«

The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).

This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
come down (which may be likely)...

Check it out...

http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/

Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and Plasma
though.


"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
news:...
> The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
> developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
> this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
> mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
>
> This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the
prices
> come down (which may be likely)...
>
> Check it out...
>
> http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
>
>

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:22:39 -0500, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
<> wrote:

>The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
>developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
>this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
>mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
>
>This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
>come down (which may be likely)...
>
>Check it out...
>
>http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
-------------------
Neat!

It will be interesting to see if they can get the pixel resolution as
fine as they say.
Clay
"Abe" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:22:39 -0500, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
> <> wrote:
>
> >The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display,
being
> >developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I
actually had
> >this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise
(not to
> >mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
> >
> >This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if
the prices
> >come down (which may be likely)...
> >
> >Check it out...
> >
> >http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
> -------------------
> Neat!
>

"Ed T" <> wrote in message
news:414b8c32$...
> Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and
> Plasma
> though.

probably more in line with direct view CRT burn, which is lower than PDP or
RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.

"Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-...
>
> "Ed T" <> wrote in message
> news:414b8c32$...
> > Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and
> > Plasma
> > though.
>
> probably more in line with direct view CRT burn, which is lower than PDP
or
> RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.

What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP phosphors?

Leonard

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
> news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-...
>
>
>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
>
>
> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP phosphors?
>

If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

"Matthew L. Martin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
>> news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-...
>>
>>
>>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
>>
>>
>> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
>> phosphors?
>>
>
> If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
> stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
>
> Matthew


the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron phosphors
(rp/crt)

yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot

"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
news:...
> The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
> developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
> this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
> mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
>
> This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the
> prices
> come down (which may be likely)...
>
> Check it out...
>
> http://www.canon.com/technology/deta...e/sed_display/
>

Field-emission Displays (FED) have been proposed for a number of years:

http://optics.org/articles/news/8/7/29/1

Progress has been slow because of several technical hurdles. However, it
does sound like Cannon and Toshiba are overcoming some of the problems.

Neil
Salem, MA USA

"Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
news:v7ydnZ2OyIZAftHcRVn-...
>
> "Matthew L. Martin" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>>> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
>>> news:9-mdnf36-ZvO7dHcRVn-...
>>>
>>>
>>>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
>>> phosphors?
>>>
>>
>> If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
>> stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
>>
>> Matthew
>
>
> the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron
> phosphors (rp/crt)
>
> yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot

To all:

If there is less burn-in for the phosphors in a direct view TV when compared
to a rear projection TV, it is because the electron guns of the CRTs of the
rear-projection TV must be driven very hard ...correct?

The idea behind the SED (and similarly the FED, Field-emission Display) is
that there are millions of tiny electron emitters, each of which operates at
very low voltages, perhaps as low as 12V. In an SED or FED, the distance
the electron must travel is very minute before it strikes the phosphor. (By
contrast, the electron gun in a direct view TV operates in the thousands of
volts.)

Bear in mind too the ratio of emitters to pixels. In direct view TV you
have one electron gun (emitter) for all of your pixels. In the rear
projection TV you have 3 tubes, each with up to a million pixels and each
with just one emitter. In the SED you have hundreds of thousands or
millions of emitters for perhaps as many pixels. Considering the low
voltage used and the ratio of emitters to pixels, I would think that at the
instant that an electron hits the phosphor in a SED or FED, the
instantaneous energy delivered would be thousands of times less than that
delivered to the phosphor in a direct view TV. Wouldn't that suggest that
any phosphor damage in the SED or FED would be at worst equal to that of a
direct view TV?

Forgive me if my "facts" regarding SED and FED are not totally precise. I
am far from an expert on this subject, though I have been reading about it
for many years. Feedback is most welcome.

Neil
Salem, MA USA