displays to fix burn-in, but it isn't because its a
step beyond being practical at the moment.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
!