Sound and Vision magazine had a small article about surface-conduction electron-emitter displays (SEDs) that are 1/2 inch thick flat panels that uses the same phosphors as CRTs. I would like to know if anyone has more information on them.
surface-conduction electron-emitter displays
- Status
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Search here on SED. Everything that is reasonably known has been posted. Use Slowest search if you need to. And if you put my name in the user name field for the search, you'll find most of the threads.
Nothing to buy until next year. Big sizes not until 2006.
Nothing to buy until next year. Big sizes not until 2006.
Well, they are shooting for a 40" initially (or thereabouts). There are real doubts as to whether this technology will scale to big sizes due to the need to maintain a uniform gap between the two sheets of glass (without a rib or cell structure to do that as it is both not needed and very costly).
It can be called second-generation monkey brain for all I care. It's not at all plasma-like; but it is very CRT like -- single-pixel CRTs in essence.
The potential is fabulous for this technology because many things about the CRT still haven't been matched or surpassed. And CRT's weaknesses -- like ANSI contrast -- can be overcome by SED's approach.
Very exciting to watch.
It can be called second-generation monkey brain for all I care. It's not at all plasma-like; but it is very CRT like -- single-pixel CRTs in essence.
The potential is fabulous for this technology because many things about the CRT still haven't been matched or surpassed. And CRT's weaknesses -- like ANSI contrast -- can be overcome by SED's approach.
Very exciting to watch.
This article is a good explanation of SED. (not for noodle-heads)
http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
Here's an article that supports you 2005 supposition
http://www.boston.com/business/techn...f_new_flat_tv/
http://www.boston.com/business/techn...f_new_flat_tv/
One fact that I harp on a lot that Canon's material remind us of: They established the co-development agreement in 1999. Presumably, they were noodling with this for a while before that.
It will take about 8-10 years from idea gestation to first-customer ship. That's normal, but shows a lot about why something new can't just come out of nowhere.
They cite in the newspaper article an initial production capability of 500K panels per year, but that surely won't be the first year's production... for so many reasons.
Anyway, I keep waiting to see a prototype. I think this is the most exciting display technology for home theater that is (a) not available (b) likely to matter to us in this decade. I am less dubious of this than of a lot of things.
But the devil will be in the details as always.
It will take about 8-10 years from idea gestation to first-customer ship. That's normal, but shows a lot about why something new can't just come out of nowhere.
They cite in the newspaper article an initial production capability of 500K panels per year, but that surely won't be the first year's production... for so many reasons.
Anyway, I keep waiting to see a prototype. I think this is the most exciting display technology for home theater that is (a) not available (b) likely to matter to us in this decade. I am less dubious of this than of a lot of things.
But the devil will be in the details as always.
Joined
·
123 Posts
Small blurbs on SED manufacturing progress:
Miami Herald
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=54640
Why bother pointing it out? Because Canon's CEO says '2006' for mass production, not 2005. Also a mention of one application being for "Internet-savvy household electrical appliances". Sounds more like an LCD and/or OLED competitor than plasma, if that's their focus. For large screens, given plasma's approximate 20% price decay per year, that puts the estimated MSRP for a Samsung 42" HDTV plasma at $3,840. Seeing how street prices appear to be about 75% of MSRP (WAG), that puts it at ~$2,880. That at least gives a ballpark where SED needs to be at to be competitive.
As always, we'll see...
-RandomDave
Miami Herald
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=54640
Why bother pointing it out? Because Canon's CEO says '2006' for mass production, not 2005. Also a mention of one application being for "Internet-savvy household electrical appliances". Sounds more like an LCD and/or OLED competitor than plasma, if that's their focus. For large screens, given plasma's approximate 20% price decay per year, that puts the estimated MSRP for a Samsung 42" HDTV plasma at $3,840. Seeing how street prices appear to be about 75% of MSRP (WAG), that puts it at ~$2,880. That at least gives a ballpark where SED needs to be at to be competitive.
As always, we'll see...
-RandomDave
This is the first ive read on this..... its kinda interesting I guess.
Now has anyone considered what an 'electron emitter' actually is? Have you heard of radioactivity? Yeah, I imagine you have! An electron emitter tends to be a radiactive material which is undergoing beta minus decay. So thats interesting point 1..... radiactive tv
interesting point 2 is the use of tunnelling (which incidentally conflicts with point 1)..... a quantum mechanical effect which is yet not fully understood (best not to debate this because doing so will prove me right!). So it is a tv that relies on fundamental physics, but physics which is well known to do strange things.
It seems interesting nonetheless, i'll have to read a bit deeper and see whether those doing it appreciate their contradictions! It sounds a tad too close to applied research for me to think too highly of it though
ad
Now has anyone considered what an 'electron emitter' actually is? Have you heard of radioactivity? Yeah, I imagine you have! An electron emitter tends to be a radiactive material which is undergoing beta minus decay. So thats interesting point 1..... radiactive tv
interesting point 2 is the use of tunnelling (which incidentally conflicts with point 1)..... a quantum mechanical effect which is yet not fully understood (best not to debate this because doing so will prove me right!). So it is a tv that relies on fundamental physics, but physics which is well known to do strange things.
It seems interesting nonetheless, i'll have to read a bit deeper and see whether those doing it appreciate their contradictions! It sounds a tad too close to applied research for me to think too highly of it though
ad
I don't wish to quibble on the science here, but the electron emitter is essentially a single-pixel CRT gun. It is no more "radioactive" than a tube TV. In fact, the voltages are likely to be far lower due to much less impressive distances these electrons need to travel.
It's also obvious, as has been written here by myself and others many times before, that all this stuff takes much longer to come to market than people would like. There has never been a "burst upon the scene" technology in displays and there likely won't ever be one.
Keep that in mind when someone tells you what's coming up "next year". They are quite likely to be overly optimistic in that belief.
It has taken something on the order of 2+ years to come close to commercial mass production of a 40" or greater LCD, when LCD is already a proven technology. In light of this, it seems especially silly when there was the hype about Motorola's alleged carbon-nanotube displays a few months back that were going to bring up $1000 50" flat panels by next year.
I will say that the principles in SED are not -- in my mind -- at all questionable. And the decade (or perhaps closer to two ) of research in FEDs -- a close cousin to SED -- makes the claims all the more believable. FED failed because it ultimately proved nearly impossible to manufacture cost effectively. SED is already in trouble on the same score due to another year of delay -- they only recently discussed mass production in 2005.
The moving target of lower pricing is the challenge that ultimately has done many pretenders to the throne and makes things like iFire's interesting inorganic EL display all the more unlikely to ever reach market. It means things like OLED not only have to reach big sizes (which is years away as recent hype was around a Casio 2" OLED for TVs!); not only have to reach 30,000+ hour lifetimes (which is likely to be achieved, but not yet close to real); but also have to come in cheaper than incumbents to push them out. That's a mammoth challenge, especially when the incumbents are reaching true scale economies.
I remain interested in SED and think it could be very important. But on this news, I'm a lot less interested. By 2006, there'll be real 50+" LCDs coming off of 7G fabs and increasingly inexpensive plasmas, quite possibly incorporating a next generation of technology. A 40" display, no matter how thin or low power, is going to have to be awfully special -- and awfully inexpensive -- to garner much notice and to justify selecting it over the competition.
It's also obvious, as has been written here by myself and others many times before, that all this stuff takes much longer to come to market than people would like. There has never been a "burst upon the scene" technology in displays and there likely won't ever be one.
Keep that in mind when someone tells you what's coming up "next year". They are quite likely to be overly optimistic in that belief.
It has taken something on the order of 2+ years to come close to commercial mass production of a 40" or greater LCD, when LCD is already a proven technology. In light of this, it seems especially silly when there was the hype about Motorola's alleged carbon-nanotube displays a few months back that were going to bring up $1000 50" flat panels by next year.
I will say that the principles in SED are not -- in my mind -- at all questionable. And the decade (or perhaps closer to two ) of research in FEDs -- a close cousin to SED -- makes the claims all the more believable. FED failed because it ultimately proved nearly impossible to manufacture cost effectively. SED is already in trouble on the same score due to another year of delay -- they only recently discussed mass production in 2005.
The moving target of lower pricing is the challenge that ultimately has done many pretenders to the throne and makes things like iFire's interesting inorganic EL display all the more unlikely to ever reach market. It means things like OLED not only have to reach big sizes (which is years away as recent hype was around a Casio 2" OLED for TVs!); not only have to reach 30,000+ hour lifetimes (which is likely to be achieved, but not yet close to real); but also have to come in cheaper than incumbents to push them out. That's a mammoth challenge, especially when the incumbents are reaching true scale economies.
I remain interested in SED and think it could be very important. But on this news, I'm a lot less interested. By 2006, there'll be real 50+" LCDs coming off of 7G fabs and increasingly inexpensive plasmas, quite possibly incorporating a next generation of technology. A 40" display, no matter how thin or low power, is going to have to be awfully special -- and awfully inexpensive -- to garner much notice and to justify selecting it over the competition.
I know its not radioactive, but a technical reader SHOULD interpret some of the info as such. A spontaneous electron emitter is a very bad thing and they arent using one, so the wording should be thought through a bit better!
This sort of thing is definitely interesting technically though. Think about our current displays..... most are totally classical in their scientific description. Even plasma/lcd/oleds can be described under classical physics. A display using tunnelling is totally new..... almost what quantum computing is to that which we currently know. plus a whole host of strange issues..... like heat...... get it too hot and your tunnelling probability for a given applied voltage will change.... dont know how they will get around things like that or if it would just be ignored. As you can tell, im fascinated already!
ad
ps. comparison of voltages is difficult since the electron production is done very differently. However, the electron energy would need to be the same since the method of photon production is the same as for crt, so you could say the voltages need be the same, def not less.
This sort of thing is definitely interesting technically though. Think about our current displays..... most are totally classical in their scientific description. Even plasma/lcd/oleds can be described under classical physics. A display using tunnelling is totally new..... almost what quantum computing is to that which we currently know. plus a whole host of strange issues..... like heat...... get it too hot and your tunnelling probability for a given applied voltage will change.... dont know how they will get around things like that or if it would just be ignored. As you can tell, im fascinated already!
ad
ps. comparison of voltages is difficult since the electron production is done very differently. However, the electron energy would need to be the same since the method of photon production is the same as for crt, so you could say the voltages need be the same, def not less.
Tunneling is not that radical. Nor that misunderstood -- probably understood at least as well as gravity (which, more accurately, is to say that neither is understood very well) -- it's just that people have much more first-hand experience with gravity.
As an example of this: Tunnel diodes are commonplace, cheap, and very reliable and accurate. You probably own a couple already. Nothing to get too worked up about.
As an example of this: Tunnel diodes are commonplace, cheap, and very reliable and accurate. You probably own a couple already. Nothing to get too worked up about.
Quote:
Scanning Tunneling Microscopes have been widely used for quite some time.
Why not a TV?
I guess reliability/robustness may be an issue. Only time will tell.
If you google the SED subject, you will see a quote from a Toshiba exec saying that at full ramp they can make an SED panel at 1/2 the cost of the plasma. Of course when they get to full ramp, the cost will be equal to plasma (assuming the exec's assertion is true). So, they better be better than plasma or else they will fail.
| Originally posted by buns So it is a tv that relies on fundamental physics, but physics which is well known to do strange things. |
Why not a TV?
I guess reliability/robustness may be an issue. Only time will tell.
If you google the SED subject, you will see a quote from a Toshiba exec saying that at full ramp they can make an SED panel at 1/2 the cost of the plasma. Of course when they get to full ramp, the cost will be equal to plasma (assuming the exec's assertion is true). So, they better be better than plasma or else they will fail.
And buns, where did you read anything about "spontaneous" electron emission? Here's what I read on the Canon site:
"Electron emission by SEDs is achieved through the simple construction of a slit between the electrodes."
Nothing radioactive here. Nothing spontaneous. Two electrodes with a voltage across them. And from what I can tell, much lower voltage and many fewer electrons than you'd find in a fluorescent lamp, or even the traditional CRT which this appears to be very similar to (regarding basic technology) in many many ways.
Relax, man. They are not trying to microwave our heads with these things.
"Electron emission by SEDs is achieved through the simple construction of a slit between the electrodes."
Nothing radioactive here. Nothing spontaneous. Two electrodes with a voltage across them. And from what I can tell, much lower voltage and many fewer electrons than you'd find in a fluorescent lamp, or even the traditional CRT which this appears to be very similar to (regarding basic technology) in many many ways.
Relax, man. They are not trying to microwave our heads with these things.
It's "radioactive" in the same sense that a CRT is "radioactive".
But it sure isn't likely to be dangerous at all.
The requirements of the deflecting "gun" in CRTs were such that massive shielding was required to protect us from the radiation. That's unlikely to be required here.
And air is your friend, as always. Sit a few feet away and the dangerous photons will never get to you. Your basement -- if you have one -- is likely far more radioactive than your TV room.
I don't think there is anything magical here with SED vis a vis technology except for keeping relatively gigantic plates a few nanometers apart in some reliable manner. It is genius if it works. There will be CRT-like picture quality, viewing angles, etc. There will be digital, pixel-level control and yet there will be a near perfect fill factor if the phosphors are painted broadly enough.
It will have equivalent burn-in risk to a CRT assuming the same phosphors but I believe the voltages will be much lower than in a CRT and than phosphor chemistry is on such a rapid curve that burn in will be banished from the lexicon by decade's end. CRT, plasma, SED, OLED all can "burn in" but how many really do?
But it sure isn't likely to be dangerous at all.
The requirements of the deflecting "gun" in CRTs were such that massive shielding was required to protect us from the radiation. That's unlikely to be required here.
And air is your friend, as always. Sit a few feet away and the dangerous photons will never get to you. Your basement -- if you have one -- is likely far more radioactive than your TV room.
I don't think there is anything magical here with SED vis a vis technology except for keeping relatively gigantic plates a few nanometers apart in some reliable manner. It is genius if it works. There will be CRT-like picture quality, viewing angles, etc. There will be digital, pixel-level control and yet there will be a near perfect fill factor if the phosphors are painted broadly enough.
It will have equivalent burn-in risk to a CRT assuming the same phosphors but I believe the voltages will be much lower than in a CRT and than phosphor chemistry is on such a rapid curve that burn in will be banished from the lexicon by decade's end. CRT, plasma, SED, OLED all can "burn in" but how many really do?
Quote:
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to sit too close to the TV?
Quote:
Yeah, that'll help narrow things down. Put rogo's name in there and you'll get every post ever posted on AVSForum.
Great to have you as a moderator, rogo!
| Originally posted by rogo It is no more "radioactive" than a tube TV. |
Quote:
| Originally posted by rogo And if you put my name in the user name field for the search, you'll find most of the threads. |
Great to have you as a moderator, rogo!
i think it was the pc pro thing and it said 'spontaneous light emission'. I was kidding you know! I was fully aware this wasnt driven by a nuclear reaction! I was picking key words which is what you tend to do when searching articles in which you dont specialise!
peebee,
I know the basics you state, but of course the 2 electrodes are nothing, its the voltage that does assists the tunnelling that is important. The electrode voltages cant be low though..... the process of liberating a photon is energetic, you cant just do it with a lower voltage, it wont work! And quantity of electrons is direcly proportional to photons..... if you have less electrons, you have less photons hence less light output.
A tunnel diode is a totally different story, its very simple in comparison, it needs alot less ability to control. To do the SED, they would need to know the exact form of the potential well, as far as i know, models are still known to be wrong. Unless of course they are doing it experimentally....
and an SEM..... well have you used one lately? I have and breakdowns are not uncommon! Add to that that they are not exactly things which any old tech can fix....
Im just saying that a tunnelling device that requires this degree of control is really quite an achievement. I dont think the physics of it is understood well enough to better existing displays
ad
peebee,
I know the basics you state, but of course the 2 electrodes are nothing, its the voltage that does assists the tunnelling that is important. The electrode voltages cant be low though..... the process of liberating a photon is energetic, you cant just do it with a lower voltage, it wont work! And quantity of electrons is direcly proportional to photons..... if you have less electrons, you have less photons hence less light output.
A tunnel diode is a totally different story, its very simple in comparison, it needs alot less ability to control. To do the SED, they would need to know the exact form of the potential well, as far as i know, models are still known to be wrong. Unless of course they are doing it experimentally....
and an SEM..... well have you used one lately? I have
and breakdowns are not uncommon! Add to that that they are not exactly things which any old tech can fix....Im just saying that a tunnelling device that requires this degree of control is really quite an achievement. I dont think the physics of it is understood well enough to better existing displays
ad
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
