Talk:Plasma display

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somebody mention the various prices over the years.



Any chance someone in the know could add a pros and cons section like over at the DLP page?

This article is not NPOV --Tykell 00:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that a joke? What's POV about this article? --Cholling 20:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gotta lol. If there's one thing that Wikipedia is reluctant to remove, no matter how ridiculous, it's an NPOV notice. --70.24.219.247 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link that talks about pros and cons of both, as well as comparing them. Will give a short summary in the near future if time permits. The link is: www.plasma-vs-lcd.com Plasma vs. LCD - Comparison of Plasma TVs and LCD TVs

Contents

[edit] Pressure

Is partial vacuum necessary to create these noble gas plasmas? -- Beland 08:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legend

There seems to be an urban legend going around that plasma TVs have a working live of not much longer than 4 or 5 years... any information on this? it sounds incorrect to me... perhaps this myth could be debunked (or if it is true (unlikely)) confirmed. Hydroksyde 10:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC

As far as I know that's not right — [Mac Davis] (talk)

[edit] SPAM ALERT =

The last external link (Plasma TV) goes to govinda.nu/electronics/tv/plasma-tv/index.htm where you can 'buy' Plasma TV at 'e-bay'

Another one: I removed the link to www.lcdplasmatvguide.com PDP TV Buying Guide, which has three blocks of ads on every page and barely any text. It's useless. -- Skierpage 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "plasma drawbacks"

I removed the sentance:

The biggest drawbacks of plasma technology are the high cost, often lower resolution, and relatively short lifespan.

as these statements are basically refuted elsewhere in the article. While the resolution isn't specificially mentioned in the article (it should be), Plasma sets are now available in 1080p, the highest consumer resolution available. Additionall, the article states "in 2004 the cost has come down to US$1900 or less" and "So if you use it at an average of 2-1/2 hours a day, the PDP will last approximately 65 years."

I would take issue with any claims of long life. Waterloo station in London has had passenger information systems based on plasma displays for 3 years. Network Rail have had enough with the unacceptable maintenance costs as each display lasts for less than a year. So much so that in the early part of 2007, they are going to scrap the whole scheme and replace them with some (as yet undisclosed) technology. At any time several of the displays are unreadable. However, it should be noted that they are operational for nearly 20 hours a day.

86.132.205.207 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting what the anonomous contributor said above. I know the man whose main business is in removal of scrap and waste material. I was talking to him about the large scrapping of CRT based TVs at the present. He told me that he scraps far more worn out plasma TVs than CRTs, and they are rarely more than 3 or 4 years old. And the number of scrapped worn out plasmas is increasing, not decreasing as would be the case if the current breed of the technology was really lasting longer.
This accords very broadly with my observations where I work. We use plasma displays for customer presentation purposes, and they seldom give a burn free display for longer than about a year, and it becomes unacceptable after two years, necessitating scrap and replacement. I'm afraid anybody who claims that current plasma displays are not prone to burning in and hava a long life, is a liar.

I B Wright 17:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Added sentence on IBM

I added sentence on IBM plasma displays in the early 1980's. As a young EE graduate in 1984, I was impressed by their orange on black plasma panels that IBM produced in their Kingston NY plant. I joined the company because I wanted to work on this technology (but got hired to do other work). I remember the display was divided into four quadrants which were used to display four separate mainframe 'virtual machine' (VM) sessions. Quite interesting for the time.

[edit] Illustration

I think it would be great if this article had excellent illustrations, like the CRT article, but I wouldn't know where to find a good one that wasn't copyrighted. Any help? Nicholasink 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a figure describing the composition of a PDP (matrix electrode model ACM). I also drew cells (WAFFLE), but I don't know if the ACM's use stripes instead. I have understood that nowadays the coplanar electrode structure is more advanced. Hope the figure is useful, though! Note: I am a newbie in drawing, so the result is far from perfect (made with inkscape). Yartsa 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pixel orbiting

I'm not familiar enough with the subject to write about it, but I believe pixel orbiting should at least briefly be discussed in the article. If not discussed, then maybe just mentioned here and addressed in another relevant article like Phosphor burn-in or even have its own article if it isn't trivial enough. --Kamasutra 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brightness and Contrast

"Plasma displays are bright (1000 lx or higher for the module),"

Everywhere else I've seen display brightness (luminance) measured in cd/m^2. Lux means the amount of light that falls on a surface.


"For reference, the page you're reading now (on a computer monitor) is actually about 50:1."

That's only the case if you're reading the page on a CRT display with a white background and black text. LCD monitors don't suffer from internal reflections that "contaminate" dark areas with light from bright areas. Or, if your colors are reversed (white text on black background), a CRT monitor can give you 20000:1 contrast easily.

[edit] Lifespan

I think that modern plasma panels don't get dimmer after only 2000 hours. I have a plasma screen playing for more than 6 hours every day since 11/2004 and the only problem is a slight burn-in from the TV channel logos. --greekalien 10:48, 26 Aug 2006 (GMT+2)

The burn-in possibility should definitely be mentioned in the article. AxelBoldt 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It is. Under 'Cons', though I believe that whoever contributed that has considerably underplayed the problem. Even real modern plasmas suffer severe burn in on static images. I B Wright 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

where visible light is created by phosphors excited by a gas; discharge contains no mercury (in contrast to the backlights of an AMLCD).

Later in the article it explains that the phosphors are excited by photons created by ionized gas, I think this would be a bit more informative here [if it is true]. The sentence "discharge contains no mercury (in contrast to the backlights of an AMLCD)" remains obscure to me. What discharge are we talking about? Is the claim that the gas to be ionized doesn't contain mercury? Who would expect mercury in the gas anyway? AxelBoldt 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted to an earlier version of the intro which was more informative. However, I have still one question regarding the operation of plasma displays. If my current understanding is correct, the applied voltage ionizes the gas, this produces ultraviolet photons, and these in turn light up the phosphors. I don't understand how and why the ionization produces photons. AxelBoldt 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone altered the first sentence to read 'A plasma display panel (PDP) is a type of flat panel display now commonly used for large TV displays are very bad and should not be bought (typically above 32").' I removed the part shown in bold. Warhead1954 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

Great article. But should someone edit it to reflect that plasmas are being consdered superior again because of their superior resolution? --Ughmonster 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? It isn't true. In sizes where LCD panels are made, the Plasma panels have exactly the same resolution. Their only real difficulty is their unacceptably short life (in spite of claims to the contrary). I B Wright 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma 10x more expensive>?????

This can't be true. By that logic, a 40" Plasma would cost $35,000+. Am I right???? Maybe 10% more expensive, not much more than that

[edit] Edit to pro and Cons

I took off the comment that the pros and cons are relative to LCD because there not (check the expensive comment) and removed the vandalism at the end of the cons section.

[edit] Buzzing at altitude

I heard there are problems using Plasmas at over +- 6,500 ft. altitutes; you get a loud buzzing noise. Is this true?

Certainly some of the plasma displays I've seen around 5,000 ft are noisy, but I don't know if that has anything to do with the altitude or not. They aren't ALL noisy, but some are worse than others. --Mdwyer 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I found this with a quick google: [1] Apparently, the pressure differential means the TV has to work harder, so you hear more eletrical buzzing and possible a louder cooling fan. --Mdwyer 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fodel paste

Something to consider for inclusion: apparently there is a paste that is produced by DuPont which is used as an integral part of some plasma displays and which contains ruthenium. A new version of the paste is being developed by DuPont which will contribute to cost reductions in the manufacture of displays. Citation: Tadesse, Luladey B.. "Upgraded DuPont material will improve plasma TVs", Delaware News-Journal, 18 January 2007. Retrieved on January 18, 2007. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/a/Talk%7EPlasma_display_0048.html"