Slashdot Mirror
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. "
If it's not in the sub $250 range, most people won't buy it. And just because they say it is cheaper, doesn't mean it'll be affordable until 5 years after it hits the market.
There is a new technology that researches believe is promising as a potential replacement for existing technology!
Uh oh... here come the FEDs!
"These , will consume less energy than plasma or liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs, deliver a better picture and even cost less.".
This seems to be the spin for any new display technology that's being hawked, regardless of development, deployment or truth.
-Teiresias
Like an LCD, an FED is made up of layers. A layer of glass is coated with a cathode and a layer of diamond dust coated with lithium or carbon nanotubes. The negatively charged cathode, organized in a grid, then emits electrons through the diamonds or nanotubes, which focus that energy like a tiny lightening rod.
But then, like a CRT, the electrons shoot through a vacuum at a layer of phosphorescent glass covered with pixels. The big difference is that the source of electrons, the carbon, is located only 1 millimeter to 2 millimeters rather than nearly 2 feet from the target glass, and instead of one electron source--the electron gun--there are thousands. The electrons are attracted to the pixilated glass because this layer contains a positively charged anode.
"This generates light the same way a CRT tube does," said Pitstick, leading to similar picture quality. At the same time, a FED is only slightly thicker than an LCD panel.
See: Dictionary.Com's definition of Doped, entry 4 (Electronics)
Still is pretty funny, though.
is developing a similar panel that relies on specially doped diamond dust.
Do you suppose the author meant dropped? Otherwise, I hope that dust has glaucoma!
I suspect the author really meant "doped", as in adding an artificial impurity to create a semiconductor. (It might sell well either way, however...)
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
You mean we can sell those things??
Honey!
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.
The CB App. What's your 20?
All of which promise cheaper, higher definition pictures, using less energy, and do 0-500 mph in a quarter second.
Whatever. Go to fucking circuit city and notice that anything other than a "plain ole tv set" costs an order of magnitude more, and doesn't even boast a better image.
LCoS SED Plasma OLED LCD DLP SHOMORK
So lets take the buzzword of the day and rebadge it as "TV tech of teh futore".
Nanotubes.
WiFi Nanotubes, with iTunes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
yet another new reason for Americans to take out a home equity loan.
Yes. Right after stem cells cure all diseases, and Longhorn fixes all security holes in my PC.
The article is interesting and IMHO, new display technologies will always find their niche. But I've always thought the "next-gen" technology to beat LCD flat-screen or plasma displays was going to be OLEDs.
On the one hand, OLEDs still have some problems with lifetimes--even research devices that I saw in grad school might degrade quickly. And of course I haven't seen anyone really give proof that single-walled nanotubes (SWNT) used in these FEDs can be produced cost-effectively.
However, unlike these technologies, OLEDs have already been produced as prototypes in sizes as large as 40" (by Seiko Epson) and being used in products like Digital Cameras and MP3/Ogg players and being mass-produced by companies like Sony.
Previous Slashdot stories on OLEDs:3 7 m l?tid=137 2 34.shtml l ?tid=137&tid=141&tid=159&tid=184&tid=186&tid=188
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/15/20172
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/04/0127213.sht
http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/03/09/0112
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/05/004227.shtm
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.
Yup...they're thinner than the hair of a unicorn, have negative weight due to their anti-gravity properties, they actually generate money instead of cost money and because they can be produced on such a massive scale the UN is contemplating replacing the sky with a Large Array Unified Graphics Heaven ;)
once the carbon nanotube based space elevator falls, we can all make tvs out of pieces of it yay
and I just bought a brand new Dell UltraSharp 2001FP 20 inch LCD monitor about 20 minutes ago... http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a spx?sku=320-1578&c=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=2999& page=external
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.
FED has already been used for flat panel screens. Specifically: field emission displays. Worth noting is that these, while very neat, turned out to be fiscally problematic (hence the need for the Wayback Machine). Not a good omen for this incarnation...
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.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
In one sense, I think you are right in saying that they are organic. However, FED does not stand for field emitting diode, but rather field effect display (according to the article).
In any case, I believe the term field emitting diode only exists in very specialized situations. I feel that either all diodes emit fields, or none of them do, but I'm only an undergrad, so what do I know? Googling the term "Field emitting diode" will net you 4 incomprehensible results, so I suppose you can make of that what you will. Anyway, my point is that FED shares nothing with the acronym LED.
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.
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??
Perhaps the best definition that I could give for an organic compound is that it contains carbon in a reduced state. Generally (and almost always for compounds found in nature), that means at least one carbon in the compound is bonded to hydrogen. When plants carry out photosynthesis, they take an inorganic compound, CO2, and use a complex series of reactions catalyzed by enzymes to incorporate it into an organic molecule, glucose (C6H12O6). In the net balance, oxygens are pulled off of carbon dioxide (to our great benefit) and hydrogens are added on. The electronic properties of carbon atoms are altered in a way that makes them "organic."
Now, there are some places where this definition can get fuzzy, and they include the carbon allotropes like diamond and graphite. You can think of a carbon nanotube as a tessellation of fused benzene rings (in fact, some of the companies that make nanotubes use benzene as the starting material). However, benzene is organic (C6H6), and so are naphthalene (2 fused benzene rings, C10H8), anthracene, etc. As more and more rings are fused, though, the proportion of carbon to hydrogen increases greatly until the compound essentially consists exclusively of carbon bonded to carbon, which is an inorganic bond. No need to have your ignorance excused, though- as I said, it's a hazy definition, and the unfortunately terminology of "organic and inorganic" comes down to us from the days when people thought "organic" compounds possessed a sort of vital force that inorganic ones did not.
As for the point about LEDs, I don't know nearly as much in that area, but as the AC who responded to you already pointed out, there aren't light-emitting diodes involved here. As I understand it, the idea here is to create electron guns like those found in a CRT on a molecular scale. In the way that a the point on a lightning rod can "bleed off" charge, these nanotubes or diamond dust motes would bleed off electrons into a vacuum, where they'd fly across and excite a phosphor screen. I know that carbon nanotubes and certain doped diamonds can have semiconductor properties; presumably these would be used to control the current that bleeds off each nanoparticle, and consequently what you see on the screen.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Is this a Monitor that Mork and Mindy would like? Nano Nano
That does it. We need a "Not Funny -1" mod option.
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.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.