Slashdot Mirror


MIT Develops Quantum-Dot OLEDs

deglr6328 writes "Researchers at MIT have developed a new type of Organic Light emitting Diode (OLED) using Cadmium Selenium Quantum Dots as the electron-hole recombination layer. It is widely believed that the next generation of flexible flat panel display technologies will be self luminous (non-backlit) organic light emitting diodes. However, the efficiency and lifespan of both small molecule and polymer type OLEDs, to date, has been poor for small wavelength emitting compounds. Using quantum dots as the emissive layer in OLEDs potentially solves both of these problems since they are inorganic and won't degrade, and they have a theoretical maximum quantum efficiency of near 100%. Mmmmm ... can't wait to buy my first roll-up display!"

52 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Cool... but when? by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Haven't roll-up displays been "two years away" for about seven years now?

    I love the concept... but really, shouldn't we have at least one low quality, high priced, first generation consumer product by now?

    --
    sig.
  2. Amazing technology by gazbo · · Score: 5, Funny
    Researchers at MIT have developed a new type of Organic Light emitting Diode

    OLEDs potentially solves both of these problems since they are inorganic

    Given this is quantum physics, perhaps this is an example of the uncertainty principle? Inquiring minds want to know...

    1. Re:Amazing technology by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, I should have been more clear in my post I guess. The E-H (ie. light emitting) recombination layer will be inorganic CdSe quantum dots but the charge transport layers will be organic semiconductors.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  3. roll up display? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is fantastic. In 5 years I'll be able to pin up my TV with thumb tacks right next to my tattered SG poster. This opens up a whole new relm of potential practical jokes for people who don't know it's a display. ;)

  4. Like those screens in Total Recall by forged · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Remember the movie Total Recall? At breakfast we saw Doug and his wife surrounded by these displays seamelessly integrated to the walls, such that they had either Lake View, Montains View, etc. Or just regular TV programs captioned in a corner of the screen.

    Hopefully this is the kind of technology breakthrough that will make it possible to get these massive flat screens in our living rooms one day!

    1. Re:Like those screens in Total Recall by tgd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn, I thought you were going to say that maybe these screens would make it possible for me to wake up and find Sharon Stone in a workout outfit in my house...

  5. wearable computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    now you too can be a walking billboard! imagine 2000x6000 pixel ads right on your tshirt!

    the more i hear, the less i believe. show me or screw it.

    1. Re:wearable computer by Omkar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People already pay for the priviledge of sporting corporate logos. The days of human billboards are already here.
      I wish I had something funny to say about this, but it's just sad, folks.

    2. Re:wearable computer by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The truth is, wearable displays will be a huge target marget in the second or third generation of these devices.

      A significant amount of money is spent by teenagers and young adults to buy tech gadgets. Just look at the massive amounts spent on video games and personal audio devices [by these demographics].

      Now considering the number of people in this group that also go to parties/concerts/raves, I dont think it will be long before your shirt has a wireless hookup so that the DJ at whatever club you're at can project a Geiss/Milkdrop/whatever visualization not just with light, but through your clothes. Imagine being pill'ing and looking around to see the world itself as the visualization?

      Also, lets not forget the obligatory link back to the concept of adaptive camoflauge for military/police? Anyone go the url handy?

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
  6. Re:Organic...... by theGreater · · Score: 5, Funny
    I was curious as to which definition of organic this might entail...

    * containing carbon
    * back to nature
    * obtained from living things

    ... but then it turned out I didn't care, as long as I get hi-resolution gaming. -theGreater.

  7. Right now..already by hfastedge · · Score: 4, Informative

    For some reasons the companies are just dumbass anal about it. They're have been flexible "e-paper" displays since 2000 as trials in federated department stores macys.

    2 main companies currently lead the pack, BOTH have production facilities:

    http://www.gyriconmedia.com/ Uses beads. berkeley->Xerox-parc->private. production fac. in michigan.

    http://www.eink.com/ Uses organics but no where near as small as quantum dot-anything. MIT -> private. Manufacturing facility in Japan.

    --

    -- -- --

    Help my mini cause: My journal

    1. Re:Right now..already by NoNeeeed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which part of "self luminous" is causing you problems? Or did you not actually read the submission, let alone the article.

      The above links both point to "e-paper" type systems, which are monochrome, and require an external light source. These are great for a lot of applications, but I wouldn't want a laptop display built out of one.

      OLEDs and their ilk will produce their own light, and opperate with many colours at high speeds.

      Essentially it is horse-for-courses. E-ink is great for certain applications where power is critical (watches, cell-phones, even e-newspapers) and where update speeds are not critical (I beleive they are all 'mechanical' in some way), but OLEDs and similar will be necessary if you want full colour rapidly moving images. To equate the two technologies is to be somewhat disingenuous.

      A random googled OLED link.

      Paul

    2. Re:Right now..already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      E-Ink displays are not even in the same market as OLED's.

      E-ink displays refresh very slowly but maintain the picture once refreshed. So no moving images, no mouse cursor, ...

      Their main market is signs and e-book readers.

  8. I would ask the same about e-ink by dlr02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought this interesting technology would also have such first-generation products too...

  9. Keep waiting by nesneros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember being a freshman in college, and making a dork of myself by telling all my friends how these things would be out in a year and how massively cool they would be. Oh, and electronic paper too. And those things had prototypes and everything. And even if they didn't, in 5 years or so a plasma display would only cost as much as a CRT.

    Let's fast-forward 7 years to the present and there's an announcement that a lab has created a device, and we translate this to mean that functional products are just around the corner.

    Excuse me for being such a cynic, but until something hits store shelves at an affordable price, its pretty pointless to get excited.

    --
    Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
    1. Re:Keep waiting by alienmole · · Score: 3, Funny
      You're just young, obviously. You can look forward to a lifetime of this sort of thing.

      For example, holographic storage has been 5 years away for the last 20 years. All that data that you currently store on inconvenient and fragile spinning magnetic platters will instead be stored in some kind of tiny crystal with no moving parts except laser read/write heads.

      If you want to see some of these things in your lifetime, you're going to need some pretty advanced life extension technology. Luckily, I hear that's just around the corner -- oh wait...

  10. Short lifespan by BESTouff · · Score: 5, Insightful
    However, the efficiency and lifespan of both small molecule and polymer type OLEDs, to date, has been poor for small wavelength emitting compounds

    Apparently these displays would have a short lifespan. We would then have disposable screens. That seems a perfect consumer target: cheap, glowing, quickly obsolete.

    1. Re:Short lifespan by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We would then have disposable screens

      With Cadium. Wonderful for the water supply and growing plants. My liver and kidneys can hardly wait. I could always use some more heavy metals in my diet.

    2. Re:Short lifespan by mt-biker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently these displays would have a short lifespan. We would then have disposable screens.

      You mean we would read information off of a layer of thin, flexible material, only to end up throwing it away a short while later?

      Nah... it'll never happen.

  11. Schr�dinger's LED Panel by I+didn't · · Score: 2, Funny

    You wouldn't know whether it's organic or not until you opened the box.

    1. Re:Schr�dinger's LED Panel by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      You wouldn't know whether it's organic or not until you opened the box.

      Yeah, if it's an organic LED panel your cat chews up he lives. If it's an inorganic LED panel your cat chews up he dies of heavy metal poisoning. The cat is half-alive and half-dead until you open the box.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. Quantum sized pixels? by PaulGrimshaw · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean that each pixel would be so quantom sized? What sort of graphics card would be needed to drive something like that for a 15" display?!

  13. mmm, high resolution by briancnorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My roommates in grad school were working on this type of thing, and they were promising resolutions over 300 DPI. That makes me salivate, but I find it funny that for once display technology will be more advanced than image generation technology. (video cards) A 300 DPI, 17" widescreen would be a resolution of something like 4500x2500, or 11 million pixels, compared to 1 or 2 million pixels in a high-res display today. AGP 32X anyone?

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:mmm, high resolution by bn557 · · Score: 2, Informative

      a MUCH higher AGP bus would not be required in this sort of situation, at least for gaming. Since textures are stored on card, and the card renders polygons and does all it's magic in card, then sends it out the graphics connector(DVI or old DB15) to the monitor.

      What will be needed is graphics cards with more memory(to store more detailed textures) and probably longer load times between areas(so the textures can be transfered to the card)

      P

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
  14. OLED's by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Researchers at MIT have developed a new type of Organic Light emitting Diode (OLED) using Cadmium Selenium Quantum Dots as the electron-hole recombination layer

    Great, they contain Cadmium. Yet another device with heavy metals in it to polute our landfills and the environment. At least is doesn't have Mercury in it like Florescent light bulbs do.

  15. Thin flat displays are NOT the solution by maxm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want glasses with a high resolution display. Perhaps even with seperate displays for each eye, for that nice 3D effect.

    This would be so much better than big screen tv's. For one we could eventually have as big a screen as the largest movie theater.

    I could also watch movies/tv in bed without keeping the missus awake with blinking lights.

    They would need to cost about $150 a piece for them to break through. But then it would be the best thing since sliced bread.

    --
    Max M - IT's Mad Science
  16. A step in the right direction but... by Drakula · · Score: 4, Insightful

    using quantum dots does not solve the total efficiency problem. The overall efficiency of a LED is the product of the injection efficiency, the extraction efficiency, and the internal quantum efficiency. The inorganic quantum dots will make the internal quantum efficiency large, this is how well the device converts the injected electrons into light. However, the big stumbling block is the injection effeciency, how well the injected current is converted to electron-hole pairs for generating light. When this efficiency is low, a large amount of the applied power is lost to heat. This will need to be overcome as well before OLEDs of any type make as a commercial technology.

    Also the cadmium selenide system is known to have lifetime issues. These, and related, materials were the first candidates for blue/green LEDs and lasers but suffered from horrible lifetimes.

    --
    "It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
  17. Cadmium? No thank you by freshwat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're finally getting rid of extremely toxic cadmium in batteries and now this? Don't these guys learn? They have to engineer over the whole like cycle, including disposal.

  18. For those miss the point by akincisor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point of the article is that they have managed to use an inorganic layer in between just two organic layers and produce a magnitude of light equivalent to earlier efforts with 20 layers. These things have 25 times(!) the power efficiency. This might also be the first commercial application of quantum dots.

  19. Huh by Morgahastu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Researchers at MIT have developed a new type of Organic Light emitting Diode

    ...

    since they are inorganic


    This is like the episode of star trek where picard and some scientist debate if Data is a lifeform or not.

  20. Re:roll up displays by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually you'd probably be amazed how easy a good CRT is on the eyes. The problem is many people have cheap CRTs adn also often run their CRTs at 60Hz. A good CRT running at 85+Hz is really sharp, and at this point has superior colour to an LCD.

  21. They use electricity, don't worry. by akincisor · · Score: 5, Informative

    In normal LCD panels, the LCD itself just blocks light in strategic areas, and the image is formed by a light source that is behind the panel. This technology claims that the electricity will be passed through each pixel, which will produce the light necessary itself.

  22. Never in Europe that's for sure. by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are using cadmium, a nasty horrid posionous heavy metal that causes polution and soon to be banned from use in the European Union. Even lead in solder is to be banned shortly. Mercury another posionous heavy metal has already been banned.

    1. Re:Never in Europe that's for sure. by farnsaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Common Research Cycle:
      First figure out how to do it with exotic materials that exhibit the behaviour you want, once you understand how this works, find more mundane (and less toxic) materials to create the consumer product.

      Many exotic materials have special behaviours that are great for research and creating devices that work in the lab environment but they often have drawbacks, not the least of which is their toxicity. These materials are also very expensive to produce, as well as dispose of, which will result in a consumer product that is too expensive for your average consumer.

      Manufacturers and consumers now look at the entire cost of a product from the initial manufacturing cost or purchase price, right through to the cost of disposing of it. Individual consumers usually don't pay much attention to the latter since they usually have one of an item (most /.ers excepted), however, corporations that often have thousands of each computer or display pay much more attention to things like lifespan and disposal costs. If this product is to come to market as more than a niche player, it needs to have a good ROI and low TCO.

      ROI = Return on Investment
      TCO = Total Cost of Ownership

      --
      "Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)
  23. Re:Organic? by blincoln · · Score: 2, Informative

    What kind of life are we talking here? Do they kill animals to create these displays? Damn, I know some people think it's stupid, but I'm a vegetarian.

    "Organic" just means "[a] compound... containing Carbon atoms".

    This isn't like the blood that's used to make plywood or what have you.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  24. Money answer? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder sometimes if "the powers that be" aren't just holding back on some of the new LCD-like display technologies because they've got a lot of money tied up in LCD technology that's just starting to show a return on investment.

    And there's the whole recession thing, which has limited sales and maybe curtailed manufacturers' desire to invest in converting plants and equipment to make the new displays.

    I know it seems a little conspiratorial, and the answer probably that the technology isn't reliable or mass producable yet, but I still can't help but wonder if the economy picks up we'll see from Apple or someone else not afraid to roll out an expensive 1st gen product and then see it approach commodity levels a couple of years later.

    Although I keep asking myself why a 13" LCD TV sells for $800 and a 17" LCD monitor is $500. That's a market contrast I *don't* get, and the explanations I've been given about the cost of tuners and IR control logic don't add up, especially when a tube 20" is $170.

    1. Re:Money answer? by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Informative
      Easy enough. Buy the $500 LCD and add on this Viewsonic device for about $150, and you have a complete television system, including remote control. Although a little bigger than that 13" TV, it still costs less. Or there's the next step up, which does more filtering for about $400. I'm sure other LCD manufacturers have similar products.

      There's a little more involved with an LCD TV compared to a CRT TV. You have to deinterlace and filter the output, doing a 3:2 pulldown if needed, and so on. Unlike an interlaced CRT TV, interlaced images will look very bad on a progressive display like an LCD or computer monitor. That's one of the reasons most TV tuner cards tend to only capture one field of the frame instead of both.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    2. Re:Money answer? by swb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But its not a no-cost market to enter. To make some new flat panel technology in mass quantities would take hundreds of million to a billion dollars to get started, not to mention a lead time of at least six months to a year to modify or make new tooling and equipment. It's a high-barrier-to-entry market.

      Anyway, my speculation in the parent post was based on the idea that most (all?) of the businesses capable of making the new technology are heavily invested in the old technology. Not only is a new panel technology a high barrier to entry market, but the current market is a high barrier to exit -- you can't just junk many hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment for making LCD panels and start a new plant; you have to keep making LCDs until the investment has at least broken even or the loss is acceptable.

      If the new techologies were easy, cheap and simple to make, I think you're right, we'd have them by now. But they're at least as hard to make as LCDs (in quantity), and even if there are operational advantages to the new panels the display makers aren't going to junk billions in LCD fabs just like that.

      Even though it seems conspiratorial, I still think we're not seeing better flat panel displays in part because the current makers just have too much invested in LCDs, even though they could make new ones.

    3. Re:Money answer? by u19925 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LCD TVs cost more, because of low production (1/10th of LCD monitor, 1/100th of Tube TV). The second part is that, you have to now miniatuarize the TV components too (monitor doesn't have to do, neither do tube TV). Expect to see the cost difference between LCD and tube TV to drop below 2:1 by next year as the volume ramps up.

  25. tell me when this is available by mrtroy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have several ideas with what I would like to do with this technology.
    FIRST: make an invisible suit...you know the old deal with the cameras displaying the stuff on you so you look like your background or at least enough like it to blend in
    SECOND: make an invisible *james bond* car
    THIRD: make an invisible *harry potter* cloak
    FOURTH: make my ceiling display some high quality pron for those kinky nights.
    *Bows*

    --
    [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  26. Re:In the dark about permanent illumination by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

    > I'm trying to get my head around the
    > 'self-luminous' bit.

    Your current VGA monitor is self-luminous.
    You see the image because it is producing its own light.

    LCDs are not, they *block* light from going through the display, and you see the light it does not block.
    The light itself comes from a backlight, usually neon tubes that reflect off a reflective surface under the LCD panel itself.

    Some LCDs simply have a mirror behind them and NO backlight (Think classic gameboy)
    These work by having a mirror that external light goes in, bounces off, and hits your eye.. Only where the LCD isnt blocking light.

    So these self-luminous displays will be monitor crisp/bright, better resolution, and flat.

    Also, please dont confuse organic with alive.
    The gas in your car is concidered organic, yet you dont need to feed it for power.

  27. Cadmium by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's replace lead-based CRTs with Cadmium-based displays and call it "organic". So cheap they'll become disposable.

  28. Mmmm.... by vjmurphy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Mmmmm ... can't wait to buy my first roll-up display!"

    Darn it, I mistook my ultra-cool roll-up display with Mars background image for a Strawberry Fruit Roll-up! Now my stomach is trying to connect to Windows Update and I don't feel very good...

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  29. Backlit OLEDs? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2, Funny

    "It is widely believed that the next generation of flexible flat panel display technologies will be self luminous (non-backlit) organic light emitting diodes."

    That's good to hear. IMHO, backlit light-emitting diodes were overkill in the lumens department.

  30. Next generation?! by ediron2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the next generation of flexible flat panel display technologies ...

    I realize I've been on a bender since New Year's Eve, but ... where was the first generation of these?

    The only flexible flat panel I've ever seen was this palmpilot my friend sat down on, 'tho I really doubt it qualified as a display technology after he crushed it.

  31. Re:roll up displays by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    and I'll do it at over 100Hz so it will be better for my eyes.

    Or not. Higher refresh rates cause more signal reflections, which translate to a tiny wiggle in high contrast areas. Most of the time you won't notice it outright, but use a magnifying glass to look at a high contrast border when running at very high refresh.

    I'm on an expensive Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 200, and even at 85 Hz I can see ripple in high contrast areas with a magnifier. It just gets worse the higher you go. Using coax with BNC instead of the D-sub signal cable should help with this though.

    The best refresh is the lowest one that you can see no flicker at. For most people this is between 72 and 85 Hz.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  32. Near 100% efficiency? by atcurtis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe every electron-hole combination generates a photon of light but IIRC the direction in which the photon of light travels is random.

    That means that at least 50% of the photons are travelling the wrong direction... Perhaps the most optimistic view is that 40% are travelling forwards from the OLED screen, the remainder are absorbed back into the substrate and turned into heat.

    Maybe someone would like to correct me...

    ttfn

    --
    -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
    -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
    1. Re:Near 100% efficiency? by Open_The_Box · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may well be right but I'd imagine the rear of the thing would be reflective (at least for the wavelength of light it emits) and so sends most of the light forward.

      Hmmn. I'd also guess that there'd be a sort of cascade effect (you'd need more than one photon) like in a solid state laser where one photon begets another and so on. Stick a reflective surface on the back and you'd probably get almost 100% efficiency. Ignoring any transient start up effects that is.

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
  33. The quantities might be miniscule. by emil · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they can use standard methods to lay down the cadmium (CVD or something), then the total amount of toxic material could well be microscopic.

    Gallium Arsenide semiconductors (used in diodes, microwave applications, etc.) are incredibly toxic, but you don't see huge cleanup efforts due to the material - due partly to the high price of the substrate. Once you get out of the foundry, toxicity concerns drop by orders of magnitude.

  34. Geez by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "using Cadmium Selenium Quantum Dots as the electron-hole recombination layer"....."small molecule and polymer type OLEDs"....."Using quantum dots as the emissive layer in OLEDs potentially solves both of these problems since they are inorganic and won't degrade, and they have a theoretical maximum quantum efficiency of near 100%."

    I feel like I'm reading the transcript of a conversation between the cyborg and the Reading Rainbow guy on Star Trek.

  35. Color is in the works by jeti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    E-Ink is working on color displays.

    The pages aren't clear on how they try to achive
    this. But I think they're using microcapsules filled
    with C, M or Y colored liquid and also black and
    white pigments with opposite electrostatic charges.

  36. Re:roll up displays by plastik55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, assuming your monitor's circuitry is of high enough quality, you want the refresh to be as high as possible. There have been several studies which demonstrated that while people could look at a CRT running at 85Hz and another at 120Hz and swear that they look identical, when asked to read text off the screens they could read faster off the display with higher refresh.

    When your eyes are looking in one place refresh doesn't make a big difference, but when your eyes track from one location to another, the missing image between refreshes them down

    --

    I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!