Originally Posted by tgm1024
Eh, you may be right. But the market for them is nearly gone
and it isn't because of weight, cost of manufacture, nor energy consumption, and not that potential buzzing nor do I think image brightness. Even if the image retention were technically defeated (which is isn't), the *perception* of it is an 800 pound gorilla. Whenever people who don't know anything
about TV's at all ask me what to buy, they *always* come armed with words to the effect of "we don't want a plasma....the images burn into them." Or they had it happen, or their friends did, etc.
It's not how many of them sold that determines this so much as it is for how long even a few of them have been running. You're right in not making this assumption though: even CRT's can have IR.
Sorry, I don't buy this. While I believe plasma was hurt several years ago by threats of "burn in", it lost in the market to LCD for four reasons:
2) Availability in a wide array of sizes
4) Gigantic array of manufacturers of panels and TV
AVSers think that regular people know all the junk that is obsessed about here; but they don't.
Originally Posted by greenland
Japanese scientists develop OLED material free of rare metals
"Without the use of rare metals, the costs for materials in OLEDs can be reduced to about one-10th, the scientists said."
"Japanese researchers said they have developed a new material for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) that is free of rare metals and can slash the costs to produce smartphone displays and other appliances.
The team led by Chihaya Adachi, director of Kyushu University's Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics Research, said they created a dicyanobenzene derivative, an organic chemical compound that emits light at high efficiencies, without the use of rare metals.
The material is as cheap as fluorescent substances and is as efficient in electroluminescence, or the use of electrons to induce light emission, as phosphorous substances, they said.
The team named the new material's light-emitting features "hyperfluorescence."
"We wish to tie up with Japanese manufacturers and strive to commercialize our Japan-born technology at an early date," Adachi said.............................
Since this new material is not a phosphorous substance, I wonder if it might greatly reduce or eliminate image retention or burn-in damage?
First, you mean "phosphor" not "phosphorous", which is an element.
Second, this article is gigantically misleading and irrelevant.
Why? Because they are talking about the material for the OLED itself, not the display. The display will still require a TFT backplane and that will still use IGZO going forward, which means indium, gallium and zinc. See below...
Originally Posted by mikek753
this is good news, however:
1. how long it'll take to get mass product? 3-5 years?
2. 1/10th cost? 55" OLED for $800-$1k - so good to be true
3. what China will do as rare metals main producer?
So there is a lot of confusion about "rare metals".
First, there are so-called "rare earth" elements. None of them are rare, as in scarce. China produces most of them for cost reasons, but they exist elsewhere and an old U.S. mine owned by Molycorp is being reopened, for example, with all sorts of nifty technology, environmental safeguards, etc. because these metals are now very expensive. The list of rare earths is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Then, there are "rare metals", for example gold, that are actually rare.
Indium, which comes as a byproduct of zinc mining, is not especially rare, but is fairly unique in that it produces (with tin) the world's only known practical transparent electrodes. As a result, LCDs (and plasmas) need indium and consumption of it has soared in the flat-panel era. Indium is 4x to 10x as expensive as it was a decade ago (depending on the fluctuations in the market and whether China is being obnoxious about producing it). Indium can be recovered from recycling and the technology is getting better to do that (nearly all is recycled at this point). It's not rare in the sense of being scarce at all. There is a 100+ year known supply and there is more indium in the earth than silver (while more silver is used by far).
Gallium is also a byproduct of zinc mining and is less rare than indium. It's also less needed, since indium-tin oxide (the transparent electrodes) don't use it. It will be used in IGZO, but there is no particular shortage to worry about.
Neither Indium nor Gallium are "rare earths" nor are they "rare".
As to the technology in question that greenland linked to, a "better, cheaper" OLED material would likely take 3-10 years to reach the market. If it cut the price of making the OLED layer by 90%, it would probably mean the price of a display would fall by about 10%. No, really that's what it would mean. If you figure the display is composed of the following parts:
* Power supply and electronics
* TFT backplane
* Front glass (and color filters in the case of LG)
* OLED layer
... the only part affected by this is the OLED layer. You pay about 2.5x the manufacturing cost of your TV (that's very rough by the way, but bear with me). If we take the example of the OLED material
falling in price 90%, the OLED layer doesn't fall 90% in price, the material for the layer does. Let's say that the OLED layer costs you 40% of your manufacturing cost (sounds high, but whatever). The masking / patterning (Samsung) or the vapor deposition (LG) is most of the work, the material is a portion. So let's call the material 30% of the cost of that layer. Now we drop that by 90%. So we had 30% (the OLED material) of a layer that cost you 40% (the OLED layer). We've made that layer cost about 27% less (1 - (.9 * .3) = .27). So our build cost has now fallen by about 11% overall (.27 * .40 = 10.8). However, our retail price is still going to be about 2.5x our build cost.
If our build cost before was "100", and retail was 250. We can now recalibrate at 89 and 222.5. The difference between the old price, 250, and the new price 222.5 is about 11%.
(Incidentally, LG is already using at least some fluorescent OLED materials, suggesting that in TVs, they are trading power efficiency for cost already. So I'm not sure this even has significant implications for them at all.)