The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Printed TV: DuPont has developed new printing techniques that could make OLED screens larger and less expensive.
DuPont
DuPont has developed a printing process to bring down the cost of high-performance displays.
Organic light emitting diode, or OLED, displays seem to have it all: energy efficiency and a beautiful, crisp picture that refreshes rapidly. But it's difficult to make them on a large scale, so OLED televisions remain very expensive. Last week, DuPont Displays announced the development of a manufacturing process that the company says can be used to print large, high-performance OLED televisions at volumes that should bring down costs. Using a custom-made printer from Japanese manufacturer Dainippon Screen, DuPont says it can print a 50 inch-television in under two minutes, and testing of the displays shows their performance is reliable--the displays should last 15 years.
Display makers have struggled to scale up the manufacturing of OLEDs while maintaining high performance and low costs. "The key question is, when you scale up, does the cost per square inch drop or go up?" says William Feehery, president of DuPont Displays.
OLEDs on the market today rely on an expensive, small-scale technique called shadow-mask evaporation to pattern the light-emitting organic molecules that make up the pixels in these displays. LG's 15-inch OLED television, the biggest on the market, is set to come out in the United States this year at a cost of $2,725. At these prices, OLEDs can't compete with liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), which are relatively inexpensive because manufacturers can make them at large volumes.
One of the most promising alternatives to shadow-mask deposition is printing, which is compatible with manufacturing large screens. But printing is difficult to do reliably, and the resulting devices have lagged behind the performance and durability of those made using conventional techniques. It's been a major materials challenge to develop inks that won't bleed during the printing process, that have the desired electrical and optical properties, and that don't deteriorate over time.
OLED displays are made up of 12 to 15 layers of materials. In each pixel the red, green, and blue light-emitting materials are positioned side by side and sandwiched between materials that bring electrical current in and out of the device and that allow light to leave it. When these layers blend together during printing, device performance suffers.
DuPont has addressed this problem by using active molecules in the inks used to print each layer that are insoluble in the inks used to print the adjacent layers. This is more complex than it may sound, says Feehery. "Each of these materials is a major development effort on its own, and having to tie it to the ones above and below it imposes a lot of constraints," he says.
The company worked with Dainippon Screen to develop a multi-nozzle printer for the new inks. "The Dainippon printer works like a garden hose," says Feehery. It generates a continuous stream of ink, rather than droplets, and moves over a surface at rates of four to five meters per second while patterning a display. DuPont says that its red, green, and blue OLED materials can make displays that will last 15 years. (Reliability over time has been a concern for printed OLEDs.)
Feehery says DuPont's process is simple enough to compete on cost with LCDs. "Now we can say it works, and is worth scaling up," says Feehery. DuPont will license the manufacturing process and sell the materials to display manufacturers.
The company will face competition, though. Many other companies are working on OLED inks, including Universal Display Corporation in the United States, Merck in Germany, and Sumitomo Chemical in Japan. And Kateeva, a startup in Menlo Park, CA, is developing OLED-printing equipment that combines the volume of ink-jet printing with the performance of devices made through shadow-mask fabrication.
We need ever cheaper and more energy efficient displays. It seems that the display industry will eventually settle on two display technologies, active and passive. The former is great for indoor use, vibrant colors and fast updates while the latter is more suited to the outdoors, slow refresh and extremely high energy efficiency. Which of the various approaches will win in the end is still hard to guess but the display business is an exciting one to be in at this time.
I fail to see the point in developing a technology that doesnt improve on anything. Do you really think everyone is going to have a 200inch tv in every room in there house even if they were 500 dollars each?
er NO.
Assuming they know this...and im sure they do then im assuming they were developing this technology for another purpose than reinventing the wheel...
I dont see any mention of what that is...only a mention of reliablilty but no figure on the reliability of our common lcd/plasmas.
Now assuming this technology is really about reliability and return on investment rather than outright cost, id expect you to at least furnish us with the answers so we dont need to ask or go hunting for ourselves.
This sounds so stupid to me, i am outta words.
Do you know what an oled is?
Its flexible, it´s less toxic in recycling, it has a milliontimes better contrast, it´s power consumtion pwns every lcd/led tv, and now it´s cheap!
Pefect!
Maybe you should have read about the technology before writing rubbish.
Okay you failed to read the "should" bring costs down. It certinaly did not say they would be cheaper or as cheap as lcd displays.
So they are allegedly better we can agree on that but what resolution or contract rate or comparable common identifier can the new tv do that current lcd technology cant, figures please?
Someone saying a million times better...thats about as useful as..er sorry its not useful at all.
Did you know a study was done that sat people down in front of a standard digital tv and showed them a movie, but told them it was a high definition movie. At the end of the movie they were all saying that high definition was better than standard dvd's when the whole time they had been watching a standard dvd. What does this mean...it could mean that viewers of tv's don't care because the picture they are getting is good enough already...or they cant tell.
What part of a tv is toxic?
Cant be anywhere near as toxic as todays "green" lightbulbs that have mercury in them..and you have how many in your house?
Flexible? im not sure i see where youre going with this. Do you expect people to roll them up at night and put them away in a cupboard or something? Because touch screens already exist and touch sensitive screens for 20 years or so.
Okay power, Tvs used to use very little power when they werent used because people switched them off. But i can agree that its a step forward if less power is consumed with each generation of improvement.
oled had in fact a much better contrast rate since the single pixels can be not only dimmed but "switched off". the black to white contrast is very high - if you read about 400.000 to 1 it is dynamic contrast not static. led increases it but it can reach oled.
sorry, when i talked about toxic elements i meant those that are used for the production. the finished lcd might not contain them, but they are used. and additionaly tons of co2 released during the production.
oled again is much "greener" in production.
Green light bulbs in my house ->> 0. i read technology review and was aware when the eu started forcing us to use them.
But i have some nice led-lights.
And yes, i know the study, and i know the effect. But. If you compare oled to a usual display it´s just amazing. it´s not the same because it´s not subjective. You already can see this in videos as you surely know.
But my digicam has an oled, an the display is a big advantage.
i am very lucky with it. And since i knew the difference, i wouldn´t buy a cell phone with a usual dispaly anymor.
regards.
Thanks, turning pixels off would indeed make a clearer picture.
Be interesting to know if digital movies these days are edited to the point where each supposed black pixel is set to 0 in the rgb fields so this feature works.
Or will the "black" pixel have a threshold value? Almost black is black if you get my meaning.
You're not stupid, just ignorant. Lots of applications for NEW stuff. Think high-def wallpaper.
I dont think the tv will be as big in the futureas it is today. Already people are watching movies on computers, their phones and little screens.
A very high quality small screen for phones and computers is great. Because contrast is important...for small icons and on screen buttons...
But, do i expect the kids of the future to be sitting down watching movies in the lounge with family...i don't think so.
Tvs could be reduced to a high cost, low volume market in the future and the phone the low cost high volume mainstream viewing medium.
Have a look at Microsoft's 'Project Natal' on YouTube and see why people will want large TVs in the future.
Project Natal is going to be the start of a new science in merging Computer user interfacing in the home.
Give it 10 years and it wouldn't surprise me if we have large TVs to interact with virtual people or even people's avatars that look life-size.
Its along the same lines of a technology i thought about 10+ years ago called the ibubble.
A self enclosed 3d environment for gamers using cameras and curved 3d screens. I didnt bother pursuing it back then because the cost of putting a pod into someones house just for gaming was a little dear.
I still think the cost is too much and in another 10 years as you say we may not even require it.
They could have projected images so doing away with the whole 3d screens... perhaps.
Project Natal is a step closer to it though. It looks good.
found a plasma with great specs
Looking around i saw a plasma with 2million:1 dynamic contrast and a response time of 0.001ms.
Thats pretty impressive compared to the lcd screens, though to me the pictures look almost identical with different stats.
I still think another reader said it best when they said that this technology was late to market.
Re: found a plasma with great specs
Plasmas' never had problem with fast response time, their colors are, actually were, more vivid and the panel inside more durable than lcd, until the year 2007, anyways now lcd are able to compete on the color turf with the plasmas. oled on the other hand could be a formidable challenger to plasmas, if their prices come down.
This manufacturing process seems to be very significant to the advancement of practical use of OLED for indoor lighting. If you dig a little you will find that PHOLED has been demonstrated as a future low-power white light source by Philips, GE, Seimens and others. The problem that needs to be solved is low-cost manufacturing and reliability. This new process should extend to help resolve other thin-film manufacturing processes for developing flexible and efficient thin-film solar-arrays, etc. It is also very exciting to see that there is competition in this manufacturing technique, and points to a future growth electronics industry beyond the obvious graphic display applications.
Holodeck - we're almost there!
Forget one large TV -- lets make 6 gigantic TVs - totally redefine the concept of a 'media room'. No more commuting to work or traveling for business.
What is the source of this article?
I followed these links back to DuPont's pages and can't find any announcement about printing a 50-inch TV screen at all. I spent a lot of time on this (but I didn't actually call DuPont and ask them), maybe forty minutes reading each press release looking for details.
Is this a made-up story?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
Guest (aarontco)
typo alert
The caption says, "...larger and much *more* less expensive. Credit: DuPont "
As cool as this technology sounds, I think only one superlative is necessary to describe it :D.
Reply
Brittany Sauser
46 Comments
Re: typo alert
aarontco,
Thanks for you comment! I have fixed the typo.
Brittany
TR Web Producer
Reply