Are Nanotube Monitors In Your Future?

cmburns69 writes "There is an article over on CNET News about some new nanotube technology which could replace LCD flat panel displays. "These 'field effect displays,' or FEDs, will consume less energy than plasma or liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, deliver a better picture and even cost less.". The article is mostly focused on the FED technology, but also includes a summary of what other new display technology is coming up such as SEDs and slim CRTs. "

Comments

Early adopters

[bennomatic]

Cost really won't be an issue at first. Not only does the manufacturer need to recoup R&D quickly, but also, they don't necessarily WANT to go mass market immediately with such new technology.

The early adopter market is great for high tech because they:

• don't mind paying a premium for cool stuff, and they
• don't expect things to run perfectly.

You can imagine that if some company creating these things were to decide to just jump right to mass market, they would have huge problems with the volumes of customer support calls, returns, and so on. The people who bought the first plasma screens probably don't really care that they (the screens) look like crap by now from burn-in. They have probably replaced them AT LEAST once.

If you sell a million units to a million Joe Sixpacks, even if they didn't sell a kidney to get the product, that sort of potential problem would result in lawsuits a million times greater than the potential profits.

Cost of carbon nanotubes problematic

[teneighty]

I RTFA, and those FED monitors sound pretty nice. The only problem is they require diamonds or carbon nanotubes to manufacture. Last I heard, carbon nanotubes are quite expensive to manufacture in any quantity (wikipedia seems to confirm this). I'm not sure about the cost of the small syntehtic diamond that FEDs require, but I imagine they aren't cheap to make either (does anyone know?).

Hopefully a breakthrough will come along and make these things cheap to manufacture though, because FEDs sound like very cool technology.

Not really new but great to hear about

[fbonnet]

First time I've heard of this technology it was 15 years ago. This has been originally developped at the LETI (a french research institute). PixTech (also french) seems to be an emanation from this lab.

FED displays are based on the so-called 'tip effect' (not sure about the english term, in french it's 'effet de pointe'). This electromagnetic effect is what makes lightning rods work. To simplify, each pixel is thus basically filled with micro-lightning rods that throw particles towards the phosphore.

For the love of pete!

[TheAwfulTruth]

Stop with the nano-tube announcements!

We've been hearing for years about how nano-tubes are going to save mankind, make everything 100 times faster, 100x more energy efficient and taste 100% better.

So far not one commercial product has been produced that actually uses them for anything other than marketing hype. It's getting beyond tired.

"Nano-tube" is the call of the entrepreneur trying to get funding. All it takes is writing a paper or press release with the word "nano-tube" in it and people all jump to attention and thorw money. This is the 50th time we've heard it.

Keep researching but stop with the "This could be the greatest thing ever, why in two years blah blah blah" annoucements already. Just tell us when it's done and for sale.

Re:Drugged up Diamands

[KlomDark]

No completely true, and in fact where the drug term came from in the first place. The word "Dope" has changed definitions over the years, as far as to which drug it refers.

Originally, it referred to "Airplane Dope" which we know these days as "Model Glue". By squirting the glue into a bag and breathing the fumes, you'd get a good high. The original "dopers" (1940ish?) were ones who did this.

Somewhere along the line (probably 1960s), the definition shifted (mainly because of term-illiterate media people who didn't really know what they were talking about, very similar to how the same idiots have morphed 'hacker' from a good to a bad thing over the years.) to refer to "dope" as marijuana/hemp and people who smoked it as "dopers". While heavy users of the original "dope" (airplane glue) did suffer from actual brain damage, the media tried to portray the use of marijuana (now known as "dope") as causing the same brain damage that airplane glue caused. Which we all know these days is complete FUD.

In the 1990s, with the rise of the use of methampetamine, the word has changed again so that "dope" now means speed. Which leads to confusing situations where an old stoner asks a kid these days if he wants to go smoke some "dope" and the kid is disappointed when the stoner pulls out a bag of weed - something that will make him go to sleep in the next few hours instead of something that will keep him wide awake for several days.

Re:But Do they Beat OLEDS?

[Elledan]

I quote from this page:

"Current large screen OLED devices consume far more power than LCDs [..]"

So it appears that OLED seems to have a problem with power efficiency in addition to the longevity of its pixels. Definitely not a good sign. The article I quoted from also specifies 2008 as the date when OLED might enter mass-production. Still a long way off, in other words.

As for SED, take a look at this article: Toshiba's SED TV at CES. First (big) TVs released this year, with production ramping up next year.

Also, I disagree with what you say about OLED being superior to SED and FED because it doesn't have the dead-pixel problem. SEDs and FEDs can have multiple electron emitters per pixel, and phosphors have a tendency to last a very long time (just look at CRTs)

So SED is available this very year, uses less power than comparable displays (one-third of a plasma display) and won't wear out within 5 years. FED might be released in a few months or years and will exhibit pretty much the same benefits as SED. OLED will be released in 2008. If we're lucky.

nano tubes, nano tubes, nano tubes...

[aka_big_wurm]

It seems like they have been talking about all the great things nano tubes can do for years now and I thought the first products were suppose to be on the market by now. It was nano tube batties for cell phones.

Where are they, hanging out with Duke Nukem??

Re:burn-in?

[ColaMan]

I think he was working on the principle that only the 4:3 section would be burnt in (out?).

The sections on the side, when they were used for 16:9 content, would look brighter,whiter and have a hint of minty freshness to boot, compared to the drab, 4000hr old 4:3 section of the Teev.