LCD? Plasma?? OLED??? Nano Based FEDs!

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Field Emission Displays?! Ever hear of em? (I hadn't) but being a fringe science kinda person I stumbled across this and it sounds really impressive.



Nanotube based field emission displays - Sounds like something from 10 years from now? Well if Samsung has their way displays based on this technology will be on the shelves by the end of 2006!! They have a 30" prototype right now.



http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...nn1104.asp?p=1



It's a 5 page story so don't miss some of the most interesting stuff by just reading the first page. For example - 1 gram of nano-tubes is enough to cover the display area of SIX 30" displays - one tiny gram! How small is that? Well, it says 10,000 nanotubes will cover a single pixel! We're talking TINY stuff here!



Some of the other benefits:



?__Thin (in fact the story states its a mere 2mm thick)

?__Light

?__No burn-in

?__Viewable from any angle

?__Pixels switch quickly

?__Low power consumption (current 30" prototype draws 100 watts)



Fact is, anything 'nano-related' is really interesting to me and this seems goes far beyond what current nano-tech is involved with today.



Anyway... Enjoy!



Dave

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    thttht Posts: 5,450member
    I hope those Carbon nanotube based FEDs are capable of super high resolutions and be really really cheap, because Samsung's own CRT unit is producing a short-tube (15 inches) 32" CRT TV. That will easily short circuit demand for flat panel tech TVs...
  • Reply 2 of 13
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,823member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DaveGee

    Field Emission Displays?! Ever hear of em? (I hadn't) but being a fringe science kinda person I stumbled across this and it sounds really impressive.



    Nanotube based field emission displays - Sounds like something from 10 years from now? Well if Samsung has their way displays based on this technology will be on the shelves by the end of 2006!! They have a 30" prototype right now.



    http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...nn1104.asp?p=1



    It's a 5 page story so don't miss some of the most interesting stuff by just reading the first page. For example - 1 gram of nano-tubes is enough to cover the display area of SIX 30" displays - one tiny gram! How small is that? Well, it says 10,000 nanotubes will cover a single pixel! We're talking TINY stuff here!



    Some of the other benefits:



    ?__Thin (in fact the story states its a mere 2mm thick)

    ?__Light

    ?__No burn-in

    ?__Viewable from any angle

    ?__Pixels switch quickly

    ?__Low power consumption (current 30" prototype draws 100 watts)



    Fact is, anything 'nano-related' is really interesting to me and this seems goes far beyond what current nano-tech is involved with today.



    Anyway... Enjoy!



    Dave




    Hi Dave



    I think these have been researched for some time in the form of 'cold cathode' emission where each pixel featured its own phosphors and electron source. If that's the case, this development is an advance on the prior art. Sounds exciting.



    Regards, DavidH.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    I hope those Carbon nanotube based FEDs are capable of super high resolutions and be really really cheap, because Samsung's own CRT unit is producing a short-tube (15 inches) 32" CRT TV. That will easily short circuit demand for flat panel tech TVs...



    Yep... page 5 of the story talks about the Vixlim tube (37" @ 14" deep - better pic than LCD or Plasma and up to 1/3 cheaper ETA next year) but the comments from the Samsung VP running this project said something like technologies will surly push each other and drive costs down.



    Manufacturing cost per diagonal inch: (2005/2006)



    Plasma: $9

    FED: $7 (perhaps as low as $5)



    As for resolution... its clearly supporting HD - "The image is as sharp as those produced by traditional high-definition picture tubes with similar display sizes..."



    But the most interesting thing to me was 10,000 nanotubes PER PIXEL! The story went on to say something like due to the inexact science in creating and laying nanotubes some are broke and some aren't pointed in the right direction but we only need 30 to 50% of them to be 'okay' for the picture to come out looking the way it should. Imagine the day when those hurdles (production of and deploying of carbon nanotubes) are perfected. The displays using a technology like this could be turned into a super hi-def device one day!



    Dave
  • Reply 4 of 13
    zozo Posts: 3,117member
    any info on carbon nano tubes are appreciated... especially who the leaders are in this sector



    much appreciado
  • Reply 5 of 13
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    any info on carbon nano tubes are appreciated... especially who the leaders are in this sector



    much appreciado




    I think you'll need to google on that to get more data.



    I have read there is a US company selling these tubes by the gram and it is still very expensive. They are working on reducing production costs but still an inexact science. Still, this is really cool stuff!



    Here's a freebie link for you to start with (just googled it) --> http://www.nanovip.com/directory/Nanotubes/index.php
  • Reply 6 of 13
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    I think you'll need to google on that to get more data.



    I have read there is a US company selling these tubes by the gram and it is still very expensive. They are working on reducing production costs but still an inexact science. Still, this is really cool stuff![/url]






    "Carbon Nanotechnologies, a Houston-based firm with a considerable arsenal of patents in the field. A gram of carbon nanotube powder, enough to make half a dozen 40-inch displays, cost $100 last year, Kim says, but will sell for less than $10 in two years."



    1 gram (enough raw material for 6 40" displays) sold for $100 last year is pretty impressive (~$17 per 40" display) but if Samsungs forecast is correct that same gram will sell for $10 in two years time. WOW talk about price drops! Bodes well for nano-tech going forward (~$1.66 per set).



    Dave



    P.S. I'm glad I finally extracted myself from "Political Outsider" - Tech is much more fun than politics and IMHO shouldn't be mixed.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Dave, (I'm a Dave too )



    I'm amazed at how little goes such a long way (1g builds multiple sets? wow!). $100/g is quite expensive (2835.xx/oz. just ain't cheap) but is cheap when you consider someone is lining up C molecules in tubelike formations at the atomic level.



    Cool stuff indeed, and much more fun than listening to Scott, dmz, SDW2001, & others in PO.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    were there really be a limit to how big you could make them? and 100$ per gram is exepensive if you look at like that. But 100$ makes 6 "40" inch displays!! sounds cheap know eh?
  • Reply 9 of 13
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by charliehorse

    were there really be a limit to how big you could make them? and 100$ per gram is exepensive if you look at like that. But 100$ makes 6 "40" inch displays!! sounds cheap know eh?



    Yea, that's why I said I was amazed at how such a little bit (1g) went such a long ways (covering multiple displays). That is really cool. Especially if it goes down to $10/g. At those kind of prices maybe we'll have displays that cover entire walls, like in Quaid's apartment in the beginning of Total Recall.



    That would be awesome!
  • Reply 10 of 13
    mystmyst Posts: 112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    Yea, that's why I said I was amazed at how such a little bit (1g) went such a long ways (covering multiple displays). That is really cool. Especially if it goes down to $10/g. At those kind of prices maybe we'll have displays that cover entire walls, like in Quaid's apartment in the beginning of Total Recall.



    That would be awesome!




    I will now bet on the chameleon Apple being a reality.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,562member
    Lab prototypes are one thing, production is another all together. The vacuum required by a FED will be a formidable issue for large displays. No way large displays will be 2mm thick. The total force due to air pressure on the front glass of a large display will be on the order of 7,500 pounds. Thirty inches of one millimeter glass cannot support that.



    Also, a very small volume of vacuum is easy to degrade. A CRT has a vacuum chamber thousands of times larger and thus is far less susceptible to this.



    I'm not trying to throw cold water on this, just pointing out some of the realities. FEDs have been researched long before nanotubes came into being. The previous idea was to use small diamond crystals as emitters. In cold Field Emission Gun electron microscopes they use tungsten crystals as emitters.



    Personally, I think OLEDs have a stronger chance of being used in flat displays. They don't need a vacuum and are very easy to manufacture. The problem now, of course, is that they cannot be manufactured. There is as of now no suitable material for generating blue light that lasts long enough to be used in a consumer product.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
    Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.



    Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.



    Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.

  • Reply 13 of 13
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Delegating these aspects of field emission display design still leaves plenty for Samsung to work on, beginning with the glass itself. The nanotubes have to shoot their electrons across a vacuum; otherwise they would be absorbed or deflected by air molecules. Yet making what amounts to a very wide, sheetlike vacuum chamber is difficult, because over a large area air pressure will tend to crush together the two sides of the screen. The obvious answer is to put a support pillar in the middle of the screen. But then, Saito explains, ?you see the support in the middle of the picture.?



    Equally problematic, in his view, is the thermal expansion and contraction of the display. When the nanotubes are emitting electrons, the display gets hotter, and all its materials expand; when the electron beam is off, they shrink. ?The problem is how to accommodate the expansion,? Saito says. His team had to find materials whose thermal expansion coefficient was the same as that of glass, so that the entire display would expand and contract in concert.



    Exactly how Samsung pulled all these pieces together is ?our secret,? says Kim.



    From the story....



    Dave
Sign In or Register to comment.