Here is the story about IBM's research into CRT flat panels:
Does anyone know why this technology wasn't pursued?
Also, direct view CRTs with subpixels are not as good as CRT-s without subpixels (projectors), then CRT projector tech is stuck in 90's , too, projection screens, too.
Where are kickstarter projects with new display technologies, I ask you?
I think Elix is probably right. I haven't been able to find any information on why CRT flat panel technology was not pursued, other than the 12 year old story I posted. If anyone has any more information on this or knows where it might be found, please let me know!
But the last generations of CRT were all "nearly flat" which had a very large radius on the curve. My 20" NF Samsung 1600x1200 monitor around 2004, which was as deep as wide, cost more than my 24" Dell IPS. LCD has become so cheap to make that we'll never have CRT again.
The question at hand is why IBM or another manufacturer didn't follow up 12 years ago.
Could be many reasons it wasn't pursued. Honestly, just seeing how the "slim" and "super slim" CRTs perform at much deeper than 2cm thickness (terrible, where uniformity is concerned), I couldn't imagine how these tubes described in the article would even function. At least, not as a CRT. Nor with any means of deflection as we know it on established CRTs. For all I know the article writer may have been describing plasma screens, confusingly naming it a CRT for its similar technology (sealed spaces, phosphors that glow, etc.). Even if it is in fact a CRT that is being described here, it's also very possible they just couldn't make it work to the kind of quality that a production would require.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s Philips Research Laboratories experimented with a type of thin CRT known as the Zeus display which contained CRT-like functionality in a flat panel display. The devices were demonstrated but never marketed.
Source: "Cathode Ray Tube," Wikipedia.
Apparently, they were able to get the crt display down to around 1cm for any display size.
The things to keep in mind are:
1) 20 years ago
4) never marketed
None of the marketing, financial and technological reasons/obstacles have changed. Keep trying.
Please read the sources I linked to, not just the brief on the wikipedia article. The sources indicate that the technological obstacles had been addressed late 1990s early 2000s. Unless there is some other technological reasons which haven't been mentioned in this thread.
SO that leaves only the fact that they were never marketed. Which could come down to something as simple as business betting on the wrong horse.
An interesting article, but this still does not provide a logical reason for abandoning crt tech, especially considering that crt flat panels could have been produced more cheaply and would have performed better than LCDs.
Industry has to find a way to get people to buy more stuff. What better way to do that then introducing an entirely new technology. Also, people have a fascination with new tech even when it offers no real advantages over existing tech. Both of these factors probably played into the demise of crt.
If you were serious about an in depth answer, with what little information exists in the wild, you would do best to go to the source: IBM and Philips. ******** your way into a telephone interview as a technology blog journalist or something and report back.
Apparently there is something called a hopping electron cathode (HEC) which was used in the Zeus display
More than one technical article I've read thus far has referred to the Zeus display as a type of crt. Seems unlikely that articles published in research/technical journals would make the mistake of using incorrect terminology. I still have more reading to do. Eventually I may call IBM and/or Philips, that's not a bad idea.
FYI, IBM wasn't the only mfr that could make thin CRT's. Philips mfr a 1 cm thin CRT display they named ZEUS. IMHO, it had to be money or politics that interfered. Perhaps, a jealous company or companies got together and went to court and claimed patent violation and/or got a court order to prevent the technology from going to market. Perhaps Philips took a very very big payoff to abandon their marketing plans. Sometimes companies purchase their competition to shut them down. Black & Decker is famous for doing that, Dewalt, Porter- Cable, Emglo were a few of the companies they ruined . . . who knows, I don't, but I don't trust big money, it always gets corrupted by its very nature and power. or when lawyers get involved. I wonder if it was the US Govt that stopped it, because it was analog in nature!?
ZEUS links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6558179784675X
There you have it, full disclosure!
Last edited by diyer999; 02-26-2015 at 12:10 PM.
By this rational, the product should've been made to recoup the costs of I.B.Ms. research. Considering that, It's only reasonable to assume there was some reason for why the I.B.M. didn't pursue it. Sometimes part of trying to make money is knowing when to cut your losses. I would agree it's not always about satisfying the customer though: Planned obsolescence may also be a factor and it may just be that the sets were too reliable =P. However with that being said, there may be more genuine reasons at play as well.
Do try to remember that Samsung's Slimfit televisions were sent out to market and were often criticized for geometry and reliability problems and those weren't such an extreme departure, only being about a third thinner. Perhaps a little refinement could've improved these displays' performance but these prototype sets were a much more extreme departure could've exhibited a variety of problems that made them comparatively undesirable to L.C.D. tech.
There's also another flaw inherent to cathode ray tube tech. as we know it today at play, which is the weight. The leaded glass legally required to protect the users from the hypothetical effects of the electron gun's radiation, as mentioned in the Health Concerns thread is perhaps the heaviest part of the display. I'd surmise that this is actually the bigger factor into the demise of the displays. Think about it for a minute: The weight makes it more costly to ship due to fuel considerations. The weight, combined with the fragility of glass, also makes it easier to break them during shipping, as anybody who has dealt with an eBay 'not as described' case can attest. It's also a potentially backbreaking inconvenience to the customer and whatever helpers he enlists to help him move the thing when necessary, which discourages upgrades, since you don't only have to bring the new product up but figure out what to do with the old product as well. Why would you give the customer a reason other than satisfaction to keep their set instead of upgrading to a newer product you've started selling?
In fact, although thinness was the claimed selling point, I'd argue the actual thickness of C.R.T. tech isn't nearly as much of a consideration as the weight was, especially since Seiki's selling a set with a decorative exterior designed to look like a C.R.T. the se22fr01. If you think about it, you also can't put anything in front of the display either, without blocking your picture. The only difference thinness makes, as an actual space saving consideration, is that you can stash stuff behind the set or store the display on a smaller piece of furniture, if you otherwise wouldn't have enough walking space. However the first of those options also hides it from view and makes it difficult to reach and the second means less storage space for other things. You also lose the space on the top, unless you have a shelf over it.. Maybe I'm just being crazy though....
Last edited by Tonepoet; 04-13-2015 at 10:55 AM. Reason: I fixed some periods.
"Thin" is important because in fact a lot of "flat" CRTs were produced from the late 1990s until 2007. I own a Samsung TX-3079R "flat" CRT and it's in use in my wife's room. There were plenty of flat-display sets from many manufacturers, so the terms "CRT" and "flat panel" are mutually exclusive.