1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CRT is dead, long live nano-CRT !

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by gnikolaidis, Sep 7, 2005.

  1. gnikolaidis

    gnikolaidis
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    For all of you endlessly arguing where the future goes with regard to which technology, plasma or LCD, would prevail in the future - the answer could probably be neither!

    I recently came across a relevant article in MIT's Technology Review magazine, where nano-CRT was portrayed as the way going forward with regard to future TV sets.

    To briefly explain a conventional CRT works by means of an electron gun, positioned some 20-60 cm behind the screen depending on screen size, that shoots a focused electron beam on a glass screen coated with a suitable material that emits light when shot by electrons. Recent progress in nanotechnology has allowed for the production of very tiny electron guns, in the nano scale of size, arranged one next to the other - like a matrix of pixels in a plasma or LCD set. These nano-guns need only to be a very small distance behind the coated screen glass, since their individual job is to shoot one electron beam at a specific pixel on the screen, rather than covering progressively the entire screen like a conventional electron gun does in today's CRTs.

    The end result is CRT picture quality with a minimal screen depth, similar or smaller that today's plasma or LCD sets. Another bonus is that the effortless construction technique involved in producing nano-guns allows for the inexpensive manufacturing of very large screens, at minimal extra investment. Working prototypes have been already be developed by several manufacturers and independent researchers, it seem though that Samsung has the lead in this new field.

    The most severe problem developers face in implementing the new technology is the fact that for a CRT TV to work one has first to create a vacuum inside the CRT tube, otherwise the air molecules will "ignite" and emit light before the electron beam has a chance to hit the coated glass surface. This is relatively easily solved in conventional CRTs by means of the big volume the tube itself presents (like taking a slice off a sphere) which allows for the structure to withstand the immense external pressure created by the vacuum inside the tube.

    However, a nano-CRT tube is flat, with very little depth, and if a vacuum is created inside the external ambient pressure causes the structure to collapse. Its like stepping with all your weight on a flat pizza box! So, until someone finds a way to economically solve this apparent problem, plasma and LCDs will be kings. Afterwards ... long live nano-CRT!
     
  2. Sulis

    Sulis
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    574
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bath
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hmmm... a vacuum is always portrayed in films as immensely powerful, but in fact it it's pretty weak compared to underwater pressures. I don't think this will be a huge stumbling block.
     
  3. chedmaster

    chedmaster
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,654
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +28
    err i think that a total vacuum is pretty powerful! over such a large surface area not much would withstand normal air pressure without support at regular intervals. maybe between "pixels".
     
  4. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    I beg to differ, the major stumbling block is exactly the same as a plasma display. Getting all the pixels manufactured without fault. Making a display with 1.5 mill of them, all faultless, is very hard, and expensive. 80% of plasma glass is ditched before being incorporated into a display.
     
  5. gnikolaidis

    gnikolaidis
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, the beauty of the nano-process technique (due to the nano-scale factor) is that on a similar screen size as a plasma screen you actually manufacture billions of nano-electron guns, one next to the other. If you want a screen with lets say 2,000 X 2,000 pixel resolution you need 4 million pixels to work properly. In the same screen area populated with nano-guns you have a few billion available, so you do not need all of them to work - you just need some of them to work! So in essence you do not need to ditch any of the manufactured screens out.
     
  6. Sulis

    Sulis
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    574
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bath
    Ratings:
    +1
    Yup, that would do it. My point was that we're not talking about pressures of 5 atmospheres here - just something to keep the main glass level every few cm or so would do fine.
     
  7. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    SED promises pretty much the same what nano-CRT does. Canon has been devoloping SED technology since 1986 (!) and Toshiba, which cooperates with Canon, has just displayed a 36" SED prototype at the IFA in Germany (behind closed doors though, i.e. only to the press).
    Commercial sales are expected to start in 2006, with 50" sizes and HDTV resolution of 1920 x 1080.

    Seems nano-CRT is dead before it even came to life. :suicide:
     
  8. gnikolaidis

    gnikolaidis
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    SED, among other alternatives is a rather expensive manufacturing process, hence the very steep prices (if you have to ask then you cannot afford it type of thing mentioned in your article link) - not really geared to the masses.

    On the other hand nano-manufacturing, once you got it right on how to produce the structure in the first place, is a rather inexpensive manufacturing process. In economical terms only nano-CRT seems able to produce in the near future large size TV panels at a cost the average Joe can afford.

    Another plus of nano-CRT is that the pixel resolution is not a constraint any more. Given that billions of pixels would be present, one can opt for actual pixel resolutions not even heard in today's terms. A 16,000 X 10,000 pixel nano-CRT is not much different, in the manufacturing process and costs involved, than a 1024 X 768 pixel resolution. The real question is if existing electronics can cope with such high resolutions!
     
  9. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    Plasmas and LCD were also very expensive at the beginning, in particular cost was always highlighted as an issue for big LCD screens. But today you can buy a 42" LCD for less than USD3000 (Syntax Olevia LT42HVI = Kolin KLT-4251).

    From CNET
     
  10. gnikolaidis

    gnikolaidis
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    $3,000 is not in my opinion the average Joe's budget for a TV, something closer to $300-$500 might be more fit. Nano-CRT technology would potentially allow the manufacturing of large size flat TV sets at a retail cost similar to this. You are probably aware that Chinese manufactured conventional 29'' CRT's are retailing around $300, this kind of price level is necessary to achieve mass penetration of flat screen large TV sets.
     
  11. Reiner

    Reiner
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    3,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +13
    The average Joe would probably not have a screen with 40" or bigger, but my point is that prices dropped significantly for plasma and LCD, and so will the prices of SED.
    In fact there are already flat screen displays (LCDs) that retail for USD300-500, just look at the models below 30". See also this report.

    I believe that there won't be any conventional CRTs in future, leaving the buyer no choice. ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...