Zinc-air fuel cell technology promises to be safer and cheaper than hydrogen fuel cell technology, anyway (pardon the long link):
http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage1.asp?SE CTION=&PRIMID=&FileName=FEBOL1%2EFEB2001&Manufact= Metallic+Power&ReturnLink=%2FSearch1%2Easp%3FManuf acturer%3D%26Keyword%3Dfuel%2BAND%2Bcell%26Slot%3D 0%26StartNum%3D1%26stype%3D%26year%3D10&MonthYear= Feb+2001
The big news behind the IBM screen isn't the fact that it exists, but how they made it.
Until now, to make an LCD, you needed a "rub step". At one point, the substrate was literally rubbrd with a velvet cloth to stimulate the liquid crystals to line up properly when applied.
IBM has developed a non-rub process that aligns the crystals so well that displays like this one will soon become commonplace.
http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage1.asp?SE CTION=&PRIMID=&FileName=SEPOL1%2ESEP2001&Manufact= IBM&ReturnLink=%2FSearch1%2Easp%3FManufacturer%3D% 26Keyword%3Dnon%252Drub%26Slot%3D0%26StartNum%3D1% 26stype%3D%26year%3D10&MonthYear=Sep+2001
I had the opportunity to view the MicroVision demo unit at the US Display Consortium's investor's event in Manhattan a few months ago. The monochrome unit wasn't bad, but as pointed out, there are better and cheaper microdisplays out there from companies like eMagin's Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED)-based technology and the displays from Zight (formerly Colorado Microdisplay) and Three-Five Systems which are based on Liquid-Crystal on Silicon (LCoS)technology.
The only advantage I see (pun intended) is that you can see through the MicroVision device. It is up to the end user whether that functionality (which will undoubtably be matched in the near future by the other technologies) is worth the considerable expense.
I also tried it out myself at the US Display Consortium's Annual inverstor conference in NYC last week. Impressiuve, but they still have to get the steering mirrors onto one chip. Until they do, the accompanying optics will continue to be cumbersome and expensive.
It was an interesting demo, though.
I believe that hi-res SVGA microdisplays in near-eye mounts are significantly superior, and much more useful in field appllications. I was able to compare the eMaginOLED microdisplay to the MicroVision device, and the OLED creates a fantastic image that is much better and therefore mopre useful. The Inviso microdisplay is based on Liquid-Crystal-on-silicon (LCOS) technology, and also provides a very good image for near-eye apps.
smartalix.com
Not only has this technology been around a while with plastics, it is now quite mature.
Here is a site from Z Corp, demonstrating their technology that uses polymer powder and ink-jet technology to build 3D models at a lower cost and greater coonvenience than laser-sintered or liquid-resin technologies.
Although being able to make things out of ice without a chainsaw or a mold is cool.
The current lifetime predictions on plastic displays (I also include the lifetimes for the Organic Light-Emitting Polymer technology used for the emissive elements) are well short of current dislay technologies, this is true, but we are talking about significantly cheaper displays.
For example, more sophisticated manufacturing methods will reduce costs: Fluidic self-assembly promises
to revolutionize FPD assembly
The light-emitting elements will also be significantly cheaper, and as has been pointed out, will require less power, fewer manufacturing steps, and will be capable of creating much larger displays in the future than Plasma or any other silicon-based technology:Light-emitting polymers
broaden display options. In addition, companies like Cambridge Display Technology are working on ink-jettable organic light-emitting polymer technology that will allow the manufacture of cheap displays of any size, allowing entire animated video billboards.
I'd pay $500 every 3-5 years for a 60-inch(or larger) screen.
Reading about attempts to expand LCD technology beyond its current boundaries is interesting, but the fact is that future large-screen display applications will be met by newer display technologies such as organic light-emitting polymers.
Electronic Nose vs new liquid sensor
on
Digital Nose
·
· Score: 1
This has actually been out since last year. This and other related technologies are heating up, as improved processing techniques and new applications for existing technology provide design engineers with ideas. The problem with false results are due more to poor data processing than to poor information acquisition. On a related note, Texas Instruments has developed a device that can analyze any liquid sample and give results on-site without using a mass spectrometer. Spreeta Sensor. It is the size of a phono cartridge.
I noticed that the designers have not gotten the laser design finalized. There is some interesting work currently being done on microcavity lasers by Nanovation. This should allow them to squeeze a few mils off of the device.
I agree with Hobbes. The ball itself does not have to contain the CPU. Also, sensor technology is getting very cheap (relatively), with fiber-optic laser gyros and multi-axis micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers under $10,000 now, and they are both about the size of a pack of smokes.
Add to that a microthruster system using the same kind of tech that are in ink-jet printers, and you have the guts of a free-roving flying 'bot.
I got mine (a 505F) through c/net when it was retailing for $1,900 for only $1,400 from a company in California. Check their site, it really steers you to the good buys! Go here.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody in the industry was paying attention to Clairvoyant until I gave them recognition in Electronic Products magazine last month.
Zinc-air fuel cell technology promises to be safer and cheaper than hydrogen fuel cell technology, anyway (pardon the long link): http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage1.asp?SE CTION=&PRIMID=&FileName=FEBOL1%2EFEB2001&Manufact= Metallic+Power&ReturnLink=%2FSearch1%2Easp%3FManuf acturer%3D%26Keyword%3Dfuel%2BAND%2Bcell%26Slot%3D 0%26StartNum%3D1%26stype%3D%26year%3D10&MonthYear= Feb+2001
The big news behind the IBM screen isn't the fact that it exists, but how they made it. Until now, to make an LCD, you needed a "rub step". At one point, the substrate was literally rubbrd with a velvet cloth to stimulate the liquid crystals to line up properly when applied. IBM has developed a non-rub process that aligns the crystals so well that displays like this one will soon become commonplace. http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage1.asp?SE CTION=&PRIMID=&FileName=SEPOL1%2ESEP2001&Manufact= IBM&ReturnLink=%2FSearch1%2Easp%3FManufacturer%3D% 26Keyword%3Dnon%252Drub%26Slot%3D0%26StartNum%3D1% 26stype%3D%26year%3D10&MonthYear=Sep+2001
I've seen the Telegen display, it's very promising technology. There is also the work being done by iFire, as well as all the work in OLEDs.
I had the opportunity to view the MicroVision demo unit at the US Display Consortium's investor's event in Manhattan a few months ago. The monochrome unit wasn't bad, but as pointed out, there are better and cheaper microdisplays out there from companies like eMagin's Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED)-based technology and the displays from Zight (formerly Colorado Microdisplay) and Three-Five Systems which are based on Liquid-Crystal on Silicon (LCoS)technology. The only advantage I see (pun intended) is that you can see through the MicroVision device. It is up to the end user whether that functionality (which will undoubtably be matched in the near future by the other technologies) is worth the considerable expense.
I also tried it out myself at the US Display Consortium's Annual inverstor conference in NYC last week. Impressiuve, but they still have to get the steering mirrors onto one chip. Until they do, the accompanying optics will continue to be cumbersome and expensive. It was an interesting demo, though. I believe that hi-res SVGA microdisplays in near-eye mounts are significantly superior, and much more useful in field appllications. I was able to compare the eMagin OLED microdisplay to the MicroVision device, and the OLED creates a fantastic image that is much better and therefore mopre useful. The Inviso microdisplay is based on Liquid-Crystal-on-silicon (LCOS) technology, and also provides a very good image for near-eye apps. smartalix.com
Not only has this technology been around a while with plastics, it is now quite mature. Here is a site from Z Corp, demonstrating their technology that uses polymer powder and ink-jet technology to build 3D models at a lower cost and greater coonvenience than laser-sintered or liquid-resin technologies. Although being able to make things out of ice without a chainsaw or a mold is cool.
The light-emitting elements will also be significantly cheaper, and as has been pointed out, will require less power, fewer manufacturing steps, and will be capable of creating much larger displays in the future than Plasma or any other silicon-based technology:Light-emitting polymers broaden display options. In addition, companies like Cambridge Display Technology are working on ink-jettable organic light-emitting polymer technology that will allow the manufacture of cheap displays of any size, allowing entire animated video billboards.
I'd pay $500 every 3-5 years for a 60-inch(or larger) screen.
Reading about attempts to expand LCD technology beyond its current boundaries is interesting, but the fact is that future large-screen display applications will be met by newer display technologies such as organic light-emitting polymers.
This has actually been out since last year. This and other related technologies are heating up, as improved processing techniques and new applications for existing technology provide design engineers with ideas. The problem with false results are due more to poor data processing than to poor information acquisition. On a related note, Texas Instruments has developed a device that can analyze any liquid sample and give results on-site without using a mass spectrometer. Spreeta Sensor. It is the size of a phono cartridge.
This only shows me that marketing is becoming more important than learning on many campuses today.
BTW, I loved the movie.
I noticed that the designers have not gotten the laser design finalized. There is some interesting work currently being done on microcavity lasers by Nanovation. This should allow them to squeeze a few mils off of the device.
I agree with Hobbes. The ball itself does not have to contain the CPU. Also, sensor technology is getting very cheap (relatively), with fiber-optic laser gyros and multi-axis micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers under $10,000 now, and they are both about the size of a pack of smokes.
Add to that a microthruster system using the same kind of tech that are in ink-jet printers, and you have the guts of a free-roving flying 'bot.
I got mine (a 505F) through c/net when it was retailing for $1,900 for only $1,400 from a company in California. Check their site, it really steers you to the good buys! Go here.