Talk:Field-emission display

SONY is ready to mass produce FED displays

Or so is said here: http://www.techradar.com/news/television/new-tvs/sony-company-to-mass-produce-fed-displays-413456

I don't know if it is worth adding.

Light-guns need hopping-patch or flying-dot raster scan ?

"For gamers, game consoles with light guns may be able to react to the object that emits the sufficient lighting dynamics on the screen like on conventional CRTs which emit a flexible range of light dynamics; whereas, an LCD flat-panel monitor will only produce color and illuminate it with a backlight."

My understanding is that light guns operate via the vertical refresh mechanics of a CRT display. They would not work correctly where there is no vertical refresh cycle, such as in a FED/SED/LCD or Plasma. Also one could question the relevancy as to if any modern consoles even sell light guns anymore. Klinky 01:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FED and SED - is there a difference ?

The article isn't clear between differences of FED and SED, which are superior, or why they are different approaches. Could someone provide info?--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did a Google search and added a blurb on the distinction between SED and FED based on what I found. It would be great if an expert in the field could review that section for accuracy. BillMcGonigle 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's a branding issue - perhaps the only difference is the material making the electron-emitting spikes - the physics is the same ? Maybe the second, high-voltage electrode or low-voltage phosphor ? One for the patent lawyers to fight out ! I suspect most groups will have considered both. --195.137.93.171 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No - the physical situations of the FED and the SED are different. There is no consensus as to how a SED works, although the most likely mechanism is "lateral cold field electron emission" (RGForbes (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)).

Power comsumption

"Like LCDs, FEDs are energy efficient and could provide a flat panel technology that features less power consumption than existing LCD and plasma display technologies." This doesn't make any sense, so I'm taking the "Like LCDs" off the front. Hinges 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they meant LEDs ? --195.137.93.171 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Negatives

The page lists the advantages for this technology, but no disadvantages. I'm anxious to see what they will be. (I'm assuming a high starting price despite the "They can also be cheaper to make, as they have fewer total components") Does anyone know anything in this area? I'd look myself, but I'm overly lazy

Advantage: scaling?

Unlike LCD displays, the FED may have flexible handling of non-standard resolutions that LCDs will emulate poorly due to their native resolutions.

This doesn't make much sense. This is as much an array of shiny spots as an LCD display; the scaling is done by an internal software. Anybody got any sources on this? — Mütze 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't a FED also have a native resolution?

--Ubern00b 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's gone now ! --195.137.93.171 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be added again, but as disadavantage over conventional CRTs, which allow free resolution scaling without emulation. --80.109.39.94 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV suspected

It seems that disadvantages take a great part of the article beyond neutrality. Though advantages exist, they aren't categorized like disadvantages. Students like me may think FED is a poor technology. 211.241.93.129 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to be snarky, but being investor bait is not a technical advantage. No commercial product has ever been sold. As a research topic or tool field emission cathodes are of great value -- for consumer display, not so much. Field emitters require a continuously pumped high vacuum, usually 10^-9, which excludes them from cheap, long-lived consumer applications. Those of us in the industry tried...really hard! OldZeb (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

Pixel size or Resolution?

Does anybody know something about the pixel size or the resolution (dpi) that we may expect for FED computer monitors? Or is it something which is limited by marketing rather than by technology? -- Hokanomono ✉ 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert to previous non-narrative revision

The complete re-write of this page has introduced numerous errors, inaccuracies, and potentially misleading statements. It has included much material about other non-FED technologies -- also containing errors -- and does not provide references for these statements. If I (or anyone else) were to try to annotate the problems with the new page we would both come out much worse for the effort. In the spirit of the collaborative effort which has built Wikipedia, and the embracing of the concept that "non of us is as smart of all of us" would you please revert this page back to the earlier, non-narrative version so that we all may make incremental additions and revisions. Thanks. OldZeb (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The older version was terrible. The generalizations above aren't actionable on my end, so if you have some specifics just go ahead and edit. Trust me, you wont hurt my feelings! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize in retrospect that I didn't include any actionable items myself. To correct this, let's consider the very first body para of the old version:

Field emission display (FED) technology is similar, in a general way, to that of cathode ray tubes. However, like other flat panel display technologies, it has the potential to reduce display thickness to a few millimeters. Instead of a single thermal electron gun, FED uses a large-area field electron source, such as a field emitter array (FEA). (A FEA is an array of fine metal tips or carbon nanotubes: each emitter acts as an electron source when a sufficiently high field is applied to its apex.)

This paragraph contains only three sentences, yet illustrates all of the problems that were endemic to the prose as a whole. To start with, two of the three sentences contain obvious examples of weasel words. If the statement can't be made with authority, its best just not to say it. It starts off with a description of the FED, but uses technical jargon to describe it. It then goes entirely off topic and starts comparing the FED with LCD. It then returns to the topic of FED technology, but apparently considers it so unimportant that it's included in parens!

At no point does the prose even attempt to make a real description of the device. In fact, the majority of the prose didn't talk about FED's, but its competition, and did so in an utterly disorganized fashion, and largely lacking references or even any details. It had to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Field emission display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060616161055/http://sharp-world.com:80/sc/library/lcd_e/s2_6_3e.htm to http://sharp-world.com/sc/library/lcd_e/s2_6_3e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field emission display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616183341/http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2007AUG/PDF/EEOL_2007AUG16_OPT_TA.pdf to http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2007AUG/PDF/EEOL_2007AUG16_OPT_TA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field emission display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413154548/http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/ to http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)