GE Announces OLED Manufacturing Breakthrough

bughunter writes "Today GE announced the successful demonstration of the world's first roll-to-roll manufactured organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lighting devices (press release). This demonstration is a key step toward making OLEDs and other high-performance organic electronics products at dramatically lower costs than what is possible today. The green crowd is thrilled as well. Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes." Now can I get my Optimus Keyboard for less than $1,299?

What Was the Cost?

[eldavojohn]

Now can I get my Optimus Keyboard for less than $1,299?

Well, I didn't see a price. I saw that it was 'green' as it was making organic LEDs but how was it any greener than the old procedure for making OLEDs? Nor did they state it was faster or cheaper. They said it took four years to do this, how long did it take to make the strip pictured? What raw materials went into that (or what were the costs for that strip)?

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.' That word gets thrown around a lot these days.

Re:What Was the Cost?

[Dr. Eggman]

From the release:

The demonstration of a low-cost, roll-to-roll process for OLED lighting represents the successful completion of a four-year, $13 million research collaboration among GE Global Research, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENER) and the U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The goal of the collaboration was to demonstrate a cost-effective system for the mass production of organic electronics products such as flexible electronic paper displays, portable TV screens the size of posters, solar powered cells and high-efficiency lighting devices. ECD Senior Vice President Nancy Bacon said, "This program was a major step in developing high volume roll-to-roll manufacturing for OLEDs and other organic semiconductor devices. The success of this program is testimony to the effectiveness of NIST's advanced technology program model, and our 20-year history of pioneering research in roll-to-roll technology. We currently are utilizing this technology to mass produce our flexible, durable and lightweight UNI-SOLAR brand solar laminates. ECD looks forward to continuing collaboration with GE to further develop this technology for future commercialization."

The success is in the creation of a manufacturing process, the strip was the demonstration of its success.

Re:What Was the Cost?

[EaglemanBSA]

Exactly. In mechanical engineering terms, this is what we call the beta prototype - the prototype created with the real-world manufacturing process described in the manufacturing plan. The expensive one-of-a kind stuff is an alpha (like concept cars, etc.), which are usually hand-made. I would expect they'll have these mass produced quite soon, and at an affordable price for many applications.

Remember, if their plan didn't show expectations of profit (i.e.: a sellable product), they wouldn't be researching it. They're a company, they're out to make money. Luckily, in this case, they're trying to do it by developing a responsible technology.

Reason to be excited

[StreetStealth]

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.'

The one thing that I think sets this apart from most "breakthroughs" is that they're demonstrating a prototype of an actual fabrication process rather than a prototype of a product that would then require plenty more research to figure out how to fabricate it.

In other words, it's one thing to demonstrate a prototype product, but an entirely other thing to demonstrate how you actually plan to mass produce that product, which this is!

Of course, it's yet another thing to actually produce your production equipment and drive adoption among manufacturers, but this announement is still one major step beyond most next-gen display announcements (SED, I'm looking at you...).

Re:What Was the Cost?

[lixee]

It's not a breakthrough per se, but it's something that makes me very excited. Roll-to-roll fabrication is something that will assuredly make production both cheaper and faster. I can already picture my new wallpapers...

Re:What Was the Cost?

[Animats]

I would be excited ... if there were more details convincing me this is a 'breakthrough.' That word gets thrown around a lot these days.

If the announcement came out of some startup, it would be questionable, but it came from General Electric Research in Schenectady, NY. That's an organization over a century old, and a big chunk of the electrical industry was invented there. If they say they have a production process for making something in quantity, they probably do.

Re:What Was the Cost?

[Linux_ho]

If they say they have a production process for making something in quantity, they probably do.

The OP wasn't arguing that GE doesn't have the production process. He/she just wasn't convinced that the process was "a breakthrough." The photo I saw looked like the LEDs were about 1 inch square each, and the attached article suggested that they were about twice as efficient per lumen as incandescent lighting. The efficiency of incandescent lighting isn't exactly hard to beat.

Would you consider a new process for manufacturing buggy whips to be a "breakthrough?" I'm not saying it's NOT a breakthrough, (obviously this could lead to amazing display technology) but I agree with the point the OP was trying to make: it would be nice to have more details.

Re:What Was the Cost?

[bob_jordan]

"That's an organization over a century old, and a big chunk of the electrical industry was invented there."

A big chunk of the electrical industry is AC.

Tesla

Bob.

Organic != 'Green'

[RingDev]

Organic, before the marketing hype took over it, means 'carbon based'. That is not to say that any pesticides or insecticides were not used in the production of this OLED. But the Organic in OLED means that the base of the LED is a polymer with a carbon based composite deposited on it. The purpose 4-year project appears to have been to find a significantly more efficient (roll to roll) way of printing the organic compound to the polymer. So while the creation of the tool took four years, it could mean the ability to greatly increase production and reduce costs significantly.

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

-Rick

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[LWATCDR]

Yep my favorite was when I saw Organic Sea Salt....
Right up there when the Video store had Apollo 13 in the SciFi section.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[Bearpaw]

While I'm probably more of a tree-hugger than most Slashdotters, I'm occasionally tempted to start marketing Organic Hemlock Tea ... "The first tea that's guaranteed to reduce your impact on the environment!"

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[bladesjester]

I'd be tempted to buy several cases and distribute it to certain people...

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[LWATCDR]

Yes the nastiest stuff on the planet is organic. Cobra venom, nerve gas, and your average Slashdot poster.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[Compuser]

Hemlock tea exists and is OK for you so long is it is made from the tree and from the ground plant (that's the version that killed Socrates).

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[Compuser]

Uh, hate replying to myself but that was supposed to be:
Hemlock tea exists and is OK for you so long it is made from the tree and NOT from the ground plant (that's the version that killed Socrates).

A quick google search turns up a company named TerraVita which sells its hemlock tea for $14 per 25 bags box. So the GP already has competitors.

Apollo 13

[camperdave]

To be fair, Apollo 13 was not a documentary, it was a drama based on actual events... in other words, fiction. Since it was fiction, and based on science, the film actually is science fiction.

Re:Apollo 13

[Molochi]

Midway would only be science fiction if it had the battleship Yamato in it. Alas, she was too far away to fire her WMG. So the movie falls into the docudrama catagory.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[MightyYar]

I think greenies are excited because OLEDs could replace some forms of more traditional, less efficient lighting if their cost could be brought down, which is what this process promises. I don't think the "organic" part has much to do with it, though along with being more efficient it also contains no mercury.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, the first line of the article linked as "The green crowd is thrilled [groovygreen.com]" is:

Energy for lighting is one of the main resource hogs around the world.

So yeah, you were right, and a lot of others just hopped on the "silly greenies" bandwagon.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[polar red]

And what most people don't know is the following : economical = ecological, if we define economical as using the least possible resources (as opposed to the other kind - in which costs are offloaded onto society)

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[MightyYar]

economical = ecological

The problem with that equation is in calculating the true cost of something. If you just use straight dollars, the equation doesn't work. For instance, if I were to choose a fuel for my car, I'd almost certainly choose gasoline because it is cheap - but it is hard to argue that pumping non-renewable toxic goo out of the ground, spending a ton of energy refining it, and then burning it is "ecological" :) It's also much cheaper in dollars to just burn coal without any kind of pollution scrubbing... especially for folks on the East Coast who don't have anyone downwind to sue them.

But for incremental improvements, you are absolutely right. People who are actually thinking about it will use the cheapest way to make light - though I still choose to use some incandescents because CFLs make my daughter's brown toys all look puke-green... so sometimes aesthetics outweigh economy - but then, I also like Apple's stuff! :)

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[polar red]

The problem with that equation is in calculating the true cost of something. If you just use straight dollars, the equation doesn't work. For instance, if I were to choose a fuel for my car, I'd almost certainly choose gasoline because it is cheap - but it is hard to argue that pumping non-renewable toxic goo out of the ground, spending a ton of energy refining it, and then burning it is "ecological" :) It's also much cheaper in dollars to just burn coal without any kind of pollution scrubbing...

Well, that's why I included a statement about offloading onto society ... putting toxins into the air certainly has a health cost ...

OLED = 'Green'

[overshoot]

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

Well, that and they're pretty danged efficient light emitters. As in, finally, efficient and long-lasting solid-state room lighting.

THAT is going to save more than a few barrels of oil. After all, even /. posters burn more power on lighting than on backlighting, monitor tans notwithstanding.

Re:OLED = 'Green'

[Original Replica]

Not only is solid state lighting more efficient, it's also more versatile. [laserfocusworld.com] With one fixture you could change the feel of a room from bright and alert to cozy and romantic by using variable color temperature. RGB mixing fixtures could conceivably be hooked up to your entertainment and alter the room color to match the movie [philips.com] or video game. [ttp]

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[dgatwood]

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

Except that it isn't a fraction of the electrical draw---not if they're only 2-3x the efficiency of an incandescent bulb, anyway. Traditional LEDs are close to ten times the efficiency of incandescents, so if you do an LED backlight behind an LCD panel, you'd have to lose 60-80% of the brightness passing through the LCD panel to get down to such a low efficiency. Okay, so the panel itself probably doubles the power use, so that probably puts the LCD panel with LED backlight at somewhere in the neighborhood of the same amount of power. This is, of course, just a ballpark guess, since there aren't production OLED panels available for real-world comparison, but I'm not expecting a huge power win from emissive displays. An advantage, yes, but certainly not enough to call it "a fraction of the electrical draw" unless the numbers I've heard so far are way, way off.

OLEDs have advantages, though. They can be used in places where backlighting is impractical---keyboards, for example. They don't wash out as much in bright light, so they are more practical for outdoor displays. They don't restrict the light to a narrow polarity range, so wearing polarized sunglasses doesn't make the screen go black, and you can read your watch by the emitted light, unlike the light from your LCD panel. They have a dramatically faster refresh rate than LCDs, so motion isn't smeared as much.

On the flip side, they also, IIRC, have a shorter life expectancy, though this has probably improved somewhat over the years---good for manufacturers, not so good for consumers. LCD panels have orders of magnitude better life expectancy (on the order of 300,000 hours), sun damage notwithstanding, though the backlights generally need to be replaced much more frequently. Replacing a backlight tube (or even an LED backlight) is a lot cheaper than replacing the whole panel, though.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[MadMidnightBomber]

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

Except that it isn't a fraction of the electrical draw---not if they're only 2-3x the efficiency of an incandescent bulb, anyway.

Er, when I studied maths, 1/2 and 1/3 were very much considered to be fractions. Maybe they have since been reclassified as fruit?

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[ppanon]

No, the main thing that makes organics LEDs "green" is that they aren't made from semiconductors like silicon or gallium arsenide. So they don't need some of the more toxic dopants and cleaning solutions that semiconductor manufacturing uses, and OLEDs should be easier to break down and recycle than the latter. Of course, since OLEDs tend to wear out faster than semiconductor LEDs, that's even more important. There's probably still some contaminants used in the manufacturing of OLEDs, but the overall (toxic) waste production should be much lower.

As somebody else said, 1/2 the efficiency of an incandescent lightbulb isn't exactly amazing. A 12 watt compact fluorescent puts out what, about as much light as a 40 watt incandescent? So these OLEDs are probably only about half as efficient as a compact fluorescent. Then again, the LCD layer and light piping attenuates the light of the fluorescent backlighting in an LCD panel. Also an OLED won't use as much power for dark-displaying pixels whereas lit and "dark" backlit LCD pixels consume the same amount of energy. So it would probably average out to being about the same efficiency for OLED and backlight LCD for a laptop power budget - a good thing or these will have a much more restricted market.

I hope they can take this to production soon though. The 20" Sony Trinitron tube I use as a second monitor at home is showing signs of being on its last legs and probably only has a year or two left in it at most. It's lasted me over ten years and I got it used/refurbished, so I don't feel bad about replacing it because I've certainly gotten a lot of use out of it. However I would like to replace it with an OLED panel if possible to keep the environmental impact down. I have also been holding out for these to replace my TV set but, with the only recently-ended HD format wars, the lack of region-free BR format players, and a still-going-strong 27" picture tube, I'm in less of a rush for that.

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[cnettel]

What makes OLED's 'green' is that they don't require back lighting like LCD displays. Which means you can generate images for a fraction of the electrical draw.

In addition to no mercury in the backlight (which is of course also true of LED-backlighted LCDs and a few other techniques).

Re:Organic != 'Green'

[Mikkeles]

'Organic, before the marketing hype took over it, means 'carbon based'.'

Organic, before the chemists took it over, meant "of (or coming out of) living things".

GE is up nearly 5%

[Bryansix]

I wish I was a stock holder again. Those dividends were nice too. I hope they blow Sony out of the water with OLED stuff.

Re:GE is up nearly 5%

[lpangelrob]

The market is having a nice rally all around today, but I don't know that OLEDs have anything to do with GE specifically. Stock traders are notorious for following the crowd. I'm still down ~10% for the year.

Not that it matters right now - I can't touch my retirement for 32 1/2 years anyways.

Re:GE is up nearly 5%

[Knara]

True, but as far as stocks go, GE is (over time) a pretty solid stock. And as the GPP said, the dividends are nice.

Plus they were smart enough to get rid of their financing arm a few years back.

Re:GE is up nearly 5%

[Knara]

Yeah. Back when I was just learning about investing (I'm still, mind you), I bought a small amount of a few large caps so I'd have some "skin in the game" to make me pay attention. GE was my best performer over time.

Currently I stick to index funds (or other passive funds with low costs) because I don't have the time to pay attention or research as much as would be necessary.

Ok, so how about this idea...

[keineobachtubersie]

"Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes

Ok, then don't buy them.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[SatanicPuppy]

Speaks the guy with no kids.

It's not buying them that's the problem, its having to navigate through a grocery store where all the things you don't want your kid to eat are marketing themselves aggressively right from the shelves...The kid will want them, the marketers will make sure of that, and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.

Sure, you can fight that fight, but you have to fight it often enough already for crap that actually matters more than a box of cereal. Lot of people will give in just to avoid the inevitable scene.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[AvitarX]

<i>you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.</i>

That's why my wife won't let me in the cereal isle, and I'm an adult.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[itof500]

I found that not having a television in the house remarkably reduced this sort of activity. And then, once they are old enough, I used to give them 'missions'. The missions were - go and get me a box of x, and they got a point for each completion. When they accumulated 5 pts, I'd buy them a treat they wanted at the checkout counter. When they got into grade school I'd give them the calculator and have them find the least expensive of X. It made grocery shopping something of a fun game for us.

duke out

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[s_p_oneil]

I'm a parent myself, so please take this as my opinion and not criticism, but to me those missions sound like giving in but disguising it as a game so it doesn't seem as bad. I consistently say no to my kids when they ask for things at the grocery store that aren't on the shopping list, and as long as I remain consistent, they don't complain about it. They still love to fetch things and put them in the cart, but they do it for fun and not for a reward. I do buy them treats from time to time, but I make it a point never to do it while we're shopping for something else. If I want to get them a treat when we're done shopping (or running some other errand), I make an extra stop at an ice cream shop or convenience store on the way home so they don't relate it to the shopping trip.

Whenever possible though, I prefer to walk with them to the local corner store or ice cream shop when I want to get them a treat (although that may not be possible in your neighborhood). If possible, I try to do it after the kids have been working or playing hard at something. If I've been working hard as well (perhaps working on my house), sometimes I get myself a treat. The kids seem to enjoy it a lot more when I get myself one too, perhaps because it shows them that they don't have to stop enjoying things like that when they grow up. ;-)

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[geekoid]

"..have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue."
consistency is key.
My kids don't whine and scream when we ahve said no to something consistently. They few things where we broke consistently still haunt us... sigh. Live and learn.
Even then they learn, it's just a longer process.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[nametaken]

Wow... yeah I was picturing what would have happened if my old man took me to the grocery store and I so much as pouted about not getting a particular box of cereal. Not something I'd have even considered.

This is the same guy that, having noticed my bicycle left on the front porch (in a nice suburb), loaded it into a truck and took it to his warehouse. I mean, people don't lock their car doors in a store parking lot where I grew up. Then he let me think it'd been stolen for about a week, and made sure I knew it was due to my own carelessness.

Never had a bike stolen though... lesson learned, I guess. :)

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[keineobachtubersie]

"and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue."

I see, you prefer to pay them off instead of parenting them. And we wonder where all the consumerism comes from...

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[jbengt]

"see, you prefer to pay them off instead of parenting them."

How did this get rated insightful?
The parent of that never said that he paid his kids off, just complained about the marketing.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Eddi3]

I believe this is called a 'figure of speech.'

Just thought you should know.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The kid will want them, the marketers will make sure of that, and you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.

That's the part where you take the kid home and dinner sucks because it's whatever you have in the house.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[hoggoth]

> Speaks the guy with no kids.
> ... you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue...
> you can fight that fight, but you have to fight it often enough already for crap that actually matters more than a box of cereal. Lot of people will give in just to avoid the inevitable scene.

No, you just have to fight it a couple of times, be consistent, and don't give in occasionally. My three kids, all under 6 years old, never whine and scream for stuff because they know it is not a strategy that will ever work. We say no to junk. If they whine and scream we say no to everything. We never make exceptions. People cannot believe how "well behaved" our kids are. We cannot believe how badly behaved most other kids are.

Remember, partial reinforcement is more powerful than continuous reinforcement, so giving in once in a while will guarantee maximum screaming and whining.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[RevDigger]

Personally, as the parent of a 4-year-old...

Reward the behavior you like, and punish the behavior you don't like. Never deviate from this, ever. Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated, and behavior that is punished will (eventually!) cease. I mean, I know exactly where you are coming from. I know how much tantrums at the store suck. You may have to sit through a few of them before it works. If it's bad enough, just exit the store and deposit the kid with someone else, while you shop solo. Trade sleep for time to shop if you have to, but never reward bad behavior. YOU are in charge.

Also, I suspect a lot of the gimme gimme tantrums are tv-related. It sucks to think you paid someone (TV purchase, cable subscription) to induce tantrums in your kid. Maybe turn that crap off too.

Mmm, slashdot parenting. This crowd is getting old.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Solder Fumes]

If we have cereal boxes with OLEDs on the outside, I imagine we won't even need children to experience this...the products themselves will scream "WHYYYYYY!!!! PLEASE BUY ME!!!" as you walk past them.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Spokehedz]

You obviously haven't gotten out of your parents basement, so we know you haven't gotten laid. Therefore, we know you don't have any kids. As such, you have no idea what its like to be at your wits end in the grocery store with your children.

Let me put it in terms that you would understand.

Imagine that you've stayed up for 4 months straight coding some program--but every time it starts to work, it changes and you have to change your code all over again. Then imagine that every time you tried to sleep, your compile failed and you have to sit up all night making sure that it compiles okay. All the while you are running all over the basement to make sure that none of your other compilers are failing either, and lifting them up and down to change out their power supplies.

Got that? Okay. Good. Now imagine that you just want to go to Microcenter to pick up some more Bawls but your laptop is SCREAMING at the top of it's 2" speakers that it wants Serial-ATA. You know that it doesn't use Serial-ATA, but it is just making all kinds of noise, and shaking. Then other people start to look at you and your laptop making such a cacophony, and your bloodshot eyes just roam over them like they are zombies and you are three seconds away from killing everybody within a 50' radius of you.

Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork.

You will cave in. You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.

So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids. Someday, if you ever get out of your parents basement, you will know that.

You have my sympathy

[overshoot]

You obviously haven't gotten out of your parents basement, so we know you haven't gotten laid. Therefore, we know you don't have any kids. As such, you have no idea what its like to be at your wits end in the grocery store with your children.

Well, if you say so. Although I'm pretty sure that the two grad students and the junior engineer are all mine. That includes twins.

And, in the face of assurances similar to yours, I managed to avoid buying the crap when we went shopping. Despite ADHD. Twins.

Not that this says anything good about me as a parent -- I suspect it's more "when you got luck, shit'll do for brains."

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Mister Whirly]

"So Yeah. There is no 'Just don't buy it' crap with kids."

Exactly. That's why I went with the 'Don't Ever Have Kids' thing. Lots of extra money, big shortage of headaches.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Oh, and this happens every single time you go to the store. Like clockwork.

Simple solution - don't take your kids out if he's being a shit.

You will cave in. You don't know you will, but trust me--and every other parent out there--you will cave, and buy it whatever it wants to just shut it up.

No, I will punish the behavior.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[mapsjanhere]

Simple solution - don't take your kids out if he's being a shit.
So, you leave your kids at home just like your computer. Have you got any idea what a 2 year old can do to your home while you're away? Add the legal aspect of child endangerment, and leaving your kids at home while shopping is usually NOT an option. Unless you still haven't moved out of the basement and can pawn off the little sunshines on your mom upstairs.
No, I will punish the behavior
Oh, and I don't suggest punishing your kid in a store nowadays, nine times out of ten some do-gooder will call CPS on you. And punishing later doesn't work until they are past the age of screaming fits anyway.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So, you leave your kids at home just like your computer.

Yeah, if you're single, get a friend to sit while you buy groceries.

Oh, and I don't suggest punishing your kid in a store nowadays, nine times out of ten some do-gooder will call CPS on you. And punishing later doesn't work until they are past the age of screaming fits anyway.

Carry them out of the store in an undignified manner - even at 2, they should get embarrasment. Alternately, watch them throw the tantrum, and when they get winded/tired, ask them to do it again.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm recounting the tactics used on me. If they work on a willful, smart, ADHD brat of a 2 year old, they should work on just about anyone.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[PitaBred]

Amazing. I never did that when I was a kid. And if you show them that you won't tolerate it in the first place, it'll stop happening. Promise. Kids aren't stupid, they know what works. They know they'll get what they want if they just keep at it, and there is NO DOWNSIDE to them. No punishment that I hear you implementing, no going without, nothing. Try it... hold them accountable, and they'll act accountably.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[nanoakron]

But he wouldn't dare give a short, sharp smack to his little snowflakes! ...as has been done through human history and even before we existed.

Young animals are designed to learn through punishment of negative behaviour. Often physical.

Children simply don't have the psychological makeup to understand and process 'modern' idiot parenting techniques such as time-outs. Hence they grow up to be horrors as they age.

Smack your kids. Or at least threaten to do it. They will thank you.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Phroggy]

Children simply don't have the psychological makeup to understand and process 'modern' idiot parenting techniques such as time-outs. Hence they grow up to be horrors as they age.

There is an age at which time-outs are effective. It's a pretty brief window, but until it stops working, it's not a bad deterrent.

My folks "just didn't buy it"

[StreetStealth]

And they tell me that I slowly learned that I couldn't have everything right now and learned the valuable lesson of patience as well as an early understanding of moderation.

I'm glad they did. At such time as I may reproduce I intend to teach my offspring the same way.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[EMB Numbers]

There are obviously a wide range of natural temperaments among young children. However, as the father of three, I assure you that not all children behave as described, and I suspect that almost all children can be trained not to behave as described. (Some mental illness or developmental disability might preclude such training).

The reason that bystanders stare in horror at seriously misbehaving children and parents is that such behavior is NOT normal and is therefore unexpected/shocking. People also stare when adults are abusive or disruptive or antisocial. Any behavior outside normal conventions will prompt staring.

My advise is that young children like to have rules and behavioral boundaries. Clear rules make them feel socially confident and reduce anxiety. Children test the boundaries when they feel insecure, and the best response is to reinforce the previously established boundaries. That makes them feel like the world is stable and sensible. When a parent moves the boundaries or the child can't find the boundaries, nobody will be happy - least of all the child. Interestingly, the exact same guidance applies to puppies.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[mdarksbane]

Somehow I don't remember my parents ever caving in.

With me, they managed to reason with me.

With my sister, they told her no often enough that she stopped trying. Eventually.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Trogre]

You do realise that if your kid is throwing a tantrum in a store through want of some appealing item, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing you can do is give in and buy the item.

I know this from experience.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[madmaxx]

You're insane. You don't have to cave in: it's always your fucking choice.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[adisakp]

You will cave in.

So you have a pile of Serial-ATA HD's you can't use with your laptop? I'm confused?!?

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[Fred_A]

Got that? Okay. Good. Now imagine that you just want to go to Microcenter to pick up some more Bawls but your laptop is SCREAMING at the top of it's 2" speakers that it wants Serial-ATA. You know that it doesn't use Serial-ATA, but it is just making all kinds of noise, and shaking.

Bah...
sudo amixer -c1 set Master mute

Silly laptops.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[CastrTroy]

One thing we do is try not to say "no" too often. Wait a second and hear me out. Kid asks if they can't have chocolate. Don't say no. Say, not right now, it's dinner time soon, or something along those lines. If everything they ask for is given a no response then when you really mean no, it starts to have no effect on them. It's a lot easier on your child and yourself, if you just don't say no to absolutely everything they want that they can't have.

Re:Ok, so how about this idea...

[MrShaggy]

Just like the Nike's, with the LED that flashed every time you step.

'Ya know what you call guys with those shoes in our Neighborhood?

Target!' --Comic Unknown.

"On the other hand, if gang members start wearing luminous gang signs, they'll be a self-curing problem."

Our ugly future

[sm62704]

Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes.

In another twenty years there will likely not be a surface anywhere that isn't animated. The animated billboards and signs are already here.

As if having blinking shiney flashey crap on the internet isn't bad enough now we're subjected to it in meatspace.

Re:Our ugly future

[Telvin_3d]

As if having blinking shiney flashey crap on the internet isn't bad enough now we're subjected to it in meatspace.

Except that meatspace has it's own rules. Same way that most of those anonymous internet jerks would never act the same way face to face*. Annoying flashing stuff on a website? Limited stuff you can do about it. Annoying flashing sign in meatspace? 30 seconds with a hammer or wire cutters or even a battery depending on the electrical tolerance and you are good to go. Problem solved.

*Please note. Meatspace has its own brand of assholes. I acknowledge that The two groups are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Our ugly future

[blair1q]

" meatspace has it's own rules "

Never forget that cyberspace is just an electronic subdivision of meatspace.

Money rules all of the meat, and the meat runs your network as well as your freeways and zoning commissions.

Where there is cash, opportunity, and a lack of diligence, the cash will override the commonweal every time.

Re:Our ugly future

[CastrTroy]

If cereal boxes started to have flashing ads on them, I'd have no problem with going down the aisle and turning every box around so that none of the ads could be seen. I guess they could put ads on both sides, but that would be a little cost prohibitive. I don't think the cost of any display technology could be brought down low enough such that it could be posted on the side of a cereal box. Even if it could, I think the outrage due to environmental concerns, along with the annoyances, would quickly squash the idea.

Re:Our ugly future

[siriuskase]

Don't forget that the cereal box (and all other in store packaging) IS an ad for the product inside. They don't use bright colors and cartoon characters simply because they feel like it. Anything to get the attention of the eyes going down the aisle. It's also why the most obnoxiously packaged stuff is about a foot or two lower than adult eye level, because the kids in most families pick out their own cereal, whether or not the parents mean for them to. I just hope they don't work sound into the packaging. All I want is pricing information. I almost wrote nutritional, but I've noticed that the most nutritious food in the store doesn't have nutritional information.

Re:Our ugly future

[jo42]

Except that meatspace has it's own rules.

You've never been to a gas station with gas pumps that have LCD displays and speakers that start blasting advertising/marketing crap at you as soon as you lift the nozzle. Time to start thinking about getting that cabin in back woods Montana me thinks...

Re:Our ugly future

[sm62704]

Then 30 days in the lockup plus restitution, because the cops nab you as you climb down off the electronic billboard you just smashed up.

And I can avoid, say weather.com but if I get a traffic ticket I must go to the Sangamon County Courthouse. Ironically, there is one of those billboards at the Prarie Capital Convention Center across the street from the Sangamon County Courthouse, which also houses the Sangamon County Jail.

If you threaten someone with a large butcher knife [slashdot.org] in Sangamon County you'll get fifteen days [slashdot.org] in the Sangamon County Jail across from the blinking flashing billboard (which you can no longer see from the jail as they replaced the glass with translucent glass to stop women from flashing the prisoners).

That is, so long as you don't threaten a cop with your little steak knife [slashdot.org]. They'll shoot you dead if you do.

-mcgrew

Re:Our ugly future

[Anonymous Coward]

...Because meatspace is all well and good, but it's a good idea to spend some time in greengrocerspace as well.

Re:Our ugly future

[bhima]

great, I can't wait for adverts on my chopsticks.

Re:Our ugly future

[johannesg]

There is a bright side, though: in meat space you can take an axe to it. I recommend it, it helps relieve stress quite a bit. Just make sure that, once the rage subsides, you carefully hide any body parts that you may find in your general vicinity.

Re:pffftt ...

[sm62704]

As if having blinking shiney flashey crap on the internet isn't bad enough

Spraypaint!

Old joke from the '80s: How can you tell if there's been a blonde using your computer?

There's white-out all over the screen!

Integration with membrane keypads?

[Rorschach1]

I was just thinking about this the other day. You can already get membrane keypads fairly cheaply (after a few grand in setup fees, anyway) but until now, displays have always required more mechanical complexity. How long before they start printing screens along with keypads?

Yeah, I think most of the keypads suck (the metal dome type aren't as bad), but it still means a richer user interface and lower cost devices. And probably animated cereal boxes.

Is this for lighting or displays?

[badboy_tw2002]

Most of the linked articles talk about "new technology for lighting" as in panel lights for rooms and such. Are these panels being manufactured for display tech too? Or is the refresh rate not fast enough yet?

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[MLCT]

For OLEDs refresh rates aren't a problem, patterning is. I presume this roll to roll technique is for lighting, as lighting panels don't require high precision deposition, just fire on the layers in a big mixture and go. When you move towards displays then you want very precise RGB pixels, patterned in a specific way, and a resolution of HD. For evaporation deposition that requires a shadow mask and 3 separate events for each colour. Shadow masks are a pain.

The reason Sony have only managed an 11" OLED display (and at $1500 they are still making a loss) is due to the difficulties of pattering it all (and getting good consistency). For GE and white light it is much much more straight forward. Whack on the layers, connect it up and go - they don't need to worry about any patterns. In the longer term solution processable OLEDs would substantially improve things. Solution processable means inkjet deposition (just like home printers), which means fine control of deposition and the ability to run with a roll to roll techniques. Solution processability is a few years away, however.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[TooMuchToDo]

So GE can clean up by marketing this as super-efficient lighting, and then plow the profits from that into highly-efficient displays in the future? W00t.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[tgatliff]

The key advantage of OLED is that it does not require a backlight. Meaning, since they are technically stamped emitting diodes, their backlight is "built-in" so to speak. The main issue with OLED's is that their life has never been real good, at about 10K hours in most applications which is real low... They also suffer from problems just like their cousin LED's where their luminance decreases pretty dramatically over time depending on usage and heat buildup. Think of this like bleaching of colors in the areas of the screen that get used the most. Refresh rates really have never been an issue with OLED's from my understanding. In short, a number of additional technology issues will still need to be worked out for OLED's to get widespread application usage...

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[timeOday]

a number of additional technology issues will still need to be worked out for OLED's to get widespread application usage...

"Cheap" is a cure-all for a lot of applications. If I can swap in a new screen for $25 and 5 minutes (like a toner cartridge), then 10K hours isn't so low.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[Achoi77]

YOU FOOL! The last thing we needed was for HP to read this post and come up with a new business plan for the next twenty five years. :-(

Cheap, disposable television units with easily swappable screens, given fixed prices on them.. arrgh! I want a television that lasts more than 3 months goddammit!

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the lifetime has improved, such that blue is speced out to be 30k hours, the other colors higher, but given that blue fades quickest, the blue is the limiting factor here. I could be wrong on the typical life, but it's been a year since I looked at it.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think that might be the halflife, it might still be useful beyond that.

If it's used for lighting, then 3.4 continuous years isn't that bad, flourescents are worse and they need to use a bit of mercury.

Most displays aren't on constantly, maybe 2000-2500 hours a year if used at work. That would be about twelve years. If the blue fading is a problem, I think that it might be adjustable. If you don't use full brightness, it probably lasts longer.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[bcrowell]

Regular (not organic) LED lighting is reasonable for some applications already. The efficiency is very high. The light output is fairly low, but it's highly directional, so that's why you're starting to see it a lot in applications like flashlights. You can get LED bulbs that screw into a regular 110 V receptacle. I have an LED reading light next to my bed, and it works great; in the evening when I'm reading in bed, I use a low-wattage CF bulb to light up the room just enough so I don't feel like I'm in a cave, and the LED reading lamp puts enough extra light on the page so that I'm comfortable reading.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[Scoth]

My cell phone has an OLED outer screen (LG VX8300) and I can see ghosting where commonly lit up elements are (signal strength, battery meter, cock, etc). Supposedly the blue OLEDs have particularly short lives. I like the phone decently (aside from the junky locked down Verizon interface) so it doesn't bother me that much.

Still, I look forward to when I can stick some "paper" in my OLED printer, print out a 5x5 sheet, and stick it in my closet for some extra light.

Re:Is this for lighting or displays?

[Muad'Dave]

signal strength, battery meter, cock, etc

That's an interesting thing to have on your phone!

Slashdotted already?

[Quattro Vezina]

I can't reach TFA. Is the server Slashdotted already?

Animated meatspace

[bornwaysouth]

> Personally, as the parent of a 3-year-old technophile, I'm dreading the animated cereal boxes.

I can see the counter-adverts on the ordinary boxes now "GE Free". And on the animated boxes "Cereal may contain nuts and batteries"

What I have been wanting for some time is something to brighten the sheer boredom of riding in a corporate lift. (I accept that stores and the like will batter a captive audience with ads so they are tortured into compliance by the time they arrive. Shut eyes, turn up iPod.)

The idea is to have something other than, say, a big 13 drifting past to tell you you have passed floor 13. I'd like a small 13, but some nice elevation dependent pictures. Earth and grass for the ground floor. Apples or tweety-birds for the next floor and so on. Eagles well up. And of course, space junk for senior managerial levels. Top floor a galaxy, with a warning that they are only 4% ordinary matter.

But I am bothered about the basement images. I'd rather avoid drippy caves, and anything with religious overtones. Suggestions anyone?

green?

[sentientbrendan]

It seems pretty silly to me that people think we are helping the environment by saving a few watts on our computer monitors. Meanwhile, billions of people are coming onto the grid and using coal power. It isn't even a drop in the ocean.

I see people putting up a few solar panels here and there, maybe generating enough energy to take a fraction out of their air conditioning bill, and I wonder if they are stupid. Even if everyone in the united states did the same thing, or even the entire world did the same thing, the carbon output would still be rising because industry requires a phenomenal amount of energy that can't be supplied or even offset significantly by these sorts of technologies.

These sorts of efforts are all about feeling good about the environment, while actually doing nothing to put a significant dent in the carbon output and reduce the damage that global warming will cause. Switching over to OLED monitors is kind of like spitting into a volcano to stop an eruption.

The truth is that most of the green technologies being put forward today are just fashion statements and a distraction from the real solutions, and it is technically impossible to solve our real problems with them. Most carbon output comes from power generation and transportation. In order to make a dent, we need to switch almost entirely over to power sources that have no carbon output, and we need to make a major push to mass transit.

Unfortunately, the issues get complicated in regards to power generation without carbon because the only existing technology that could replace all of our coal plants is nuclear power, and there isn't a lot of political will for nuclear power in the united states. Usually people put forward solar power, wind power, or biofuel as solutions, unfortunately, when you actually look at solar power and wind power, it is technically impossible to make a dent in our power output with these technologies because they only generate power a small percentage of the time, whereas power draw stays high 24/7. Biofuel production on the other hand actually generates more carbon than coal once you try to scale it up, and the government initiatives related to it are a huge fiasco.

People keep waiting around for an easy solution to our problems, and one that makes them feel good. Unfortunately, that's not how life works, all of the solutions have downsides and all of them require us to make sacrifices. Sadly, it's pretty obvious that we're going to wait until the situation is much more desperate than it already is before making significant efforts at change.

Re:green?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

if a million americans reduce their power usage in half, this means maybe 2 or 3 million people in sub-devoleped nations will be able to turn their light and refigerators on without adding any environmental impact.

here i brasil i know places where people have only one or two 60 watts light bulbs and a small refrigerator in their homes (and not by choice. it's imposed by poverty). compare such households with the enourmous waste of power that's las vegas, and you see that those people is the US installing LED bulbs and solar pannel are making out for the people being connected to the grid.

it might not help solve anything, but helps delay any impact by sub-developed countries that increasing their power output.

Re:green?

[xenocide2]

We can do both, you know. We can push for the removal of screensavers (in favor of screen blanking) AND put wind farms in Kansas. And a billion other things. We can push energy star requirements forward marginally and get a large impact universally. What I find craziest is who the opponents of Kansan wind farms are. They're rural enthusiasts who'd hate to see signs of civilization in their ranch, and environmentalists worried about prairie chickens.

Also, power draw does not stay high 24/7. It has considerable daytime requirements. The current power grid however, has peak efficiency at constant use. There are stations built to take advantage of this and store energy produced at night and resell during peak demand.

OLED displays needed

[TheSync]

One of the things we've found out is that no HD LCD, plasma, or rear-projection DLP displays are as good as a broadcast reference CRT monitor in terms of luminance dynamic range, viewing angle, or color gamut. Only front-projection DLPs seem to be able to match good quality CRTs, but then you need all that space for the projection.

OLEDs have a real chance of matching or even beating CRTs in a true "flat panel" form factor.

And I also like the idea of using OLED rolls as wallpaper so we can have 7,680 × 4,320 pixel video on the wall (which will, of course, need 22.2 surround sound (UHDTV [wikipedia.org]).

Re:OLED displays needed

[blair1q]

I don't quite get the need for all three at once.

If you want viewing angle, you're distorting the picture significantly in space, so losing a little luminance or color fidelity shouldn't be too big a deal.

And if you prioritize fidelity and dynamic range beyond what a TI DLP (the guts of many rear-projecting DLP HDTVs) can do, you'll be sitting on the sofa most of the time, so the usable viewing angle might as well be 45 degrees.

And CRTs hit their economics vs. performance limits a long time ago (the 200 lbs of glass is the most expensive part, if not the insurance for people who have to lift 200 lbs of glass into place). They will probably start to increase in price along with their rarity.

Re:OLED displays needed

[TheSync]

If you want viewing angle, you're distorting the picture significantly in space, so losing a little luminance or color fidelity shouldn't be too big a deal

In the broadcast engineering world, we like to have two people looking at a monitor at the same time to be able to see the same color & luminance on a pixel. Plus in a broadcast control room, you aren't sitting on a sofa, you may be moving around the room but needing to occasionally look back and need to be able to see what is going over the air to millions of people.

Some of the LCD monitors I've seen have good horizontal and vertical viewing angles, but it turns out that any offset in a diagonal direction is unusable for critical viewing.

You are right about CRTs. Professional-quality HD CRTs are basically no longer made. You plopped down $50,000 for one five years ago, but now there are none except in the used market.

Here are the user requirements for reference monitors [www.ebu.ch] from the EBU.

I should add that plasmas in particular have really truncated color gamuts. They cannot represent all the Rec. 709 [wikipedia.org] colors at any reasonable brightness, thus they tend to
"stretch the greens" which the eye is more sensitive to in order to look bright. Many plasmas also have a "turn-on jump" from a totally black pixel to one that has any light output that tends to accentuate noise in dark areas.

Re:Why does it have to glow?

[HTH NE1]

I sense a future in marketing personal EMP devices.

Look at this also another way: stores can save millions in lighting bills.

Re:Why does it have to glow?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

OLED = organic LIGHT EMITTING diode

Re:Why does it have to glow?

[leoc]

So called "interferometric modulator" [wikipedia.org] displays (IMOD for short) would be what you are looking for. It'll be a while before they are printed onto cereal boxes, but the potential is there.