typodupeerror

## Organic LEDs To Replace LCDs?83

Shostykovich writes "There's a story here on the LA Times about some interesting organic-LED technology being explored by the likes of Kodak and IBM. These LEDs are made using "organic compounds", and they're hoping to replace LCDs with these in a few years." Light on tech talk, but they see to think that these could work for head displays.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

## Organic LEDs To Replace LCDs?

• #### Re:i got it! yeah! (Score:1)

that's the last time i type so much shit.
• #### leds will take over the world (Score:3)

on Monday October 09, 2000 @01:58PM (#720052) Homepage
Obviously, these people aren't paranoid enough. If they were, they would realize that no matter how little you put in, organic compounds put in electronics will evolve and take over the world. I'm still waiting for the leech computer [slashdot.org] to gain sentience and run amok. When will science learn.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
v.3.12
GCS d-(--) s+: a-- C+++$>++++$$UL++>++++$$ P+>++++$ L++>++++$E--- W++$>++
• #### Yea, these things are neat (Score:4)

on Monday October 09, 2000 @02:00PM (#720053) Homepage
We have been working with prototypes of these kinds fo things for a few months.. they really are quite neat..

One thing that is nice is that they use a LOT less power than conventional LCD's. Also, there is no ghost when animation occurs like in conventional LCD displays.. Even in high quality laptop and flatpannel displays you get teh ghost effect, it makes quake3 almost unplayable.

• #### Re:Truth about LED's (Score:1)

Ummm.... no. There's a big problem I see with your logic here. When you minituarize components, they draw less power because their operating voltage decreases. Since your calulations are based an a silicon based LEDs which are mm's in size, and since OLED's are um's in size and ORGANIC, your power number are off by order's of magnitude at LEAST.

-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
• #### Re:Definition of "organic" (Score:2)

This is something that really irks me about science. I paid attention in Chemistry class, and I learned that definition of "organic".

However, you should know that the word "organic" predates the our knowledge of atoms by several centries (No doubt because you were misinformed by junk science; or at least by scientists who were racing to "discover" shit that was already there (Hey, happy Columbus Day).

Atoms were first 'discovered' about a century ago, but the word organic is at least 500 years old. It's original meaning *was* somethign like "Derived from the organism". The definition of "organic" had nothing to do with "Carbon based", because we had no idea that the universe existed on an atomic level.

You doubt my word? Here, check out the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition [britannica.com]
the word 'organic' is about 500 years old.

Scientists discovered the word organic in much the same way that they 'discovered' carbon atoms. The matter was already there, scientists were trying to make heads-or-tails out of it these new things which they were calling 'atoms' (Which means "Cannot be cut"), and so they appropriated the word 'organic' to mean 'carbon-based', because as far as they knew, everything that was "carbon-based" was "derived from living organisms".

Then came petroleum byproducts like Gasoline and Plastic (BTW, plastic is *another* old world which was "redefined" by science. plastic [britannica.com] used to mean "pliable"), which are technically "carbon-based", but unless you trace their root back for many eons. But the "Carbon based" definition stuck.

So next time people like me talk to you about "Organic veggies", there's a reason why we use that word.
• #### Re:Truth about LED's (Score:1)

>One of the problems with LED's is they draw a lot of power. Ever wonder why wristwatches use LCD instead of LED? It's the power draw. Let's do a little convoluted math:

He he. Convoluted mathematics - I think of Hamiltonian dynamics, not 5th grade arithmetic.

First, LCD's need a backlight in laptops - hence the high current draw. LED's are quite efficient, somethign like 10%?

> 20ma X 3.5 volts = 70mw per LED
These LEDs are tiny - do you think somehitng 1/4 mm across can draw 20mA, and not burn up? BTW - 3.5 volts is only for blue, red is 1.6 volts (remember, voltage required = E = h\nu = hc/\lambda)

Wouldn't take long with me driving...

"Yes officer, I was on IRC doing a little cybersex. Didn't realize I was speeding, and weaving all over the road"

Heh, nuff said.

• #### Re:Needs to be pointed out.... (Score:1)

"If washing removes pesticides ..., I would think it would remove E.coli"

it does but pesticides don't grow, reproduce and multiply after the foods are washed. even if you wipe out 99% of the micro-organisms, the 1% left can still continue to multiply and in less than 7 generations they will be back to 100% and still growing.
• #### Re:Needs to be pointed out.... (Score:1)

Bitch got trolled!

Or maybe is just trying to keep it going...
• #### Rant all you want: (Score:2)

The current scientific definition of organic is "containing carbon", meaning Carbon == Organic, while Carbon != Coming from something alive.

Organic LEDs could concievably be a product of bioluminescent creatures, but they aren't. They just happen to use carbon, instead of silicon/germanium, etc.

The nick is a joke! Really!
• #### Where? (Score:1)

Where is the previous post with the answer?

--

• #### Nope.... (Score:3)

on Monday October 09, 2000 @05:11PM (#720112) Journal
Sorry, as a chemist, who has seen several talks on LED technology as it applies to both inhanced fiber optic data transmission and display tech, I have to say, your wrong, it's not "plastic" that they are talking about.

First off, I'm going to have to qualify this with "I have no idea what the LA Times is talking about, because they really don't mention any science"

But the trick is SAMs (self assembled mono-layers). If you start with molecules that will direct light, transport electricity, and/or convert electricity (often in the case of single electrons) into light, that's a big step. There is a lot of synthetic work that goes into finding the right molecules. And then, the hard bit, is creating them in such a way that they will densely pack onto a surface, by themself.

The cool thing about SAMs is the S and the A. They assemble themselfs. You just put the right concentration of these molecules in solution, and then create the right conditions for them to drop out of solution and onto a surface. This is done with a small electric potential on the surface, adding another analyte to the solution, or simply evaporating some of the solution away... ;-) And poof... a nicely coated surface with your magic molecules. Of course, it's a bit more complex and involved than that, but, that's sorta the basic idea.

These things will not only make cheaper, sharper, brighter displays, but they will improve communications as well. As it turns out, fiber optic communications is not limited by the speed of light, we're communicating no where near that fast in the real world. It's limited by the speed we can accurately create a "pulse" of light to funnel down a fiber. And these cool little SAMs can be turned "on and off" faster than the current switches and relays that we use in fiber optic communication today... So, they will speed up data transmission too someday in the future.

My two cents... It's been a few years since I looked into this, and I'm sure I might have SOME of the details muffed up.... But that's a lot closer to what's going on than "they are just making better plastic."

• #### Re:Nope.... (Score:1)

Let me be the first to flame my spelling ;-) my fingers have a mind of their own...
• #### You must read this if you are really interested (Score:1)

The real thing [kodak.com]
• #### Eureka! (Score:1)

That's it!! I'll need some fireflies, sheets of plastic, a jackknife, superglue, a bit duct tape...

I'll be right back. I have to make a run to the patent office.
• #### Check out the Motorola 8767 phone... (Score:1)

... http://commerce.motorola.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/Pr oductDisplay?prrfnbr=217948&prmenbr= 126& phone_cgrfnbr=1&zipcode=

(slashcode mangles this URL, remove spaces)

Bluetooth + Organic Electroluminescent screen..

Now if I could get one in a 3G V-series.. *envy*

• #### Vapors are shortening the trail, VERY SLOWLY (Score:3)

on Monday October 09, 2000 @06:35PM (#720117) Homepage
The pessimist in me sees this pathetic article as something that USA Today might publish. Do only dumb people read newspapers? Surely smart people read papers and can understand technical issues. Oh. Wait. It's just the editors and writers who haven't got a clue.

OLEDs have been mentioned for a while: 1998 by Compaq [compaq.com], lightly technical [chemsoc.org] discussion from chemsoc, a view [eb-asia.com] that says OLEDs complement rather than replace TFT-LCDs from Electronic Business-Asia (August 2000), January of 1999 shows that Idemitsu Kosan, a Japanese chemical company, has demonstrated [eurodisplay.org](search for "organic") 640x480x16mil with OLEDs.

Some US patents of interest: US05965901 [delphion.com] (Cambridge Display), US05247190 [delphion.com] (a 1993 Cambridge Patent), US04539507 [delphion.com] (a Kodak claim geared towards reduced power consumption).

And so on.

Two fellas at Eastman Kodak who are real important on this issue are Steven A. VanSlyke and Ching W. Tang, both of whom have were sent in 1995 to give lectures [atip.or.jp] in Japan on OLED technology.

My two cents says, it's about time companies stopped hyping this to the press in underdetailed press releases and actually start showing something for all their R&D efforts. Quit trying to make it the be-all end-all product the first time and get us cheaper, less power-hungry displays. When tube manufacturers realize their goose is cooked, prices will plummet for Digital TV in the US and OLED manufacturers will be handed the display market on a silver platter.

• #### You gotta listen to me! (Score:1)

Red and blue are okay, but OLED green is people! It's people I tell you! OLED GREEN IS PEOPLE!
• #### UDC are relative newcomers (Score:1)

I was working on electroluminescent organic polymers back in 1995 at livenomore. We mostly used MEH-PPV. Back then the goal was flatscreens, but the polymers degraded too quickly in an oxygen environment to be useful. Which i personally confirmed by twisting knobs in a dark room for what seemed to be eons on end.

I soon after left physics and left to roam developing parts of the world. Oh had I had known. (sic).
• #### Re:Yea, these things are neat (Score:1)

One thing that is nice is that they use a LOT less power than conventional LCD's. Also, there is no ghost when animation occurs like in conventional LCD displays..

Do they really use less power than reflective LCDs ? I somehow doubt this. Probably they use a lot less power than LCD + Backlight, which is a big difference.

• #### 4 / 5 years? (Score:1)

I was studying in Braunschweig, Germany last year and one of the research professors there that works on oleds told me we should probably expect them to be in general circulation in around 5 years.

Roger
• #### Truth about LCDs (Score:2)

Of course, those LCD panels you can see in watches and Palms draw quite small electric power. Unfortunately, such LCDs have very limited maximal brightness (let alone color). This is because they use polarisation properties of liquid crystals. Incoming light goes thru a polarizing plate, then thru the liquid crystal layer, then reflects from a mirror and goes backward (to the observer). Liquid crystals rotate light polarization when voltage is applied, so reflected light may come out (we see gray) or not, when liquid crystals change its polarization to orthogonal to such of the polarizing plate (we see black). Since ambient light has rays of all polarization directions, the polarization plate can only allow to pass not more than 50% of light, so, we can only see gray colors (50% or darker). Also, such displays require external light and are useless in the dark.

That's why notebook screens are backlit by a white lamp, that allows to display bright shades/colors, and this lamp does draw a lot of power. An LCD(TFT) matrix that lies above the lamp only makes certain areas darker (up to black). A LED screen of comparable size would draw definitely less power, due to higher efficiency and because darker areas would require less power.

Many mobile devices, like watches and cell phones, use LEDs to backlight LCD displays. LED backlight is nice and battery-friendly, but it is colored (green, or amber, or red). Lack of reliable blue LED material effectively prevents white LED light sources from creation; same applies to full-color LED displays. Current blue LEDs last orders of magnitude less that red/amber/green LEDs.

• #### What about CDT? (Score:1)

There's a some-years-old, commercailly-approved [color] organic display technology: CDT aka LEP [cdtltd.co.uk]. The best thing about LEPs is that one can use ink-jet process to produce them (no joke) :-) So, they're relatively cheap and will only become cheaper as the technology matures. Mostly such screens are used in digital cameras' viewfinders and cellphone displays, though bigger screens were demonstrated.

• #### Correct URL (Score:1)

The hyperlink provided by alacrityfitzhugh contained a space, so here's a link without the space.
This really is the 'real thing' [kodak.com]
• #### Re:Organic Fud??? (Score:1)

> In the context of chemistry and materials,
> organic refers to a materials based on carbon
> (an element abbreviated as C).

And since plastics are built on hydrocarbon
chains, all plastics are, by definition,
organic.

Chris Mattern
• #### Re:The LED and the new possibilities (Score:1)

Offtopic this, but thinking about yet more advances for 'our armed forces fighter planes' makes me wonder if the military will ever just forget about putting pilots in harm's way and just invest in high speed/high bandwidth wireless (duh) communication (obviously well encrypted) between a bunker and aircraft so pilots could fly them like playing a game of Falcon4.0 .. I'm SURE they have already started doing it.. just a matter of time I think. Of course it's not just planes that could benefit. Any hazardous transport/occupation you care to think of.

Of course you can make a realistic 'cockpit' with surrounding monitors/image panels. even with 'force-feedback' (in the whole cockpit if you like) to help the pilot control the aircraft. Then the actual 'fly-by-remote' aircraft would be able to outmaneuver anything else around AND you'd save pilots lives. Got shot out of the sky or crashed? .. darn.. Never mind though, we'll just connect you to another plane and off you go again. Don't make the same mistake twice. "Oh, THAT hill.." .. difficult to do otherwise.

Plus there would be the obvious benefits that the military funded wireless communication technology would 'trickle-down' to consumer equipment.

--
• #### organic LEDs, it's been done before ... (Score:1)

Kimchi is a plan and a half ... http://www.tiac.net/users/reilly/levd-page.html
• #### Re:Needs to be pointed out.... (Score:1)

Idiot, organic foods have long chains of carbon molecules.

Do you drink gasoline? How about a little hexane on that ear of corn? It's much tastier than butter.
• #### Re: huh? my laptop doesn't do that. (Score:1)

hence fast switching hence....no ghosts.

It's not as noticable to you but it's still there. I've worked with many high end TFT displays and they still have some ghosting, just not nearly as much as dual scan displays. It is especially noticable on full-screen high-spped animations (such as playing an FPS). You may not notice it but the type of people that can tell the difference between 40 and 60fps can.

-Zane

• #### Redundant (Score:1)

This exact technology was just on /. not long ago...
• #### Re:Truth about LCDs (Score:2)

There are white leds now... but like the blue they draw an order of magnitude more power.

• #### Re:UDC are relative newcomers (Score:1)

Gus? Is that you? Gus fil-Tanga? fil-sidi hosni? shfar tim fil marrakch
--
.:.
:tedd
• #### Re:UDC are relative newcomers (Score:1)

farmer ted you scrubber! where the heck are you. and why are you wasting your time reading slashdot?

me forgetty my arabic cuz brain filled with other language.

#### Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather

Working...