Slashdot Mirror
Rocket Fuel Speeds Transistors
Mick Ohrberg writes "The rocket fuel hydrazine has been proven to increase the speed of thin-film transistors, which are used in LCD displays. It's also much cheaper to produce these transistors in a new "wet" manufacturing technique, based on creating the thin layers by using the centrifugal force caused by spinning the substrate. The result? Well, if the manufacturing cost plummets, maybe that 42" LCD monitor for my PC will be within (financial) reach soon."
... until your monitor launches into orbit.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Now I can tell people that my LCD really smokes!
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
I'm wondering: as I understood it, the LCD plants need only minor changes to be able to put out OLED panels instead of TFT/LCD.
If this process is little different from LCD manufacturing and LCD is not very different from OLED, will OLED benefit as well?
Karma? What's that again?
...that these will give a new meaning to the term "Blazingly Fast!"?
So for those who rtf, what I want to know is at what point did David Mitzi say to himself, "Geez, if only I could dissolve this tin disulphide in something really caustic. Like gasoline, only waaaay stronger... Hmmm, Mary could you bring me some of that hydrazine we have laying around? I think it's behind my lunch in the minifridge..." ??
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Refresh rates are related to how fast the actual liquid crystal material can reorient itself in response to the applied voltage. So, unfortunately, unless they also use a new type of liquid crystal, the answer is probably not.
From the EPA and CDC. Perhaps Outsourcing LCD production is a good thing, after all?
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
CRT won't die until the price of LCD's go down (which this could help) and maybe more importantly, when the quality of LCD's (color depth/range, "refresh rates" etc) matches CRTs.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
This article (in German) says that you can make cheap, flexible electronics with this stuff.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
So? Rocket fuel can increase the speed of lots of things..you just have to put them in the payload ;-)
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
Then kids start sniffing LCD panels instead of sniffing solvents. In the other news, FDA now classifies LCD panels as controlled substance...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
CRT won't die until...
Define death. If LCD compromises performance (refresh, etc.) but not price, odds are the market will go 99% LCD and CRT will be rarified to specialty niches at very, very high cost. So while it will still be possible to get a CRT, you won't be able to afford it.
LCD and plasma already attain sufficiant performance for the bulk of what the market wants. The only issue remaining is price. Those people who really need CRT (a small fraction of those that will think they do,) will just have to get funded.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
. . . And if the LCD cracks, should I call a HAZMAT team to clean it up?
Everyone can get their underpants in a know and call me pedantic, but this is one of my Physics pet peeves. The process cannot use "centrifugal force" to create thin layers of anything, because there is no such thing as "centrifugal force". A body in circuilar motion will have radial and tengential acceleration components. Since F=m a, you can only ascribe forces to your acceleration components. More likely, it is the tangential force that spreads the stuff into thin layers.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The impermeable skin of the Hindenburg was made of canvas treated with a solution that included more than a touch of nitric acid. Cellulose + Nitric acid= Nitro Cellulose aka guncotton aka Celludloid film which early movies used, resulting in the occasional projection booth fire.
If only gigli had been filmed on this stuff.
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
For text-based applications (which is most of what comptuers are used for), LCD give superior quality to CRTs. No flicker and sharper pixels. I'm never going back.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Refresh rate, pixel decay rates, attainable colour space, non-native resolution pixel interpolation, RGB vs BGR for sub-pixel antialiasing, mean time to failure and fade, (semi) standard interfaces, etc...
As far as I am concerned, with no ego/space/power consumption restrictions, a CRT is far and away superior for most applications.
Re: the text performance on LCD, I assume you are using subpixel interpolation to get a usable display? Or are you just referring to DOS style low res character screens?
If subpixel, shame it is a work around to try and achieve much of the same readability of a CRT. It's even more of a shame that the technique will not work on portrait orientation LCD screens (think PDA) unless they have been manufactured specifically for this purpose (I expect they will soon). Then there is the RGB/BGR problem requiring user intervention and/or confusion.
You should NEVER have visible flicker on a decent CRT (unless you are comparing your new 2003 LCD to your old 14" running @60Hz). As for "sharper pixels" you are technically correct - unfortunately sharper rectangular pixels does not a smooth diagonal line make...
I use LCD's and CRT's extensively at work and always prefer the CRT.
Q.
Insert Signature Here