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

Define cost less

[superpulpsicle]

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.

Re:Define cost less

[stupidfoo]

This is the same nonsense that's posted about every new technology out there. How many times have we read about a new display technology that's going to be better/faster/higher quality/cheaper/stronger/smarter/prettier/jumps higher/etc than LCDs and Plasma.

Every single one of them. And in reality that's all just a bunch of marketing BS. Maybe it might be true when they massaged their 20 year sales projection numbers the right way, or if they stretch the truth on performance to the very edge.

Unfortunately, Slashdot, like every other site, gets sucked into the better/faster/cheaper nonsense everytime it comes up.

Re:Define cost less

[ZeroGee]

So are you saying that LCDs and Plasma TVs are the end-all for TV development? These new devices are betterfastercheaper, but that doesn't mean today! It means that after the initial development period, this technology will replace the older version. It's an evolution of technology.

Re:Define cost less

[David Gould]

just that all we ever hear about are all these amazing magical technologies that will blow the existing techs away.

You mean like plasma screens? You know, it wasn't that many years ago that we were discussing, right here on Slahsdot[*1], an article that sounded just like this one, but was introducing a hot new display technology called <fingerquote style="Dr. Evil">"plasma"</fingerquote> that was going to enable flat displays to be made bigger/better/cheaper than was possible with LCDs.

Then too, the article was overly enthusiastic; then too, some of us got prematurely excited about it; then too, others soberly advised waiting for actual products, etc. In short, it was exactly the same as this. And yet, the technology really did arrive eventually.

You're right that it's stupid to get all excited about an R&D concept demo (or even an actual prototype) as if it were an actual product (and by the way, it's called vaporware, not FUD -- similar concepts but an important distinction). But it would be just as dumb to completely scoff off all new-tech press releases. We should take an article like this for what it is, no more, no less: a preview of one of the (several, competing) possibilities for what might become the next generation of display technology.

We know there's going to be a next generation, and between SED, FED, OLED, Thin-CRT, and WIMF, there's an exciting amount of potential for displays to get dramatically bigger, better, and cheaper sometime in the not-too-distant future. I for one am content to leave it at that, and interested to keep an eye on developments on all those avenues.

--
[1] At least, some of us, who were around back then. I think I'm supposed to make a comment about /. UIDs at this point, but I can't stand those people who get all cocky about their "old-timer" status.

Same Line

[teiresias]

"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.

for the lazy: the ghosting question

[dAzED1]

From the article, the answer to what these look like from the side: The images produced by CRT tubes are crisper and aren't subject to the shifting and ghosting of LCD screens. However, the electron gun in CRTs requires a large vacuum: the tube in a 30-inch diagonal television is 23-inches deep, though slim CRTs coming next year will only need 16-inch deep tubes.

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.

Re:for the lazy: the ghosting question

[The_Wilschon]

So the FED is in some sense just ~a million tiny single-pixel CRTs? Interesting!

Just like plasmas...

[gUmbi]

yet another new reason for Americans to take out a home equity loan.

But Do they Beat OLEDS?

[ghutchis]

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:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/15/201723 7
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/03/04/0127213.shtm l?tid=137
http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/03/09/01122 34.shtml
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/05/004227.shtml ?tid=137&tid=141&tid=159&tid=184&tid=186&tid=188

Re:But Do they Beat OLEDS?

[Elledan]

The problem with OLED is that it's a technology which is basically being developed from scratch. Variants on OLED are even being developed, to circumvent (among other things) the longevity issues with especially the blue component of OLED (10,000 to 20,000 hours so far).

The thing is that SED and FED are pretty much evolved versions of the venerable CRT: they've got 'electron guns', a vacuum, and a layer build up out of phosphors. Only big differences are the number of electron guns (tens of thousands instead of three) and the distance between the electron guns and the phosphor layer (millimeters instead of tens of centimeters).

SED in particular stands a good chance, as it uses existing manufacturing techniques for the electron gun-layer and further basically replicates a CRT. FED tries to do things a bit fancier, which requires more R&D, and thus more time to bring it to the market.

So in summary, OLED and FED are still (partially) in a research stadium, while SED is ready to be marketed: the first SED displays (TVs) will apppear in 2005, with computer displays appearing in 2006. That's according to Toshiba's PR-department, at least :p

Link to general information on SED: SED

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.

Re:Cost of carbon nanotubes problematic

[Slime-dogg]

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?).

Wired has a love fest with synthetic diamonds

I recall a /. article from a year or two ago that spoke of a small company in the Massachusette's area that produced flawless white diamonds. They used some technique of using a diamond point of action, and layering carbon onto it, like a chip fab does. It seemed like they could produce fairly large quantities at minimal cost. I'm not sure if they have been shot by deBeers yet, tho.

Femtotube displays!

[VirtualUK]

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 ;)

Bad choice of acronyms

[awtbfb]

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...

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:In essence, isn't this another type of OLED?

[reverseengineer]

It can be a pretty hazy definition, but generally pure carbon structures like nanotubes, fullerenes, diamonds, and graphite are considered to be inorganic. The presence of carbon in a compound is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "organicity," as a number of compounds which contain carbon, like carbon dioxide, carbon disulfide, calcium carbonate, and potassium cyanide, are not considered by most chemists to be organic compounds.

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.