Slashdot Mirror
OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Lights
Mike writes "Researchers at Korea's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a breakthrough in OLED technology that reduces the ultra-thin lights' energy consumption by 75%. The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating 'surface plasmon enhanced' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity." OLEDnet notes: "The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express. It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science."
I'm just going to buy lights that are 75% brighter.
Sounds good, and very likely is, but how much energy is lost in generating the vacuum required to give these lights the extra efficiency? The chances are the light is still more efficient even after taking in the production process.Besides, they look so damn cool! That is awesome
Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
I'll be honest, I haven't read much into this, but I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions which involve, essentially, ecological whaling. As a rule of thumb, a 'green' product should be 'green' to mass produce. -- Any chance anyone here can verify how these can be mass produced?
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Now combine it with the new cooled LED technologie and you got a cooled OLED with less energy consumption and more efficienty.
I'll be the first of the many here at /. to cry out "Bigger, Brighter, PORN!" as a single tear forms...
The lights radiate 75% more energy. That means a reduction of power of 1 - (1/1.75) = 43%, right?
Now _that_ is a cool name for a scientific journal. I can imagine reading it now...
[Me]: Wow, OLED's use 75% less energy now!
-turns pages-
[Me]: Oh, fusion! That was fast!
And we're one step closer to animated cereal boxes...
Oh joy.
Previous oleds (of which I have no idea how those compare to a standard bulb), or a standard bulb or ???? How does this compare to a standard 75w bulb?
OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies. Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced' (SPE) device fair any better?
Give me a wall screen TV or a whole ceiling panal light and I'll be impressed.
It has no real purpose unless somebody sells something from it...
But what *I'd* really like to see is some real advancement in photon-reflective display technology rather than emissive. Our eyes are evolved to primarily observe light reflected _OFF_ of other objects, not photons flung straight into our eyes from some source, and in my experience it is *FAR* easier to observe something for an extended period of time that is being lit by surrounding light than it is to study something that produces its own. I think it may have something to do with pupil dilation... but I'm not sure.
Now of course, I know there's electronic paper, which I think is awesome, but what I think would be cooler is if A) color were practical, and B) the display could be updated in real-time, at no less than several dozen times per second, making full-fledged animation possible.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's just 75% increased emission rate, not 75% less energy. Continuous wave photoluminiscence doubles, though, according to the article. 75% more efficient would've been four times the output. So not THAT great, but still rather awesome.
Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do (I'm guessing roughly several square miles per day).
They're using silver nanoparticles. Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal. Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material (but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects, except for maybe gold) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments. I don't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.
TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
...I hope this isn't like some of those other "eco friendly" solutions...
Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly. Neither is the word "green" in the articles, so I am quite at a loss as to why you're off on this tangent. The only claim that might be considered close is the 75% reduction in energy use, however that statement is leaps and bounds away from "It's green and eco-friendly".
Green? I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green, but red, blue, orange, white.... every color of the rainbow.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Does this mean I should wait more on a large-screen television, or do better OLEDs not have anything to do with TV in the forseeable future?
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
(1) OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Light ...reducing the ultra-thin lightsâ(TM) energy consumption by 75%
(2)
(3) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times
(4) increases light intensity twofold.
*Four* numerical figures, and no two of them compatible in any way.
(1): "a 75% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
(2): "reducing by 75%" means a factor of 4 better.
(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75
(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.
All incompatible. Wonder what the real numbers are?
Has that Google Streetview van passed by your place yet?
:).
If they haven't maybe you should plan something extra special for them
1) One other difference is the image/light from many screens tends to flicker.
:).
Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz. The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too. I'm not sure about the OLED tech.
For the people who say you can't see the difference, just wave your hand in front of the screen. Then go out in daylight and wave your hand. Notice a difference?
Alternatively, look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as "stable" or "steady" as a wall.
2) For a lot of display tech, the blacks aren't very black, so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more (compare the brightness of your display's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it).
Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks. But I suspect they're still going to be blindingly bright.
Anyway, you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper. Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the "text background whites" aren't so bright - make them a darker grey.
I've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100, and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above. 100/100 is really too bright
Maybe they'll be bright enough to use for area lighting?
....To fly over in my fusion powered flying car to pick some up on the way to the drug store for my telomere repairing anti-cancer pills.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Yep, even a 100W standard bulb in a small room is much too dark compared to outdoors. I'd love to have more powerful lighting tech available, but not at reduced output -- at the same output or better.
Where this will really make a difference though, is in mountain bikes --- it currently costs around £350 for a reasonably high-end lightsource for bikes, and even then, the high-end well-reviewed stuff just sucks for any serious riding in the dark. Riding in the dark isn't just necessary in winter -- it's also an interesting potential sport. But until the lights are more powerful, cheaper, lighter, and last longer, it's not happening as much as it could.
The world needs more Lojbanists!
"75% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75% more efficient, or that 75% more lights are being made that are efficient?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Seven times more efficient according to recent article . Its fascinating you can teach an old dog new tricks with sufficient economic incentives. I welcome the competition among old and new technologies.
Doesn't that just sound like something out of the Alpha Centauri tech tree?
Light emitting diodes tech is one of my favorite. It and all the inventions which derive from it, makes life look and feel as though we're truly in, "The Future" as I imagined it while watching Buck Rogers back in my childhood.
-FL
Given how frequently Slashdot reports massive increases in the efficiency of lights and how frequently it reports massive increases in the efficiency of solar panels pretty soon we'll be able to hook up a light bulb to some solar cells and have a perpetual motion machine!
I've been waiting to see IMOD products ever since that article in Scientific American a couple years back, but...
http://www.qualcomm.com/common/documents/articles/QMT_Scientific_American_Nov2007.pdf
OLED displays. Electronic ink such as used in the Kindle? All tech that has been reported for years on slashdot, and made it's way into our hands.
Tech happens all the time but we tend not to be as awed anymore when it has actually arrived because... well tech has moved on.
When OLED displays were first announced, they were REALLY amazing because LCD's of that age had problems enough with even lightening let alone doing proper blacks. Their viewing angle was also horrible so OLED's with their 180 degree viewing angle sounded wonderful. The contrast of 10.000:1 was also consider unubtainable.
And now I got an AMOLED on my Cowon s9 mp4 player (odd why it is called an mp4 player when that is the one format it does not actually support) and its display is very nice indeed. BUT no longer the revolution it once was when first announced.
Viewing angled have gone up on LCD's. With led lightening LCD screens have become better. Contrast has gone up as well. Sure, the OLED display is STILL better (can watch it even in sunlight) but not by the same degree.
Right now, Sony has an OLED display for sale that really looks stunning. But geez god is it tiny. On the other hand, LCD technology paired with led back lightening has come awfully close to matching its capabilities. And that is the way of tech... for a while.
because the first cars didn't go much faster then a horse and were a hell of a lot more trouble to keep running, less reliable and more expensive.
But eventually the tech moved on. Someday OLED displays may make the current LCD offerings look very bad indeed. And by that time you will have been reading about the next advance which seems amazing.
Welcome to life, the older you get, the less wonderful things seem.
Oh well, time for an old trick. Turn the color on your TV all the way down so you see in B&W for an evening.Then tomorrow be amazed at the amazing full colors of your ten year old tv.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.