OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Lights 151
Mike writes "Researchers at Korea's Advanced Institute of Science and Technology recently announced a breakthrough in OLED technology that reduces the ultra-thin lights' energy consumption by 75%. The discovery hinges upon a new method of creating 'surface plasmon enhanced' organic light emitting diodes that boast 1.75 times increased emission rates and double the light intensity." OLEDnet notes: "The finding was published in the April issue of Applied Physics Letters and the June 25 issue of Optics Express. It will be also featured as the research highlight of the August issue of Nature Photonics and Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science."
But how long do they last? (Score:2, Informative)
OLEDs have traditionally had very short life spans compared to other display technologies. Does the 'surfance plasmon enhanced' (SPE) device fair any better?
It's just twice the light output (Score:5, Informative)
two possible improvements (Score:5, Informative)
Many methods for organic device deposition make use of inkjet printing which is extremely low-cost and easy to do (I'm guessing roughly several square miles per day).
They're using silver nanoparticles. Silver isn't cheap, but in that quantity it's not a big deal. Possible improvements to this method include using a different nanoparticle material (but silver is the best for surface plasmon effects, except for maybe gold) and incorporating inkjet printing to avoid high-cost vacuum environments. I don't think an inkjet deposition method would interfere with surface plasmon interactions on the nanoparticles so we should still see good efficiency.
TFA didn't mention lifetime, and I figure that it's not a huge issue anymore for OLEDs. Another big advantage with using silver is that it isn't susceptible to photocorrosion (silver oxides do not form readily).
Green? I hope more.... (Score:3, Informative)
Nowhere in either article is there any claim towards being eco-friendly. Neither is the word "green" in the articles, so I am quite at a loss as to why you're off on this tangent. The only claim that might be considered close is the 75% reduction in energy use, however that statement is leaps and bounds away from "It's green and eco-friendly".
Green? I hope these new OLEDs are more than just green, but red, blue, orange, white.... every color of the rainbow.
Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (Score:4, Informative)
I can tell you that maintaining a high vacuum seal is simple. Orings are amazing things, and the physics that goes along with them is astonishing. That unassuming little black ring really is quite amazing. Forget holding a vacuum; properly designed, they can stand up to 100x atmospheric pressure against a total vacuum and not break a sweat. I'm a scuba diver, and the orings on my scuba tank yoke valve hold up 200 bar, which makes the pressure difference between normal air pressure and a vacuum look like the breath exhaled from the mouth of a sleeping newborn.
Re:Sounds good but... (Score:4, Informative)
One of the major reasons why OLEDs are so interesting is because they are *not* vacuum-deposited, but deposited with ink-jet or screen printing techniques. [wikipedia.org]
Of course, 75% reduction of the already-small power consumption of OLEDs is probably worth it for mobile apps.
Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (Score:4, Informative)
Why do we always return to picking on the whales? What did the whales ever do to warrant this? Whales are cool!
I say lets replace all usage of whale blubber to using people blubber instead. There are plenty of useless people wandering about everywhere. A few here and there won't be missed. We can start with rounding some up in the halls of congress.
Soylent Green anyone?
TFA is so numerically challenged (Score:5, Informative)
(1) OLED Breakthrough Yields 75% More Efficient Light ...reducing the ultra-thin lightsâ(TM) energy consumption by 75%
(2)
(3) increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times
(4) increases light intensity twofold.
*Four* numerical figures, and no two of them compatible in any way.
(1): "a 75% more efficient light" would mean an increase to 175% or original, a factor of 1.75 times better.
(2): "reducing by 75%" means a factor of 4 better.
(3): "increases photoluminescence emission rates by 1.75 times" means a 2.75 time increase, a factor of 2.75
(4): "increases light intensity twofold" is a factor of 2.
All incompatible. Wonder what the real numbers are?
Re:two possible improvements (Score:4, Informative)
Those are silver salts (mostly nitrate and halides). Metallic silver isn't affected by light. That's why it makes excellent mirrors (until oxygen gets to it of course)
Other reasons for eye strain (Score:3, Informative)
Many CRTs will flicker - the refresh rate is typically from 60-85Hz. The LCD panel backlight might also flicker a bit too. I'm not sure about the OLED tech.
For the people who say you can't see the difference, just wave your hand in front of the screen. Then go out in daylight and wave your hand. Notice a difference?
Alternatively, look at the screen from the side of your eye - for many people the image will not appear to be as "stable" or "steady" as a wall.
2) For a lot of display tech, the blacks aren't very black, so to have a high contrast ratio they make the whites much brighter and that could hurt your eyes more (compare the brightness of your display's whites with the brightness of a piece of white paper held up next to it).
Apparently with OLEDs the blacks should be much blacker than LCD blacks. But I suspect they're still going to be blindingly bright.
Anyway, you could try turning the brightness down so that the standard white on your display is no brighter than the white on a sheet of paper. Alternatively change the colour scheme so that the "text background whites" aren't so bright - make them a darker grey.
I've got my brightness set to 10 out of 100, and the text bankground white is still brighter than white paper lit by the flourescent lamps above. 100/100 is really too bright
Re:Sounds good but... (Score:3, Informative)
I have a hybrid, so no more carpooling for me, suckers!
Re:News at 11, new eco friendly whale oil OLEDs. (Score:5, Informative)
That's all well and good but you're not dealing with a setup where a single dust spec will ruin everything. Ultra high vacuum systems don't merely need to hold the pressure, they need to ensure that nothing ( not even slightly too many helium atoms ) can diffuse into the system. To get a basic idea of what is needed of these systems, leaving fingerprints is an absolute no-go since the low pressure will cause the water to evaporate contaminating your setup. Also forget o-rings made out of rubber or any other polymer based material. They are too porous and allow stuff to diffuse through them. The o-rings used in practice for helium tight vacuum systems will be made of a metal alloy that has been carefully picked to be soft enough that you can squeeze it slightly (but not too much ).
Essentially while your scuba gear may be holding a very large pressure that's not quite the same thing as ensuring that it does not have a single atomic scale leak. It's a bit like comparing a fog-horn to a powerful amplifier and then proclaiming the amplifier must be primitive since the foghorn is louder.