Nanotech Brings Cheap Flat TVs From Diamond Dust

neutron_p writes "Nanotech scientists are going to develop new TV display technology made from diamond dust. It opens up the possibility of cheaper and more power efficient flat panel displays, for use in wide screen digital TVs and many other applications. Toshiba recently announced plans to launch a television based on a new flat-panel display technology called SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) in 2005. Sony and others have been working for several years on another technology called FED (Field Emission Display) but that too has yet to reach commercialization."

Comments

cheap?

[confusion]

Combining nanotech (expensive) with diamonds (expensive) yields cheap monitors?

It's been a long day, so I know I must be missing something

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/

Re:Cheap?

[Gadgetfreak]

Diamond dust is a very common by-product from industries that use larger diamonds Synthetic diamonds are also a lot cheaper than most people think. Diamond-embedded grinding and cutting tools have been cheaply mass-produced for quite some time now. Compared to current LCD/plasma display costs, I don't think it'd be crazy expensive.
I guess it depends how perfect you want it.

Re:cheap?

[chochos]

Probably synthetic diamonds, you know, the ones made in high-pressure ovens that cost about $50 and are the bigger than a fist, and are great for this kind of stuff. There was an article on Wired a while back, which I think was also mentioned in /. about this technology. But since nanotech is being mentioned this time, then probably now the diamond dust is being created by nanobots?

Re:Cheap?

[kesuki]

Diamonds are actually cheap they come from one of the most common elements, carbon... DeBerrs controls 80% of the worlds gem quality diamond productions, and they refuse to sell more gem quality diamonds that the number of engagments in a year... they actually cut supply below demand*, thus making the price inflate. as an industrial material, cutting diamonds and diamond dust are market priced by more conventional market forces, and since most diamonds that come out of a mine are not gem quality, that makes industrial grade diamond products relatively affordable.

*= Yes I'm aware, Russia and canada are also producing gem quality diamonds, but those mines can't exactly afford to flood the market so far that diamonds plummet in value, because thier mines have less diamonds than the debeer's mines.

Re:cheap?

[drinkypoo]

GE invented the process for making diamonds with an array of hydraulic presses, I believe in the sixties. Pressure is required.

Re:cheap?

[Jeffrey Baker]

That isn't how they make them. The giant synthetic diamonds are made by chemical vapor deposition (CVD).

Re:Cheap?

[kesuki]

Diamond prices did fall when the soviet union collapsed, and when the canadians found diamonds, but the bottom never really fell out of the diamond market... 1 carrot of diamonds below $2,000 would have been unthinkable, in any type of cut, back in the golden days of communist russia and debeer's and yet on froogle I can find a nice 3 stone 1 ct total band for $800. So yeah, there has been some loss in control over diamond pricing, but it's still at a level that DeBerrs can survive with.http://www.google.com/froogle?q=diamond&btnG= Search+Froogle

Re:cheap?

[Jeffrey Baker]

There is a US company with a patent on making monocrystalline CVD diamonds. I think they can make them up to a few square inches now. There was a very popular story about them in WiReD magazine.

Ron White quote

[Phu5ion]

Diamonds... That'll shut her up... For a minute at least.

I think thomeone

[Almonday]

...neeth to theck their thepelling, thister.

Pefect anniversary gift

[Anonymous Coward]

This diamond television means I can now buy the expensive tv I've always wanted and call it an anniversary gift.

"But, honey, you said you wanted diamonds, right?"

TV's made of diamonds

[loteck]

Finally, men and women will be able to agree that buying a bigger one is a good idea.

SED vs. FED?

[chochos]

Is this some kind of reference to Neal Stephenson's Age of Diamonds? The feed was the way nanotech was controlled by the Victorians, and the seed was the way to free it from that control... I know this is offtopic but a post about real nanotech mentioning SED vs FED was just... strange.

Re:SED vs. FED?

[worst_name_ever]

Neal Stephenson's Age of Diamonds?

I always thought his earlier book The Snow That Crashed was better.

Re:SED vs. FED?

[idontgno]

Oh, man, you completely botched that title. It's really The Crash that Snowed. Ranks right up there with "Sale of Two Titties" by Mile Pikkens with four 'm's and a silent 'q'.

What a perfect use of new technology.

[Canthros]

Bring stupidity into my living room with crystal clarity. I can't wait.

Grandpa

[ValuJet]

Make a tv out of Grandpa

Diamonds aren't rare

[Schezar]

Diamonds aren't rare. In fact, there are more jewel-grade diamonds of large size and high quality than there are people.

The diamond industry works entirely off of the perception in most people that diamonds are rare. They strictly limit the supply, and spend more money advertising than they do mining.

If you don't believe me, take a piece of diamond jewelry to several jewelers and have it appraised. They'll all quote a fairly large sum. Now try to sell it to them. They'll offer you maybe 5-10% of what they quoted.

If you shop around, you'll find that you can't actually sell a diamond for anywhere near what it's "worth."

That said, synthetic diamonds scare the living hell out of the diamond industry, since they're cheap to manufacture and indistinguishable physically from a "real" diamond (which itself isn't rare, but I digress).

These displays will drive more research and capital into the diamond manufacturing market, which will drive diamond prices down.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[infinite9]

The diamond industry works entirely off of the perception in most people that diamonds are rare.

I heard a story about how Russia had been stockpiling large quantities of high grade (natural) diamonds from their own mines. They went to DeBeers and invited them to buy their stock to prevent Russia from dumping them on the diamond market. DeBeers happily bought their entire stock at a excellent (for russia) price. How's that for limiting supply? :-)

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[amembleton]

According to this article, Russia did flood the market with low quality diamonds. DeBeers reacted by concentrating on high quality diamonds which went up in value rather than down as the low quality ones did.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[drinkypoo]

There is a book on this subject called "the rise and fall of diamonds" and it tells the story of who is behind the social constrction of the diamond mythology, why they were interested which was not purely monetary, when they got started, what they did, and how they pulled it off. When I found it listed on Amazon, it was listed as "RISE FALL DIAMONDS". I got it for about $12 and so far it's been fascinating.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[rjelks]

I find this funny...and kind of sad.

I've had 3-4 places talk up the "high quality" Russian diamonds. I'm sure I'm getting royally ripped off, but I have little choice.

Does anyone think she might go for an "engagement plasma TV" now?

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[pz]

I've been saying for about 10 years that the jewlery diamond industry is doomed. Here's the reasoning.

1. Silicon ingots used by chip foundries are the purest substance available to man in production quantities, at 7 nines (99.99999% pure).

2. The semiconductor industry doesn't think twice about investing billions -- BILLIONS -- of dollars in manufacturing and R&D.

3. Diamond is a very interesting base out of which to build semiconductors: it has (from memory) a large band-gap, excellent thermal characteristics, and some blindingly fast transistors have been made in the lab out of it.

Once the semiconductor folks decide that they want to do large-scale diamond manufacturing, there's a huge impetus to generate higher quality diamond than has ever been mined, in quantities that will make the collection of mined dimonds seem a drop in the bucket. The only hope DeBeers has at that point is to market based on the imperfections of natural stones, since perfection, their current stock-in-trade, will no longer be a selling point.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[aluminum boy]

Actually, it is the flaws (to a degree) that make a diamond valuable. For instance, colored diamonds (e.g. pink) contain a flaw that give them color. A trained jewler can quickly tell the diffrence between "perfect" industrial diamonds and "flawed" ones. Really, the most valuable natural diamonds are the most perfect imperfect ones.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[Planesdragon]

Over the course of your courtship, please remember that somewhere between "what's your religion" and "are you open to or expecting S&M play?" that you should ask the "what's your opinion on diamonds" question.

She may want a diamond, but only as a signal and she doesn't care what the cost is. She may want something other than a diamond. She may also want a diamond, but willing to take something else along with it.

My suggestion, assuming that your "two month's salary" is the US per-capita range of $5000, is to spend no more than one-fifth that on the ring itself, and the remainder on a romantic getaway or other distinct and memorable gift.

(I'll also note here that a reasonable and senible wedding, honeymoon, AND engagement gift can all be done for under $5,000.)

Re:Diamonds aren't rare

[gtkuhn]

According to the Wired article posted above, Gemesis is located in Florida and producing 3-carat diamonds.

The other company, Apollo something, has found success in manufacture but doesn't seem to be in mass production yet.

Interesting was that De Beers has given away free ultra high-tech detecting machines, invented by them, to labs around the world to detect the trace metal solvents that get stuck in the lattice of the Gemesis stones. Apparently the CVD process used by Apollo looks to be completely undetectable. And if "perfect" needs a few flaws, how hard can that be to introduce?

Best line ever

[Phrogman]

One of the cleverest plays on words I ever heard was in regards to DeBeers during the Apartheid years in SA:

"You bring DeBeers, and lets have Apartheid!"

Wish I could remember who originated it...

In other breaking news!

[CreatureComfort]

CreatureComfort writes "Aerotech scientists are going to develop new flying cars made from chicken feathers. It opens up the possibility of cheaper and more power efficient public transportation, for use in wide area commuting and many other applications. Toyota recently announced plans to launch a vehicle based on a new flat-panel driving technology called SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Drive) in 2005. Ford and others have been working for several years on another technology called FED (Field Emission Drive) but that too has yet to reach commercialization."

*Yawn**Cough**Cough**Cough* I think I'm allergic to all this vapor.

Re:In other breaking news!

[hobbesx]

I think I'm allergic to all this vapor

Note to self: Check sig before posting smart-ass comments in the future.

--

Pet peeve: Responses to sig with no responses to post. Morons.

DAMN!

Re:Cheap Diamonds

[DJ Rubbie]

Drag a white dwarf into orbit and mine it.

If one such white dwarf is made to orbit Earth, it would be Earth orbiting around it instead of the other way around. Depending on the orbital distance, the orbital period can be extremely fast, could be much faster than twenty-four hours, Earth's rotational period will be locked into this orbital period, resulting that the length of a day will change (it will probably be short). The side that face this white-dwarf will be bathed in radiation. Not to mention the sun and this white-dwarf will also share a center of rotation somewhere in the middle of each other, will definitely throw Mecury and Venus into unpredictable orbits, Mars will also have its orbit messed up, the asteriod belt will destablize, Jupiter and the rest of the planets may also be slightly affected by this new gravitational source. Who knows what will happen to the moon.

On second thought, that might be *more* expensive.

Oh whew, economics surely put a stop to this crazy plan to destroy the solar system for some giant diamond. Also, such a diamond would surely be expensive, and such an influx of wealth can surely destroy the global economy anyway.

RTFA

[marcus]

If you had RTFA, you'd know that no one here knows more than you do know. ;-) The linked piece was nothing but fluff, no substance at all. Here's a summary:

"Nanotech is great. Diamonds are great. Venture capitalists are great. Flat screens are great. We are going to be rich!

1) Nanotech
2) Diamond dust
3) Flat screens
4) Profit!"

What's missing is something worth reading.

New Definition of "Nanotech"

[Baldrson]

Since we have now redefined nanotech to include anything that deals in nanometer scale structures, rather than artificially constructed mechanisms with molecules as components, how far back in time can we claim "nanotech" to have been practiced? The first crystal growth? Perhaps to the first time a crystal was cleaved along certain atomic planes?

Perhaps we could do something similar with "space settlement" and just sort of forget that 1973 was the year that western civilization turned away from its destiny in space and began threatning the planet with globalist growth.

That should make everyone feel better too.

Re:New Definition of "Nanotech"

[Goldsmith]

This is something I hear a lot from people outside of science. Who get's to decide what to name a scientific discipline? Scientests?

Nanotechnology in science was never just really small robotics. I do put the start of nanotechnology a long time ago, specifically with the invention of nanoscale titanium dioxide, that stuff which makes paint brighter and sunscreen better. Five or ten years ago, the big push in nanotechnology was finding out what we could already make which would be that small and still interesting. (A great example is carbon nanotubes. They were probably made by Edison, and they were probably seen as early as the 1970's but no paid them any attention until 1991.) Along the way, we've found some things which may be usefull right now, this is why there are so many simple nanotechnology products coming out right now, such as pants and sunscreen.

And before you ask, yes I've read and own Feynman's talk and Drexler's books. Many of the tools they predicted are around today. It turns out they've been done in other ways than they thought they would be. What do you think was important to them, the process or the result? What is important to space settlement, that people get there on a chemical rocket, or that they get there at all?

There are a lot more problems with working with molecules than early theorists thought. For example, I work with nanoscale electronics. I can make a transistor one molecule wide, but it costs about $10,000 by the time you factor everything in, and you only get one. Is that really going to be commercially worthwhile right now? It's worth much more to me to use that as a tool to do something unusual.

There are other, more important things we need to do than try to sell the public our lab tools to justify calling our work nanotechnology. Now that the initial excitement over working with molecules is over, people are looking for things to do which were not possible before. It's silly to argue about the method by which we reach our goals, and what to name those methods, when we all share those same goals.

Re:So informative

[gaber1187]

The main publications page for this group is listed here:
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/pt/diamond/publicat.htm

Looks like they are using Diamond Like Carbon quite often... so its a quasi-zinc-blend structure apparently.

With field emission they are generating electrons so somehow the electrons get enough energy to reach the vacuum level. I wonder how efficient this is since diamond's bandgap is something like 5.5 eV.

-Gabe

Cheap, huh? Reminds me of an SNL quip...

[ecklesweb]

I believe it was Jimmie Falon - at a time when natural gas had spiked in price and alternative fuels were all the rage:

Hey! I've got an idea? How 'bout we make a car that runs on macadamia nuts and bald eagle heads!

size ;-)

[Scrameustache]

women [..] agree [...] a bigger one is a good idea.

That... isn't new.

Re:So informative

[gaber1187]

Ahh, I just figured out the answer. It says that diamonds have a Negative Electron Affinity. Which means that the vacuum level is more stable than the conduction band. Once the electron is excited to the higher state equalling the difference between the bandgap (5.5 eV) and the NEA value (which is 2.4 eV on hydrogen saturated surfaces) , the electron just flies out of the material instead of becoming delocalized into the crystal. So basically what they are doing is replacing the cathode ray tube as the source of the electrons. First flat speakers, now flat tv's!, cool!

Two women talking

[Chas]

My is a professional football player. He bought me a diamond ring. *Shows off a huge hunk of crystaline carbon*

<B> My boyfriend is a professional geek. He bought me a diamond flatscreen....

The health effects of nanotech dust?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original statement about nanotech and dust just got me thinking about something that I hadn't considered before. Namely, has anyone ever studied the dust which results from objects created by nanotech? The reason why I'm wondering about this is due to two recent reports from the past year. The first mentioned that nanotech particles could accumulate within the brain. Sort of like a poisoning effect. The second report was about dust from computer devices made with a flame retardant; the result of which was that the chemical associated with the retardant accumulated in the body as well.

I'm wondering if we'll see a similar report about nanotech dust. Yeesh.

Does anyone know if any research has actually looked at this? Or has this thought been completely missed?

Hey

[geekoid]

Igors post on slashdot, cool.

Here's the original press release...

[argent]

Once again, the physorg honeypot grabs slashdot eyeballs. Physorg takes press releases and puts them up, with bad formatting, on ugly web pages... with no links to the original source.

So here's some missing links: the press release at Bristol, the diamond group at bristol and the home page of Advance Nanotech.

As you can see, that's a chemical vapor deposition group, so there's no need to grind up diamond dust from real diamonds. :) It's also, um, not exactly what I'd call "nanotech"... unless you consider any product involving structures at the molecular scale (like, oh, wood, or portland cement) to be "nanotech".

The article.

[satanami69]

Article http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.h tml

/. Storyhttp://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03 /08/12/2112237&tid=126&tid=14