Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

GE Reaches OLED Milestone 220

Posted by timothy from the lightsource-lust dept.
swordboy writes "General Electric recently announced the largest and most efficient OLED panel ever created. The 24 inch square panel emits 1200 lumens with a power consumption of about 80 watts - on par with today's incandescent bulbs. This represents the first fruit from the NIST project with ECD Ovonics. The ultimate goal is a cheap, flexible display and lighting technology that can function with an efficiency of 100 lumens per watt. This would make great wallpaper." (And, I hope, a great backlight for laptops.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GE Reaches OLED Milestone More

GE Reaches OLED Milestone

Comments Filter:

  • Ahem.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by alphakappa ( 687189 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:38AM (#8507662) Homepage
    This would make great wallpaper."

    I can't wait to play Doom in a real house ;-)

  • Hmm, organic LED? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:43AM (#8507687)
    Please explain... does this mean they spray pesticides on regular LEDs?

  • Better yet... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:46AM (#8507691)
    I think it would make great contact lenses!
  • How does the output of 1200 lumens from 80 watts input compare to a conventional bulb's output? To a fluorescent bulb's output?

    • Re:I've RTFAed, but I can't see... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jefe7777 ( 411081 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:58AM (#8507746) Journal
      Edison's first bulb >>> 1.4 lumens per watt

      Modern 60 Watt bulb >>> 960 lumens

      from here

      http://www.ysartglass.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Bulbs /L B26efficient.htm

      .

    • Re:I've RTFAed, but I can't see... (Score:5, Informative)

      by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:04AM (#8507773) Journal
      A 100 watt incanscent light bulb puts out about 1600 lumens. or ~16 Lumen/watt

      OLED 1200l/80w = 15 Lumen/watt

      A compact florescent is ~1750l/29w = 60 Lumen/watt

      cold cathode tubes are at about 65l/w

      So these OLEDs have a long way to go effieciency wise before we get them in our portable computers.

      • Re:I've RTFAed, but I can't see... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bender_ ( 179208 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:20AM (#8507827) Journal

        Yes, but in a TFT display you lose close to 90% of your light to the TFT and Liquid Crystal panel. So if your backlights efficiency is 60 lumen/W the total display efficiency is more like 6 lumen/W, even neglecting the the power consumption for the panel..

        • I may be mistaking an expansion for a rebuttal... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Crazy Eight ( 673088 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @07:05AM (#8508480)
          but I don't see how your observation detracts from the parent posters point. Unless the "light box" (I don't know the technical term) that converts the cylindrical CCFL source into one big flat 2D source via diffusion is incredibly lossy you're still dealing with the efficiency of the source itself. LCDs are light shutters. Their emissive efficiency depends on the source of white light. The advantage of tacking light emissive wallpaper on the back of an LCD would lie in its relative simplicity, lighter weight, lack of a high volta ge inverter/ballast, and thinner depth. Until OLED bulb-paper can match the power efficiency of the current design it offers no advantage whatsoever. 6 L/W wont cut it just because it's flat. You'll either get 1/10th the brightness or 1/10 the battery life.
        • Well said, and it shows that it is developments in LCD technology, or its replacement by something else (probably not yet devised) that would bring the most tangible benefit.

          The strange thing is that if you made the screen from LEDs, with a miniature lens on each pixel so the light goes mostly where it is wanted, the efficiency would be more than double that of the LCD plus backlight!

          Has technology taken a wrong turn here, I wonder.

          The problem with using LEDs simplistically is that without the lens, the lig

        • Yes, but in a TFT display you lose close to 90% of your light to the TFT and Liquid Crystal panel. So if your backlights efficiency is 60 lumen/W the total display efficiency is more like 6 lumen/W, even neglecting the the power consumption for the panel..

          That just isn't true. Liquid crystal display backlighs emit polarized light which all but eliminates wasted light. The issue with LCDs is that the backlight is constantly on, even when a pixel is "dark". Organic light emitting devices (diodes if you pr

    • Re:I've RTFAed, but I can't see... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tiger99 ( 725715 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @01:20PM (#8511527)
      The sad thing is that over the years some stupid measures of light have been invented. I have a degree in physics, yet have never known what a lumen is, because it is not a physicists unit, and probably not an engineers unit either. I assume that it is a marketing unit, as it is often applied to LCD projectors, one of 1800 lumens being said to be much more powerful than one of only 1700, although in fact the difference visually is negligible, and swamped by lamp ageing anyway.

      What really matters is that the energy will divide 3 ways, heat (bad), out of band light (UV, very bad, IR just bad) and visible light. (For the pedantic, there may also be a trace of acoustic or RF emissions, but in either case a small fraction of a watt would have such nuisance value that it would not be allowed.) You need to know what fraction of the energy is visible, and the spectral distribution, is it white or an aceptable approximation?

      AFAIK, a normal LED can get to about 22% (depending on colour) while a high-efficiency fluorescent can get about 70%, but these figures will have changed since my brain had its last update.

      There will be a definite limit imposed by the laws of physics, normal LEDs are hitting this now, and despite what one may read in the press, will not ever replace fluorescents for general lighting. They are not even appropriate for bicycle headlights, for which they are sold, and are utterly inappropraite for car headlights, despite the best efforts of one of the more incompetent European lighting manufacturers. In both cases an optimised gas discharge source of some sort (i.e. fluorescent) would be best, preferably not like these vile headlights with the excessive UV content used by BMW, which surprisingly has not yet landed them in court. (It will.....) In fact they are struggling to get double the efficiency of quartz-halogen, which is only a bit better than normal tungsten. I don't know the physics of an OLED, but it will have a definite limit, and I suspect will not be particularly impressive.

      Factor in cost and life, and general use of these things will be a long way off, none of which is intended to denigrate the good work which has gone into the concept in any way. Research like this should be done, the mistake is to allow the marketing men to create expectations which cannot be satisfied due to the physics.

      I will be sticking to the highest efficiency miniature fluorescents for my domestic lighting, probably for a long time, but when something which is actually better comes along, I will make the change willingly. It was a no-brainer to replace ordinary tungsten bulbs with fluorescents, it will need a bit of thought next time, because there is not nearly as much scope left for efficiency improvement, since you can't get to 100%.

      • According to this link [maxim-ic.com], LEDs with 'drive efficiencies' greater than 90% are available - this is just the first link I picked.
        IIRC LEDs in general are the most efficient common light source available, and the longest lasting. Friends in the volunteer fire department use LED flashlights now, because their brightness is the same as regular flashlights but they can be left 'on' for almost a month before wearing the battery down. That's about 240 times better energy efficiency.
        • LEDs with 'drive efficiencies' greater than 90% are available

          Actually the drive efficiency is referring to the power converter (similar in concept to a wall wart used for a lot of consumer electronics) used to power the LED. It has nothing to do with the LED itself. What that press release is actually saying is that you have lost ~5% of your power before it even gets to the LED. Since LEDs are DC powered, the complete system will always have an additional conversion efficiency hit compared to lights t
    • I guess some posts just never go out of style;

      Lumens/Watt Light Source
      14.5 60W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite (standard bulb)
      17.5 100W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite
      17.5 Tungsten Halogen Single-End SUPER-Q Frosted Finish D.C. Bay 100Watt
      60 150W single ended compact metal halide lamp
      64 250W mogul based metal halide lamp, clear
      84 32W, 48" MOL, T8 OCTRON fluorescent lamp,
      100 Sylvania 18 watt low pressure sodium
      115 1000W dual arc-tube high pressure sodium lamp, clear
      150

  • The ultimate goal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by toesate ( 652111 )

    means that it is still a long long wait..

    The ultimate goal is to create sheets of paper-thin lighting devices that can be applied to surfaces in a similar way to wallpapering. Moving forward, in order to accomplish this and bring the product to market, GE needs to make the device even more efficient - eventually reach 100 lumens per watt - as well as develop a low-cost production system.

  • Well... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wiser87 ( 742455 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:54AM (#8507721) Homepage
    And, I hope, a great backlight for laptops.

    Actually, they would make up the main part of the screen assembly. OLEDs show color, as well as producing light (hence there will no longer be a need for a backlight).
    • Obviously you didn't read the article. The one described is a large flat source of white light. OLEDs -can- be linked together to form a display, but this could also be used as a replacement backlight. Most current backlights are either heavy or weak.

  • Needs efficiency AND durability (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PoisonousPhat ( 673225 ) <`foblich' `at' `netscape.net'> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:54AM (#8507723)
    That's good that they are winning the efficiency battle, but if "OLEDs begin to fade after 3,000-to-4,000 hours" vs LCDs which "generally have a life expectancy of around 100,000 hours", then we are still very much in the interesting-but-not-quite-useable stage as far as computing is concerned. However, they seem to be fine as light bulb replacements, especially if production costs are low. Note that my figures are from an article from August 2003 [space.com]. Anyone have more recent statistics?
    • On the other hand, if the thing was cheap enough and modular enough, you could just throw a replacement display into your laptop every couple months. I know, I know ... not good for the landfills. But hey, at least its organic.

    • Re:Needs efficiency AND durability (Score:4, Informative)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:45AM (#8508052) Homepage
      "OLEDs begin to fade after 3,000-to-4,000 hours" vs LCDs which "generally have a life expectancy of around 100,000 hours"

      I was under the impression that LCD displays have an indefinite lifespan if the CCFT is accessable for replacement. The average CCFT bulb costs less than $13 from JKL Lamps [jkllamps.com] and is a pretty inexpensive way to keep an LCD monitor going.
    • ...if "OLEDs begin to fade after 3,000-to-4,000 hours" vs LCDs which "generally have a life expectancy of around 100,000 hours", then we are still very much in the interesting-but-not-quite-useable stage as far as computing is concerned.

      Not quite sure about that. What if the costs bring it down to the point where once your OLED begins to fade, you slide out the screen and replace it with a fresh one like just another part of your comp?

  • Lifespan? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrdrivel ( 742076 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:55AM (#8507726)
    One of the main problems with OLEDs it that they begin to fade after 10,000 hrs or so. Any ideas on how long this panel lasts? The PR piece makes it sound like the only outstanding problems are making it "cheaper" and increasing its output per watt.
    • That's a lot better than your average tungsten filament lightbulb.
    • - and their reps switched it out every night because it was fading that fast.

      Not all OLED have these problems, but certainly when they go for a show, you'd better have some backups ;-)

  • Fahrenheit 451 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrLudicrous ( 607375 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:55AM (#8507730) Homepage
    Does this remind anyone of Fahrenheit 451 at all? The houses in the book had walls that were actually like TV's. I can imagine an array of LCD panels that are backlit via this type of technology being used as a wall TV. Imagine [insert FPS of your choice] on a small wall, say 15'x10'...

    • Re:Fahrenheit 451 (Score:3, Informative)

      by djdanlib ( 732853 )
      If you don't want to wait, you could build a simple Fresnel lens projector for around $40. Get some foam board for mounting, some kind of gaffer's tape or duct tape, and a cheap sheet lens - and fill your wall with your monitor/tv image. Sure, it's not a "smart" wall, but it's a whole lot cheaper and you own some of the parts already.

      Well, that's assuming you can rotate your screen image 180 degrees without breaking your monitor. These lenses do invert images, and I won't get into optical science. AFAIK NV

      • Re:Fahrenheit 451 (Score:3, Informative)

        by cr0sh ( 43134 )
        Actually, the problem with flipping a monitor in any other direction than what it was meant to be in is two-fold:

        First off, the monitor is designed to radiate heat away from the tube and controlling electronics (which typically sit at the "bottom" of the monitor case). Flipping the monitor upside down effectively cooks the electronics, unless you re-orient them, or put in place forced-air cooling (aka, a fan).

        Secondly, there is the issue of support - that is, the tube is held in place by various parts with

    • Get a projector, and that's every-day gaming :-P
    • That's what swordboy meant by "wallpaper" - specifically I'm guessing he's thinking of Vinge, rather than Bradbury.
    • Small wall?

      Man, my house must be really small. I don't think I have a single wall in my house that's 15'x10' that doesn't have a window onit..... :(

  • Flourescents put out 80 lumens per watt (Score:3, Informative)

    by andersen ( 10283 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:56AM (#8507734) Homepage
    Flourescents easily put out 60 to 90 lumens per watt. Low Pressure Sodium lamps of the sort used for outdoor lighting put out around 180 lumens per watt. So remind me again why NIST is spending our tax dollars developing OLEDs?

    • Re:Flourescents put out 80 lumens per watt (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LoveTheIRS ( 726310 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:09AM (#8507790) Homepage Journal
      Because Oled's can be used as power efficent computer monitors( ie laptop monitors), and televisions. It definately has applications in mobile military functions (that computer screen thing again). It promises to be extremely cheap because they can produce it in huge sheets like construction paper. It has the ability to be extremely flexible, as in saran wrap. Also, OLEDs are are brightness adjustable. Sodium lamps throw out 10's of thousands of lumens with no way to dim it. ------- I am excited about these Oleds.

    • Re:Flourescents put out 80 lumens per watt (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:11AM (#8507797) Journal
      Because unlike any of the other technologies, these things are thin and flexible(in form and function). I don't think you'd find it very easy to wrap a HPS lamp around a barricade divider at an off-ramp, or along the rear bumper of a construction vehicle. You can print an oled in the shapes you want instead of having to put a light behind a mask.
    • So how are you going to make a computer display with a low pressure sodium lamp, which has a very narrow spectrum (so narrow that they are being abandoned for use in streelights in preference to the less efficient HP sodium lamp or mercury vapour lamp). Or perhaps light a room?

      OLEDs are being designed to solve a different problem than HID lamps were made to solve.
    • ... because OLEDs are immature, and fluorescents have many limitations- they tend to be bulky (even the compact ones), they arguably don't have great color, they contain some mercury...

  • But what about the real problem? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gubbe ( 705219 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @02:58AM (#8507747)
    OLEDs die.
    I was under the assumption that this was the main reason holding OLED displays back. Now it would seem that the panel described here is only for lighting purposes (white light only, no colors or even pixels for that matter), but presumably it will still die or at least dim after a few thousand hours of use.
    I recognize that this is not a major problem with cell phone displays and such, but if you plan on building the lighting of your house with these, you won't be too happy if next year or the year after that you get only 300 lumens instead of the promised 1200.

    • Re:But what about the real problem? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ttsalo ( 126195 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:15AM (#8507815)
      OLEDs die.

      I'm pretty sure the first HID (high-intensity discharge) lamps weren't exactly long-lived either, but they're all over the place (in selected applications) now. Besides, if they can make a machine to just spit out OLED lighting sheet by the yard, it'll be mucho cheap.

      By the way, if the voltage is comparable to conventional LEDs, high-wattage OLED sheets are going to require completely silly power supplies. Or some sort of series-connected sheet assemblies.

      --

    • their life can be extended dramatically by blinking them at ~60hz. they have a better lifetime than the electroluminesent panels used in older laptops and most cheaper consumer LCD displays.

      the cool part is that OLED's dont require 120volts at 400hz to illuminate so they are very useful for many lcd backlights that are on at most 3-4 minutes a day... like in your remote control, your Mp3 player backlight, your watch, etc....
      • their life can be extended dramatically by blinking them at ~60hz.

        Oww! How about something a little faster, so it's not perceptible to humans? This flicker is one of the most annoying problems with (non-digital-balast) fluorescent lights. Let's not have that in new-technology lights.
    • it will still die or at least dim after a few thousand hours of use

      But you probably find it acceptable that your car goes to the landfill after 2-3000 hours of usage. And many cellphones get trown away within two years.

      Anyway, a lightbulb is not doing much more than those few thousand hours, so if the OLED is cheap enough, then a lifetime of a few thousand hours will be OK. At least for many applications that are not "on" 24/7.

  • A look back... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ryen ( 684684 )
    Often, one has to stop and think where we are with technology, and how far we've come. Considering that this seemingly "advanced" bulb is ages away from the prototypes of Edison and Swan [maxmon.com] and to think where we will be (or where our grandchildren will be), in another 100 years from now, is fascinating.

  • OLED's (Score:5, Informative)

    by HyperMeson ( 735404 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:06AM (#8507780)
    The semiconductor industry hadthe same liftime problems in its development of Gallium, Germanum and Silicon as substrates. This was found to be a problem of controlling impurities in a precise manner. Oxygen is usually the culprit. Same for Organic Semiconductors (OLED) tech.

  • Impact to the environment ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by toofanx ( 679091 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:29AM (#8507848) Journal
    I wonder how much coal, water and other materials are required to create one clean 80W monitor ;).

  • Perhaps for High Dynamic Range LCDs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anubis333 ( 103791 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:32AM (#8507858) Homepage
    I remember seeing an HDR display at siggraph, it was 30 times brighter than any commercially available display technology while producing a black that is 10 times darker. They used an array of bright LEDs behind the monitor.

    ..the ratio is 60,000:1 from the darkest to the lightest portion of the screen. Compare this to the 600:1 contrast ratio LCD monitors that are offered currently.

    If you don't know anything about HDR, check out this information [siggraph.org] from Siggraph 2003.
    Soon, you may not want to render directly into the sun, you may go blind.

  • Hot wallpaper... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:37AM (#8507870) Homepage
    The 24 inch square panel emits 1200 lumens with a power consumption of about 80 watts ... This would make great wallpaper.

    Let's see, 20W per square foot... 160W per foot of wall (assuming 8' ceilings)... that's around 5kW just for an 8' x 8' room.

    They'll need to get the power consumption way down before this is useful for wallpaper.

    • Re:Hot wallpaper... and a bit bright (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jobbegea ( 748685 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:56AM (#8507921)
      but 75000 lumens would seem to be a bit overdoing it for a 8'x8' room.
      • But that is still pretty crappy in terms of efficiency. HMI film lights put out more than 75 lumens per watt. A 5,000 watt HMI (pretty common for film work...they come in 18kw) puts out 375,000 lumens with less power than your proposed wallpaper. Of course, its still way more power than you get from a wall socket and enough heat to make it very dangerous...

    • Hot wallpaper... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ttsalo ( 126195 )
      This would be great for waking you up in the dark winter months! I have a 400-watt HID lamp putting out 35klumens for that now, but a couple of kW of wallpaper would be even better. Nicer light and less UV.

      --

    • Re:Hot wallpaper... (Score:5, Informative)

      by djdanlib ( 732853 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:39AM (#8508214) Homepage
      I think you meant 'per square foot of wall', right? And did you take into account 4, 5, or 6 of the faces of a cube? Minus windows and doors?

      The amount of light this would put out would be enormous. Figuring about half a million lumens (which are not exactly a measurement of intensity, like lux or footcandles would be) you're looking at the equivalent of around 120 of those 100W fluorescent tubes. That kind of light is what lights an entire large department store like K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples or Media Play to appreciable brightness. If all that light were concentrated upon one spot, that spot would be something around 500 times brighter than a bright white cloud on a sunny day at noon. (The cloud would be 3,500 footlambert, or 1,114 candela/square foot) The darkest object you would be able to see with that in your vision (assuming your eyes could adjust to such intense light levels) would still be brighter than daylight. You would pretty much go blind instantly when you flipped the light switch. But you could light up an entire department store / street with it.

    • The 24 inch square panel emits 1200 lumens with a power consumption of about 80 watts ... This would make great wallpaper.

      Let's see, 20W per square foot... 160W per foot of wall (assuming 8' ceilings)... that's around 5kW just for an 8' x 8' room.

      As I recall, a foot is 12 inches. A square foot is 1 ft x 1 ft which is equivalent to 12 in x 12 in = 144 sq. in / sq. ft.

      Now if the article states it uses 80 W / 24 sq. in, then it would be 6x more watts for a whole 144 sq. in area (the area of 1 square f

  • OLDE's (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HyperMeson ( 735404 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @03:38AM (#8507875)
    Organic Semiconductor tech can use self-organizing and/or assembling nanotech procedures. This uses water and other raws. Using rather than fighting physical self-organizing trends of our Universe seems like a good approach. Don't fight Entropy - Use it.

  • OLED's (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HyperMeson ( 735404 )
    More succinctly: dont't fight Thermodymanics, use it.
  • Why do GE get all proud about this phrase "with a power consumption of about 80 watts - on par with today's incandescent bulbs". Today's incandescent bulbs which are about 5 times less efficient than compact fluorescents, well hurray hurray for GE, I can't wait until they announce "a new xyz processor on a par with todays 486".

  • Now you see me.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by photonX ( 743718 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:20AM (#8507988)
    Can you say daylight stealth? Cover the bottom of a military jet or helicopter with OLED panels, then emit the same color as the surrounding sky. Or tanks. Or ships. Or....

    Kodak, for one, has a fairly new camera with a pretty big (for a camera) OLED display, not to mention a 10x optical lens.

    • This is _exactly_ what I need for my new Aston Martin!
    • > Can you say daylight stealth? Cover the bottom of a military jet or helicopter with OLED panels, then emit the same color as the surrounding sky.
      ---
      My stinger is color-blind

    • Re:Now you see me.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by awol ( 98751 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:57AM (#8508271) Journal
      There was a show on the BBC (perhaps "Science Shack", but at least the same presenter, Adam Hart-Davies... a little more research [google is your friend] shows it was Science Shack, programme 2, http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/image-bank/programmes .asp) in which they went through a few techniques to make yourself invisible. The image from the program in the link above is the "mirrored suit", which when you are in a forest actually kinda works. However, they did actually make a car with an industrial strength active display on one side and cameras on the other side to capture what was behind the vehicle and show it on the screen. Really cool. It worked. As a stationary vehicle it was almost impossible to see (they had "experts" to try and spot it in the forest). However as it moved the vehicle was easier to spot. All in all a really cool attempt to show how such technology does (and does not) work.
      • What I don't understand with this method of concealment is, the image that has to be projected depends on the viewer's position (ie perspective: you need to project a different image if the "enemy" is 5 meters away than if it's 300 meters away)

        An asian professor (Japanese? Korean? Can't remember) developed a suit that made him "invisible" -sort of. For the moment it depends on an external projector, but as soon as luminous fabrics are ready -real soon now!- we will be able to buy clothes that make us trans
    • You wouldn't have the resolution to fool people properly. Creating stealth in this manner is nigh-on impossible with everything under your control. Trying to use it on enemy troops would be ridiculous.
    • (And, I hope, a great backlight for laptops.)
    The backlight system on the Nintendo Gameboy Advance SP [nintendo.com] is simply a thin-film LED which coats the 240x160 pixel screen. When the backlight is on, it illuminates the pane which exists between the display layer(s) and the front of the device (or the user's 'eye'). The system is highly effective, and very simple to implement. Better for laptops, too, maybe.
  • This is great news for all those case modders out there. Instead of blue neon lighting around the edges, you can cover the entire case in a OLED sheet. Imagine the possibilities!

    OLEC - Organic Light Emitting Case.

  • Just to add some perspective here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LenE ( 29922 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @11:15AM (#8510323) Homepage
    The 24 inch square panel emits 1200 lumens with a power consumption of about 80 watts - on par with today's incandescent bulbs.


    A H7 halogen headlight bulb, which draws 55 Watts of power at ~13 V, produces 1700 lumens. This is at the forefront of incandescent efficiency, producing 31 lumens per Watt, in a capsule that is about 1/2" x 1/4". This OLED is half as efficient, power consumption wise, and ~1/6500 as intense.

    When you compare it to gaseous plasma lighting, it looks even worse. A DS2 HID bulb produces ~3100 lumens at 35 Watts. This is about 90 lumens/Watt, almost six times more efficient and nearly 48,000 times as intense.

    I realize that these automotive bulbs are designed for something completely different than the OLED panels, but you have to compare these disparate technologies to assess how far the developing technology has to go, to be economically feasible. The reason I brought up the arc lamp, is because it is similar technology to the cold cathode lamps used for current laptop backlighting. True, an OLED display doesn't need backlighting, but it would have to be both more cost and power efficient than the conventional LCD + cold cathode lamp to displace the established technology. With the current state of this technology, it appears as though it still has a very long way to go, just to catch-up to the status quo.

    I'm sure that there will be a company that will throw something similar to this into a laptop soon, and people will buy them because it is new and different. Will it be considered better?

    Geek 1: "I have this new type of display, that's better than yours because it's OLED"
    Geek 2: "Is it on? Why is it so dim?"
    Geek 1: "It doesn't need a backlight like yours does and I can read it fine in the dark!"
    Geek 2: "It feels like it's radiating heat."
    Geek 1: "Yeah maybe, but that might be the 5.7 GHz. Xeon processor. Your laptop doesn't have that!"
    Geek 2: "You're right, but I don't need to plug my laptop in all of the time."

    With the geek laptops out there like the Alienware ones, I'm sure that the groundwork of expecting a laptop to be tethered to a wall socket has been well laid.

    -- Len
  • It is kind of OT, but it is still about lighting.

    Does anyone use full spectrum lights? Are they worth it?

    I get two conflicting messages while reading about the subj on the Internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close