Organic LEDs To Replace LCDs?

Shostykovich writes "There's a story here on the LA Times about some interesting organic-LED technology being explored by the likes of Kodak and IBM. These LEDs are made using "organic compounds", and they're hoping to replace LCDs with these in a few years." Light on tech talk, but they see to think that these could work for head displays.

Comments

leds will take over the world

[dirtmerchant]

Obviously, these people aren't paranoid enough. If they were, they would realize that no matter how little you put in, organic compounds put in electronics will evolve and take over the world. I'm still waiting for the leech computer to gain sentience and run amok. When will science learn.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
v.3.12
GCS d-(--) s+: a-- C+++$>++++$$ UL++$>++++$$ P+>++++$ L++>++++$ E--- W++$>++

Yea, these things are neat

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

We have been working with prototypes of these kinds fo things for a few months.. they really are quite neat..

One thing that is nice is that they use a LOT less power than conventional LCD's. Also, there is no ghost when animation occurs like in conventional LCD displays.. Even in high quality laptop and flatpannel displays you get teh ghost effect, it makes quake3 almost unplayable.

This stuff is really cheep to build too... Once R&D is finished, cost of manufacturing will be almost as trivial as copying mp3's on napster. No more paying $900 for a new laptop display when it breaks.

Overall, this is very great technology. I cant wait for my Crusoe 1ghz with this display and wireless ethernet to come out :)

This has been in development for a while..

[Diskore]

You can find out more about OLED from the company working on it, Universal Display Corporation

Needs to be pointed out....

[Dacta]

That organic compounds are really just plastics, and have nothing to do with life, DNA or aliens.....

But I'm sure everyone on Slashdot already knew that, though.

Re:Needs to be pointed out....

[PD]

Organic compounds have long chains of carbon molecules.

That's why organic foods are bad for you. You might as well be drinking gasoline.

Organic Problems

[bonzoesc]

In my ninth-grade biology class, we learned that just about anything reacts with organic chemicals. Does this make the Organic LEDs prone to breakdown due to their reactiveness, or do these LEDs resist such natural decomposition?

Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate

Oh shit.

[Carnage4Life]

I can't believe this, a friend of mine sent me an email a while ago about working on this and I thought it was cool but would never work.

------------------------------------------------

i am now in [deleted] which is the most boring town/city in the
world. i
have been here since the beginning of june (apart from 2 trips back to
[deleted],
the most interesting town in the world). i'm on a research internship
at the
[deleted], a big time,34 grand a year tuition private
college
with billions in research grant money a year.
i am researching oleds, organic light emitting diodes, which in the
future
will be used to make paper thin, paper flexible tvs and monitor
displays (
kind of like the mediatrons in 'diamond age' if you've read that. the
research is sponsored by kodak and xerox ( the principle behind leds is
similar to photography and photocopying that is why these two companies
are
at the cutting edge of this field. i am working with a big time
professor
who owns numerous patents jointly with kodak and xerox, ' a unique,
joint
intellectual property agreement ' is what it's called.
the work is interesting. i am analyzing the polymer to be used for
these
displays with lasers and creating small devices for analysis. in
solution
the polymer emits light perfectly but when a film is formed its
efficincy
goes down, due to polymer chain interactions when the solid forms.
i suggested freezing the solution and then vacuum pumping the frozen
solvent
out by sublimation as a means of creating solid films with solution
morphology for better analysis and the professor called me a genius
gave me
free run of the place. so its not so bad.
designed the apparatus necessary for the job and i'm giving the process
a
trial run.
(sent to both hotmail and yahoo, don't know which one you frequent)
see you in a bit.

Second Law of Blissful Ignorance

Truth about LED's

[wmoyes]

One of the problems with LED's is they draw a lot of power. Ever wonder why wristwatches use LCD instead of LED? It's the power draw. Let's do a little convoluted math:

Typical power draw of a Panasonic blue led (LNG91LCFBW) 20ma, typical voltage 3.5 Volts, typical current 20ma. Ok now lets look at your 1024x768 LED display panel

1024x768 = 786432 LEDs (just for blue)
20ma X 3.5 volts = 70mw per LED
786432 elements * 70mw each = 55 kWatts. Uhm... that's one power hungry blue screen of death.

But seriously their new technology must be more energy efficient, but I would like to see some real specs. Most of the energy savings are going to be from the smaller surface area, but like I said, don't get your hopes up.

Re:Truth about LED's

[/dev/kev]

Are those figures for standard 5mm LED, or similar? If so, then that's a pretty damn big screen, 5.12m x 3.84m, and at 5mm dot-pitch, too.

Down the bottom of the article it mentions that Kodak's LEDs are eight hundreths of an inch thick. And now think about the resolution they're trying to get, in the size they're trying to get. I think it's pretty clear that these LEDs are _tiny_.

Re:Truth about LED's

[wmoyes]

You are perfectly correct. Unfortunately like I said I didn't have access to any information regarding the power consumption of these new displays. (If you were curious the punch line was about the blue screen of death). However I was trying to make the point that just because its LED doesn't mean its power efficient. I would think the contrary would be true.

An EE friend of mine told me that if you made the emitting part of an LED the same size as a neon tube (the emitting plasma part that is), both would use equivalent power. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm this. But if you follow this logic, an LED display panel will use as much power an equivalent plasma display. And if memory serves they stopped using plasma displays years ago due to the power they consumed.

Re:Organic Fud???

[Carnage4Life]

Maybe you should have paid more attention in Chemistry class. From the MSDS hyper-glossary.

Definition

• In the context of chemistry and materials,
• organic refers to a materials based on carbon (an element abbreviated as C). Additional elements that are commonly found in organic materials are hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S).
  • An unrelated and confusing definition of organic is used most often in reference to "natural" foods. For example, a simple definition of "organic produce" is fruits or vegetables that have been raised without the use of pesticides or herbicides. Of course, many pesticides and herbicides are actually themselves organic (using either or both definitions of "organic")!
  Materials that are not organic are usually referred to as inorganic.

Additional Info

• Organic chemicals are not necessarily harmful or toxic. Much or the human body consists of organic chemicals such as proteins, DNA, lipids and cell membranes. The food you eat, trees, grass, and every other living object contains organic compounds. The term "carbon-based life forms" is redundant (at least on this planet).

• However, this does not necessarily mean that organic chemicals are good for you. For example, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is a deadly toxin, benzene (C6H6) is a carcinogen and thalidomide is a potent teratogen.

  When it comes to considering the toxicity of any material, remember that the dose makes the poison . Some chemicals (organic or not) present no or minimal hazard even at very high concentrations, while others can be deadly in minute amounts.

  Some organic compounds are highly reactive and are incompatible with other chemicals such as strong oxidizing agents. Be sure to read your MSDS!

Second Law of Blissful Ignorance

Re: huh? my laptop doesn't do that.

[deglr6328]

"ghosting" only occurs in DSTN LCD's [Dual Scan STN (Super Twist Nematic) Liquid Crystal Displays] because of the relaxation time for the LC molecule. TFT (Thin Film Transistor) LCD's "force" the molecule to 'unalign' fast when switched off using a voltage potential. hence fast switching hence....no ghosts.

Definition of "organic"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I may be wrong, but when I hear 'Organic', I think organism. When I think organism, I think of life. Here's a free clue for all the media types out there: "Carbon != Organic".

Sorry, but you're wrong. (No doubt because you were misinformed by junk schools and media.)

"Organic", when applied to molecules, means "containing carbon". Period. It has been that way for well over a century - roughly since the fall of the theory of vitalism (i.e. that there was something fundamentally different about the chemistry of living and nonliving matter). It will no doubt continue to be that way for as long as there are English-speaking chemists.

Yes, it DID come from the fact that most of the chemistry of life is carbon based. And there are some much more recent definitions of "organic" - such as food products grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. But when we're talking chemistry it's a technical term, and "containing carbon" is the entirety of its meaning.

Re:Definition of "organic"

[stefanlasiewski]

This is something that really irks me about science. I paid attention in Chemistry class, and I learned that definition of "organic".

However, you should know that the word "organic" predates the our knowledge of atoms by several centries (No doubt because you were misinformed by junk science; or at least by scientists who were racing to "discover" shit that was already there (Hey, happy Columbus Day).

Atoms were first 'discovered' about a century ago, but the word organic is at least 500 years old. It's original meaning *was* somethign like "Derived from the organism". The definition of "organic" had nothing to do with "Carbon based", because we had no idea that the universe existed on an atomic level.

You doubt my word? Here, check out the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
the word 'organic' is about 500 years old.

Scientists discovered the word organic in much the same way that they 'discovered' carbon atoms. The matter was already there, scientists were trying to make heads-or-tails out of it these new things which they were calling 'atoms' (Which means "Cannot be cut"), and so they appropriated the word 'organic' to mean 'carbon-based', because as far as they knew, everything that was "carbon-based" was "derived from living organisms".

Then came petroleum byproducts like Gasoline and Plastic (BTW, plastic is *another* old world which was "redefined" by science. plastic used to mean "pliable"), which are technically "carbon-based", but unless you trace their root back for many eons. But the "Carbon based" definition stuck.

So next time people like me talk to you about "Organic veggies", there's a reason why we use that word.

Big deal.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of /comments.pl in order to allow veryone to have a fair chance to post.

It's been 60 seconds since your last submission!

So he's got an off-by-one bug. Big deal.

Submit it again in another second. Hurry, you might take too long. B-)

Different deposition process, same old stuff...

[Svartalf]

Light Emitting Plastics (Also known as Organic LED's, BTW) is a known. A little company in Cambridge, UK came up with the first variety, Cambridge Display Technologies- look them up.

This has been lurking for about 1-2 years now. I'm waiting for them to come out with the stuff.

Different technology.

[Svartalf]

The blue OLED uses a different emissive method than the blue LED you buy off the shelf. So much so that you could almost call it electroluminescent plastic instead of an LED.

It's really almost like night and day by comparison.

Rant all you want:

[2nd Post!]

The current scientific definition of organic is "containing carbon", meaning Carbon == Organic, while Carbon != Coming from something alive.

Organic LEDs could concievably be a product of bioluminescent creatures, but they aren't. They just happen to use carbon, instead of silicon/germanium, etc.

The nick is a joke! Really!

Nope....

[BadlandZ]

Sorry, as a chemist, who has seen several talks on LED technology as it applies to both inhanced fiber optic data transmission and display tech, I have to say, your wrong, it's not "plastic" that they are talking about.

First off, I'm going to have to qualify this with "I have no idea what the LA Times is talking about, because they really don't mention any science"

But the trick is SAMs (self assembled mono-layers). If you start with molecules that will direct light, transport electricity, and/or convert electricity (often in the case of single electrons) into light, that's a big step. There is a lot of synthetic work that goes into finding the right molecules. And then, the hard bit, is creating them in such a way that they will densely pack onto a surface, by themself.

The cool thing about SAMs is the S and the A. They assemble themselfs. You just put the right concentration of these molecules in solution, and then create the right conditions for them to drop out of solution and onto a surface. This is done with a small electric potential on the surface, adding another analyte to the solution, or simply evaporating some of the solution away... ;-) And poof... a nicely coated surface with your magic molecules. Of course, it's a bit more complex and involved than that, but, that's sorta the basic idea.

These things will not only make cheaper, sharper, brighter displays, but they will improve communications as well. As it turns out, fiber optic communications is not limited by the speed of light, we're communicating no where near that fast in the real world. It's limited by the speed we can accurately create a "pulse" of light to funnel down a fiber. And these cool little SAMs can be turned "on and off" faster than the current switches and relays that we use in fiber optic communication today... So, they will speed up data transmission too someday in the future.

My two cents... It's been a few years since I looked into this, and I'm sure I might have SOME of the details muffed up.... But that's a lot closer to what's going on than "they are just making better plastic."

Vapors are shortening the trail, VERY SLOWLY

[Midnight Warrior]

The pessimist in me sees this pathetic article as something that USA Today might publish. Do only dumb people read newspapers? Surely smart people read papers and can understand technical issues. Oh. Wait. It's just the editors and writers who haven't got a clue.

OLEDs have been mentioned for a while: 1998 by Compaq, lightly technical discussion from chemsoc, a view that says OLEDs complement rather than replace TFT-LCDs from Electronic Business-Asia (August 2000), January of 1999 shows that Idemitsu Kosan, a Japanese chemical company, has demonstrated(search for "organic") 640x480x16mil with OLEDs.

Some US patents of interest: US05965901 (Cambridge Display), US05247190 (a 1993 Cambridge Patent), US04539507 (a Kodak claim geared towards reduced power consumption).

And so on.

Two fellas at Eastman Kodak who are real important on this issue are Steven A. VanSlyke and Ching W. Tang, both of whom have were sent in 1995 to give lectures in Japan on OLED technology.

My two cents says, it's about time companies stopped hyping this to the press in underdetailed press releases and actually start showing something for all their R&D efforts. Quit trying to make it the be-all end-all product the first time and get us cheaper, less power-hungry displays. When tube manufacturers realize their goose is cooked, prices will plummet for Digital TV in the US and OLED manufacturers will be handed the display market on a silver platter.

Truth about LCDs

[^Z]

Of course, those LCD panels you can see in watches and Palms draw quite small electric power. Unfortunately, such LCDs have very limited maximal brightness (let alone color). This is because they use polarisation properties of liquid crystals. Incoming light goes thru a polarizing plate, then thru the liquid crystal layer, then reflects from a mirror and goes backward (to the observer). Liquid crystals rotate light polarization when voltage is applied, so reflected light may come out (we see gray) or not, when liquid crystals change its polarization to orthogonal to such of the polarizing plate (we see black). Since ambient light has rays of all polarization directions, the polarization plate can only allow to pass not more than 50% of light, so, we can only see gray colors (50% or darker). Also, such displays require external light and are useless in the dark.

That's why notebook screens are backlit by a white lamp, that allows to display bright shades/colors, and this lamp does draw a lot of power. An LCD(TFT) matrix that lies above the lamp only makes certain areas darker (up to black). A LED screen of comparable size would draw definitely less power, due to higher efficiency and because darker areas would require less power.

Many mobile devices, like watches and cell phones, use LEDs to backlight LCD displays. LED backlight is nice and battery-friendly, but it is colored (green, or amber, or red). Lack of reliable blue LED material effectively prevents white LED light sources from creation; same applies to full-color LED displays. Current blue LEDs last orders of magnitude less that red/amber/green LEDs.

Re:Truth about LCDs

[GypC]

There are white leds now... but like the blue they draw an order of magnitude more power.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"