21 Jul 10
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=43155&refer=weeklyNewsletter&utm_source=weeklyNewsletter_2010_07_21&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyNewsletter
It claims 56 lumens of light output for each watt input. I think 1 lumen is = to one candle power, right? Anyone know that one? Also, isn't the max you can get supposing 100% watts to lumens conversion about = 250 ish lumens per watt? Anyone verify that #? If so that sounds like about 25 ish% watts to lumen efficiency. I think some other forms of LED's and fluorescent lights way exceed that, right?
The issue may be the lower cost of these new lights.
22 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe that OLEDs have certain advantages. However, manufacturing them is done via expensive methods. When the cheapest method is used, they are less efficient. The article says that they have found a way to use the cheap manufacturing method and still achieve reasonable power efficiencies, or at least a new benchmark.
The issue may be the lower cost of these new lights.
It seems that OLEDs can be made on flexible surfaces, which I think LEDs and fluorescents cannot. I also believe that the materials themselves would make manufacturing them much cheaper than LEDs or fluorescents. They may also have less issues with disposal ie they don't need special recycling procedures.
These are all just guesses, so correct me if I am wrong.
22 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think all of what you said is true, more disposable, I think spirals have mercury in them for one thing. At least OLED's are a lot more efficient than incandescent bulbs. You get a sense of that because they for sure don't generate much heat. One thing that comes to mind is backlighting for LED large screen tv's. I look forward to the day when it can be applied to walls like wallpaper and electronics can make it give off lots of light of any color for mood control. That would be neat, eh.
I believe that OLEDs have certain advantages. However, manufacturing them is done via expensive methods. When the cheapest method is used, they are less efficient. The article says that they have found a way to use the cheap manufacturing method and still achieve reasonable power efficiencies, or at least a new benchmark.
It seems that OLEDs can be mad ...[text shortened]... need special recycling procedures.
These are all just guesses, so correct me if I am wrong.
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by sonhouseMy understanding was that OLEDs were used in screens (including phones and computer monitors not just tvs) instead of backlight+LCD ie each pixel is an OLED.
One thing that comes to mind is backlighting for LED large screen tv's.
Having looked it up, I see OLEDs are faster and brighter than most other flatscreen technologies.
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm sure it will lead to more efficient LED type computer monitors at least. I have a fairly large LED monitor and you can feel the heat from the front, maybe 39 degrees C. Although that would be a bit cooler than some CRT monitors, it would clearly last longer if it were made with more efficient cooler technology as well as saving energy.
My understanding was that OLEDs were used in screens (including phones and computer monitors not just tvs) instead of backlight+LCD ie each pixel is an OLED.
Having looked it up, I see OLEDs are faster and brighter than most other flatscreen technologies.