Talk:OLED/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Lighting in General

This article focusses too much on OLED technology for signal display - such as computer monitors and televisions. I suggest a section looking at a wider aspect of OLED technology for use in lighting applications. There is much info out there about lighting panels covering an entire ceiling and companies such as Philips Research are already experimenting with such technology. 89.243.235.178 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Verify

Someone should verify the 26-Feb-2004 version and save it as the appropriate language (Spanish? The IP address is from Mexico). --Snags 14:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Software for OLED

How can you make organic memory, TFT? What kind of issue we may have? What is possible solution?... A group has been set up to discuss this. This group is ranked as top 3 in nanotechnology catogory by Yahoo. Its site is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrganicDevice/

This group is sponsored by OD Software Incorporated (http://www.odcad.com/)

Professor Yang at UCLA discovered a form of very robust organic memory devices that people are becoming very intersted in. I know this technology is being investigated by IBM (because I worked on it there) which means they think it can be commercialzed. It is still not fully understood, but essentially if you embed small metal particles in a thin film, they will reversibly trap electrons (for a very, very, very long time) which changes the overall resistance of the device (on and off states). I'm sure others are working on it, but these are the only two I know of first-hand. Also, If I don't have an OLED shirt in the next 5 years I'm going to kill someone. Fearofcarpet 21:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page should be moved to PLEDs

An Organic Light Emitting Diode is just that; a light-emitting diode in which light emission arrises from an organic compound. A Polymer Light Emitting Device (PLED) is related, but different. The discussion in this definition (injet priting, etc) is specific to PLEDs. I have edited the first line to correct the definition, but the original defition should be restored (though the polymers do not have to be semiconductors, I know because I synthesized a non-conjugated polymer and made working PLEDs from it, also PVK is well known to function as an emissive layer in PLEDs and it is not a semiconductor) and this page moved to PLEDs. Perhaps I will take it upon myself to fix this if I have time. Fearofcarpet

  • The term OLED is more generic than PLED. All of the polymers used in PLEDs are organics, so all PLEDs are OLEDs. Some people have made the distinction that OLEDs use non-polymers (aka Small Molecules, even though many of the molecules have dozens of atoms). It seems more correct to call these devices SMOLEDs and save the generic term for all devices it describes. So, by my definitions, OLEDs come in two forms, SMOLEDs and PLEDs. Does this make sense? --Snags 16:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- While that is technically correct, it will not always be true that the polymers used are organic, therefore it is more correct to distinguish between the two. It is also not always the case that PLEDs are diodes. To the best of my knowledge (small molecule) OLEDs are always diodes. This is a pet peave of mine because engineers tend to refer to everything as OLEDs so perhaps I'm being nit-picky. Fearofcarpet

Also I corrected a few technical details... There is no such thing the injection of excited electrons, only electrons of higher energy than the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the lumophor. Exitons are not always created when holes and electrons meet. They are the result of the binding of holes and electrons (an exciton is one of those physics particles-that-is-not-really-a-particle and has a very specific definition) within a lumophore. In the case of a polymer, they can feel each other through the conjugation of the backbone, but in the case of small molecules they generally have to find each other in the same molecule. Exitons do not always lead to emission either. There are many non-radiative pathways by which exitons are dissipated (usually vibrational which gives of heat) and these actually dominate in OLEDs and PLEDs. A fluorophor with a quantum yield of 0.3 will be lucky to have an overall efficiency of 0.01 in an OLED. PLEDs are even worse.... And the patent thing really is only hampering industry. Research in academia is very strong and and very public-domain. Fearofcarpet 21:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Regarding the "new" hybrid devices, I'm not sure blending lumophors into polymer matrices should be considered new. I'm not 100 percent sure no one has bothered to do this specifically in PLEDs until recently, but I know that technique has been used for decades. Also, PVK, which accomplishes the same feat by using lumophor pendant groups on a non-conductive poly(ethylene) backbone has been used in PLEDs for years. There is another important class of OLEDs involing transition metal complexes that attain very high efficiencies as well as hybrid devices that blend various polymers/small molecules to produce white light. Perhaps they should be mentioned in the same section? Fearofcarpet 00:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- I'm curious about something. I hear people say that PLEDs are better because you can spin coat them which doesn't require pulling vacuum. In fact in this entry it says "The production of Small-molecule displays requires vacuum deposition which makes the production process expensive and not so flexible" but, if that is true how do they install the top electrode? In the PLEDs I have made, the top electrode is always Al or Ca which is installed by vapor deposition and does not differ in the slightlest from the process used to install the top electrode of (small molecule) OLEDs. Now, to make an OLED you never have to break vacuum, which means the number of vacuum cycles is the same for both systems... Isn't it? Fearofcarpet 00:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- The issue is patterning of the RGB emitters. The patterning needs to be positive, i.e. only put down what you need. For an evaporated material this has to be done with a shadow mask which makes it hard to do on a large area - you will notice that many RGB SMOLED devices are white with filters which is an inefficient way of doing things and is not practical on a large panel. The point with PLEDs is that you can ink-jet print, which should, in principal, be much more scalable to large displays. Of course this is yet to be proved as neither technology boasts large panel display products, only demonstrators which do not need to yield. Yes the metal still needs to be evaproated, but does not need patterning. Zebedee1971 16:32, 30 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Sample applications

should the article mentions some OLED currently in use? For example, the 2005 Acura dash board is made of OLED. Kowloonese 22:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is also the Creative Zen MicroPhoto

Yeah, umm... I totally agree with you. Are these things better than the XLamp LEDs for growing stuff? That is a sample disscussion I would like to see. Oh and where to buy them would be great as well. Or better yet, is there a way to simply modify XLamp LEDs to act like an OLED?


Thomas

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejolson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the largest

That top Samsung oled image does not show the largest as of 01/05. This was bigger back in June '04!--Deglr6328 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Flexible Display Screen

The redirect from Flexible Display Screen really should not redirect to OLED since flexible display screen is a technology that uses/will use OLEDs, but it is not the same thing, unless I am quite misguided. However, there's no article about it, and someone would need to write one, something i do not have the time nor the resources to do now. Bobburito 23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Spinach!

What joker put in the bit about being able to go down to the grocers and replenish the organic material with spinach! (Disadvantages section) :-)

So should I remove it for you? --Snkcube 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. =) --Snkcube 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging!?? Let us crucify the F?&*%ng Idiot who suggested that!

What the H&*l kind of idea is this... MERGE? Next thing you know we'll want to merge this article to display monitor article. Or merge Granny Smith, Red Delicious to the article apple, get a F*&(&ng life and stop trying to associate everything with anything. Everything is inter-conected some how and everything needs it's own place.

Don't be stupid

OEL is different technology. so should remain separate.

OLED News

Dear Editor Team!

We provide 2 websites about infos and news OLED-Displays. The sites inform you about Organic LEDs (OLEDS), the next display technology that promises to deliver thin, power efficient and bright displays. OLEDs.

Is it possible to add our sites to news and information sources? http://www.oled-display.net http://www.oled.at (german)

OLED-Info

Hello guys.

My name is Ron Mertens, from oled-info.com web site. OLED-Info is a community site for OLED, with news, resources and forums. We have also made several interviews with leading companies from the industry (including UDC, OSD and Toppoly). I believe our site is quite useful to the OLED community, and should be placed as a link in the OLED definition. I have talked to Wmahan and he wants an "Established editor" to approve the site. It will be great if someone can find the time and help us out.

Regards,

Ron Mertens (ron@oled-info.com)

PS - to answer a question in this thread (Sample Applications by Kowloonese) we have a web page with many devices (phonts, MP3, A/V, etc.) that sport OLED displays: oled-info.com/devices.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.7.31 (talk • contribs)

Dear Editors of the OLED-article,

I believe, that site of Ron Mertens, www.oled-info.com should be reintroduced in this page, since this site a good quality and provides a lot of useful information on development in OLED industry. I also believe, that several other highly useful external links have been recently removed as "spam", which is actually a nonsense. Such companies, as Universal Display Corporation and Cambridge Display technology are very well known, established and respected developers of the OLED technology. They hold numerous patents, contributed plenty of scientific articles, and inventions in the technology. Some of their leaders are leading scientists in the field! Their websites contain much useful information in the field. We shouldn't ignore leading (if not key) developers of the technology!

I hereby reintroduce all aforementioned links back into the article. I totally disagree with editors, who made these changes. Please, be considerable to people, who provides links with quality information highly complimentary to the one of article itself. If anyone has any questions on this regard, please, contact me directly at alexander_kelin@yahoo.com.

Best regards,

Alexander Kelin 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That website appears to consist mainly of links pulled from other sites, which hardly makes it the unique resource required by Wikipedia:External links. If a neutral, established editor vouches for it, I will withdraw my objection, but I doubt that is likely.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you are the owner of another site that was added to the article; I removed that one as well because it looked like it was added for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow adding your own site or promoting any site. Wmahan. 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wmahan, please, tell us your real name and what is the "neutral, esteblished editor". My website www.oe-chemicals.com has been here for a long time, I have not introduced it right now. I DO NOT PROMOTE oled-info.com, and other websites and HAVE NO interest with them and they are not linked to me. I really believe, that these sites are good sources of information. At the same time, many links here look pretty much as weak. I would probably removed all the links from "News stories, information article..." remove this section at all.

Regards, Alexander Kelin 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were too many low-quality external links in the article. Therefore I did some thorough cleanup. I left in two links that pointed directly to useful information that was not overtly commercial. Some of the "News" links might be useful as references for an article section about the progress that is being made on OLEDs, but they do not belong under the section "External links". This section is also not the place to put a list of research groups and companies that are active in the OLED field. Han-Kwang 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Good mister Kwang!

Very radical. Please, let us know then what relation you have to any of OLED technology or science. I hereby, remove rest of the links, which are: 1. The first one is too commercial - definitely, it advertises OSRAM products. 2. The second one has nothing much to do with OLED at all.

Please, let us know also, in which section of Wikipedia, or the WEB, your own site rests. We all wish to check, how commercial it is.

Regards,

Alexander Kelin 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't stop you from removing the final two. I have been a postdoc in a research group that worked on organic semiconductors research, although mostly photovoltaics rather than OLED. I will leave the answer your last question up to yourself. It isn't too hard to find out. Han-Kwang 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is already good, Dr. Nienhuys, that you at least do not hide behind a fake name. No, I couldn't find out your website from your information, may be you would be so kind to providing url to us. If you were a postdoc in organic photovoltaic research, you should, probably, notice, that some sites that were linked here were not so bad. But if someone is going so crazy with a spamofobia, let live him with it. Please, remove all links from the rest of Wikipedia as well. I am sure, you will make it much poorer, and people will leave it eventually.

Best regards,

Alexander Kelin, PhD, organic chemistry

Alexander Kelin 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend. I think it would be better to invest time in improving Wikipedia with actual content rather than placing external links. At the very least, an external link could be placed in a context, in which case it becomes a reference supporting a statement rather than an advertisement. Han-Kwang 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why wouldn't you go ahead and remove all the rest of external links from the Wikipedia. We still hope for your kind providing of your website(s) url. Alexander Kelin 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1. All websites that I maintain can be easily found by typing in my name into Google. 2. I don't have the energy to start discussions on that many pages, so I mostly remove links from pages where I see edit wars over external links. 3. Not so long ago I thought a couple of external links don't do any harm. However, I have witnessed on too many pages that once there is an "External links" section, one editor after the other starts to add links. I'm sorry that it is this way, but in many articles, the section header "External links" just attracts linkspam, followed by discussions such as this one about the merits of each individual link. Interestingly, external links are always defended by editors that have no significant edit history other than adding external links that defend them. Han-Kwang 21:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you meant myself, I have not edited Wikipedia so far. I think, I already told somewhere, that because of my not perfect English, I prefer to help Wikipedia with some cash. But what I planned to do right today, I wanted to edit couple of articles concerning electroconductive organics. These are in poor shape. That is why I came here but found inappropriate devastation in the OLED section (my own link was safe - by the way). And what, there is some rule, that external links may be added only by article writers? My today's intention is broken anyway, and I am going to find out your sites. Will be back with 'full report' soon. Alexander Kelin 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Nienhuys,

I have checked your websites and background. Although I could, probably, appreciate your contribution to the physics of water and water solutions, sorry, you have nothing to do with OLED or organic photovoltaics. I firmly believe, that all your edition in this section should be reverted, as well as the one of mysterious mr. "Wmahan". I hope, that someone qualified will do this the soonest possible way. Taking into regard, that your editions in many other sections of Wikipedia were questioned as well, someone should take some steps to develop mechanism of protecting of Wikipedia articles from demolishing by persons as you are. Here, I paste a list of your scientific publications for everyone's review.

Best wishes,

Alexander Kelin 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed my publication list. Anyone who's interested can spend 10 seconds on Google to find out for himself. I'm getting tired of this discussion. Han-Kwang 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Kelin, my academic credentials are nowhere near yours or those of Han-Kwang (impressive, by the way!), and I sincerely hope that you will contribute to the content of the article, because you would doubtless be a great resource. However, it does not take an expert to understand Wikipedia's policies against self promotion.

I'm baffled as to why you would accuse me of hiding behind a fake name (though I have to admit, your calling me "mysterious" was a bit of an ego boost). My name is Wil Mahan, as you would find on the first line of my user page. I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert in this area--there's no need to go digging that up. However, I stand by Wikipedia's policies and the consensus that adding links to your own site is not allowed. These policies apply equally to everyone, from elementary school students to people with great expertise like you, so to be honest you are wasting your time in focusing on others' qualifications. Wmahan. 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that is why Wikipedia is full of "self-promoted" links. I believe, that many people edit Wikipedia with a purpose of self-promotion, and I feel nothing bad about that, if the promotion is relevant. At this moment, I tried to promote other's websites by the way, therefore you can't accuse me of this. Just go ahead with your castrated article and edit it yourself. But make sure, if you take some information from mine or other's websites, you have to cite them. Otherwise, you can be accused in copyright violation.

71.162.71.143 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OLED-Info

Hello guys.

I see there is quite a dispute going on. I want to answer the claim that oled-info is "just a list of links". It's not entirely true. First of all we have exclusive content, all related to OLEDs - we have conducted several interviews with leading OLED companies. This can be found in our articles page (http://www.oled-info.com/articles.html). Next, we have compiled an extensive list of companies with relation to OLEDs (R&D, production, etc.) and a list of devices that utilize OLED displays, and an OLED history page. This is not just a list of links! it takes a long time to find this information, and it is very useful that it is in the same page already!

We also have an events page, with a list of OLED conferences, with details on each. We provide a Google calendar of OLED events too. This is not something you can just search for and find in google. It takes time to find these exhibitions...

We have also list books related to OLEDs.

I think that even the OLED news section is not just a list of links. I spend quite a bit of time finding and going through OLED news, deciding what is relevant and what to display on the site. We have many readers, including a lot of key persons from the industy. They all find the page useful.

I understand that you wish that all information be on the OLED page, and not on external links, but I don't think this is viable on a subject such as OLED, with lot's of dailys news and so many information available.

Regards,

Ron Mertens oled-info.com

To all editors of the OLED article.

I just visited the website of mister Mahan as well. He is 24 years old and I haven't found any information about his education at all. I don't know, what these guys are doing here. Someone qualified should check and revert all edition of these two persons. I can do it if I granted approval from one or more real qualified editors or writers of this article. Waiting for your approval.

Alexander Kelin 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OLED Article Websites

I am the webmaster of [1] and [2] (german). Our websites starts for a few month with OLED blogs which shows every new products with OLED and every OLED news.

I think our websites and ron mertes oled-info.com website are very good informations for the people which uses wikipedia. So I don´t understand why all websites are deleted from the external links page. This Websites are definitly no SPAM.

Greetings Erik oled-display.net oled.at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik1974 (talk • contribs)

Whether the website is legitimate and useful is only one of the criteria for placement in the external links section. WP is not a web directory, see WP:EL. If there is not yet a dmoz section about OLEDs, you can request for the creation of a new category over there and place a link to dmoz from this article. However, please do not hesitate to use your up-to-date knowledge to improve the article's content. As said before: if an established editor (i.e. one who has made substantial contributions other than placing external links) wants to place an external link, he is welcome to do so. Han-Kwang 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am giving up to fight with these losers. They just roam around with a single purpose to remove someone's links, may be they feel some good of kicking people (always there are some that feel good of this). It's pity, if this is for the Wikipedia-supporter's money.

I insert back the link, I removed myself (in excitement, sorry). It is good and relevant. According to guidlines: Wikipedia should be linked to:

"High quality sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks."

I think, if someone insists that a link is "poor quality", he/she should at least demonstrate some knowledge in a subject. Let's leave them with their believes, may be one day they will get this knowledge and continue to edit this article.

Alexander Kelin 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:ATTACK. Han-Kwang 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you together with "wmahan" have made personal attack on me and other article contributors. Please, have a look at wp:vandalism. I see your actions are definitely under this category.

-

Alexander Kelin 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the vandalism policy. Content disputes are explicitly excluded from the definition of vandalism. Also, if you believe a personal attack has been made, could you please quote it or indicate which diff contains one? I fail to see any personal attacks made by editors other than yourself. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Saxifrage,

To my disappointment you see only what you want to see, even after I pointed you, were to find the direct offence. Here is a piece of discussion from Hankwang,s talk page. I found it when I wanted to leave him a message:

Organic light-emitting diode spam

Passing thought - is it worth warning the reg user who has been placing these links - looks like it has been done (& undone!) quite a few times (& reg users posting spam irritates me!). Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say that direct confrontations with spammers (i.e. getting involved in a discussion) take too much of my energy that I have better purposes for. Han-Kwang 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope, now you are satisfied.

Best regards,

Alexander Kelin 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see now. I don't know what to say, except that because it wasn't meant for or said to you it couldn't have been said with any malice. Perhaps that's small comfort. Perhaps, prefereably, any time we're discussing someone during our participation in the anti-spam project we would say that someone is "acting like a spammer" or refer to them as "those who act like spammers", just as it's advised by the no personal attacks policy to say that someone is acting like a troll, not that they are a troll. In practice, that's unweildy and isn't done. Perhaps when it's not directed at someone that's reasonable, I'm not sure. This is something I will have to think about.
In any case, I do believe that the intended or perceived insults have stopped being said on both sides, which is a good thing regardless of what went before. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No Saxifrage,

I disagree. You shouldn't waste you time to think about it. Words do not make much difference, acts do. I think if I would say these guys have been acting like losers - no much difference. I was attacked first, in an angry and rude way, unacceptable in civilized world.

It will be always, until you change the system (one possible way - I proposed).

It is also unfair, that I can't see your conversation with opponents of mine, while they can see ours.

It would be nice to have a clear explanation, why my site, or the others, I tried to promote, are worse than 10 millions of the self-promoted ones that stay safely on their places elsewhere. If they are not allowed, as I was told, who allowed them, and why not immediately removed?

I agree to stop this junk talking, therefore I removed all of this. But they have been returning it back persistently.

Regards,

Alexander Kelin 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little taken aback by this response. Firstly you can't remove conversations unilaterally—they don't belong to you, and removing them is a disservice to others who use the encyclopedia and need to know what's going on at an article.
Secondly, there's a big difference between saying someone is acting like a spammer or Internet troll, and saying someone is acting like a "loser". Spamming and trolling are behaviours that are objectively definable, while "loser" in the sense your using it (as an insult) is not objectively definable. To say someone is acting like a troll or spammer is a comment on their behaviour rather than on them personally. However, there's no way that saying someone is acting like a loser is any different from saying they are a loser, since "loser behaviours" can't be objectively defined or commented on.
I don't know what you mean about conversations: what can't you see? Everying at Wikipedia is recorded, and you're welcome to read anything you like.
You're not going to get a clear explanation of why your site is worse than 10 millions of the self-promoted ones, because that's not why it was removed. It was removed, not in comparison to any others, but because it is your site. You're not allowed to add links to your own site. Other self-promotional links are removed, regularly. If you know of any that have been missed, please do point them out. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Loser is a person that takes any chances to make worse to others. Because of envy.
Please, don't take any offences in your respect, thank you a lot for trying to help.

Let's stop this discussion.

All the best, Alexander Kelin 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to end the conversation at any time. Conversations tend to go on until there is nothing that requires an answer for some reason.
On that note, the reason I'm replying: That would be an example of writing as if you can telepathically read people's minds. Commenting on such imagined motives is very strongly discouraged, as it tends to be wrong and inflame conversations. This is the core reason the no personal attacks policy exists. There is nothing productive that can be done with insults that can't be done better without them. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I added some of the external weblinks a few months ago. I thought it would be useful to include some examples of this relatively new technology being used in products, and have no links with those companies, but now realize that this is against wikipedia policies and there became too many poor quality external links.

I do however think that too many of the other external links have been removed, as some contained useful information, especially http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/technology/36.asp , although now a commercial company (again I have no personal interest), as this explains the technology developed by cambridge university (CDT) as mentioned in the main article text.

Andy, 19 November 2006

The section on 'OLED Structures' ends with several acronyms, some expansions of the acronyms contain other acronyms in parentheses. A Google search didn't help decipher them, for example:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:cdt
Please explain all acronyms. Or maybe delete the ones which need to be explained by secondary parentheses, as they may be proprietary rather than generally-accepted acronymns. -Ac44ck (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Andy, I agree that some external links should be inserted here. There's so much info and news about OLED these days.
But I have a vested interest - I'm the editor of www.oled-info.com and I personally believe that my site should be included. It has lot's of info, it's free of course. I started this site because I was interested in OLEDs and thought that there's a need for a community site.
Without any external links such as these the wikipedia article will not be as useful as it might have been.
Ron Mertens
www.oled-info.com

I don't see how come we can have ads for specific products (The OLED keyboard), while people keep removing more useful sites like our OLED-Info.com. Can we have another discussion on this subject?

Ron.

Looking over the site, it looks like it would be serve our readers to offer it as a link to further reading on the subject. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Saxifrage. So may I add the oled-info as an external link? Are there any objections here?
Ron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.106.239 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
I guess there are no objections. I'll add my site, I hope it will be useful for people wanting to learn more about OLEDs.
Ron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.167.156 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Dear Saxifrage, please look out our OLED Information website oled-display.net. Our page gives also many useful oled informations. Can i add oled-display.net also to the external link section? Best regards Erik

external OLED-Links

I am the webmaster of www.oled-display.net [3] and www.oled.at [4] (German). Our sites bring also many new information over the OLED technology. So hopefully it is possible to add our sites also?

Best regards Erik

Functioning

I feel that the overall functioning of OLEDs has not been explained in a smooth flowing manner. I had to research a bit on the topic for a presentation and I searched on the net. i now understand the principle reasonably well and if required I can rewrite the functioning given here on wikipedia. Please let me know if you want me to do that. I wont be able to edit the existing explanation becuase I have a different way of explaining the working of the device. Sushant Bahadur —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.91.180.201 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Optimus released

Shouldn't "The allegedly upcoming Art Lebedev Studios' Optimus Maximus keyboard might use 113 48x48 pixel OLEDs (10.1×10.1 mm) for its keys." be removed because the Optimus keyboard is now available for preorder? -Superbeecat 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Displays in production

In my experience, the displays that I've seen also include the Zen V/V Plus. This device as well as the Motorola cellphone screens seem to have flicker such as what a CRT displays. Should this be included in the Disadvantages section? CarVac 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Release date info incorrect

The article states that Sony will be releasing OLED TVs later this year, but the reference it provides (27) says that Sony's timetable is uncertain.

Am I missing something or is this claim bogus?

Arkaaito 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing something - Sony confirmed they will begin to sell 11" TVs in December 2007 -

http://www.oled-info.com/sony/sony_will_sell_the_first_oled_tv_11_in_december_1st_for_about_1750 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.202.125 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AMOLED on the market

As of October 2007 Samsung has begun introducing products featuring AMOLED Active Matrix OLED technology. Samsung/iriver Clix Gen2 uses the display. 76.111.77.215 10:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

eMagin not the only OLED microdisplay manufacturer

Currently eMagin is the only small molecule OLED microdisplay manufacturer. However Microemissive Displays also manufacture a polymer OLED microdisplay: [5] Also, Rohm may start producing an OLED microdisplay in the near future in collaboration with eMagin, although its unclear who will be the actual manufacturer: [6] Mookhow 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sony OLED TV

This article fails to mention the Sony OLED TV which has launched in Japan (Edit: in December) and is 11 inches with a contast ratio of 1,000,000:1. At CES it was announced that it will launch in the US soon. The resolution is exactly half that of 1080p. 85.211.74.214 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (Edited 85.211.74.214 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

disadvantage

the true disadvantage of oled is overcoming the lcd. oled's got huge technical advantage over lcd, but its manufacturing process is really expensive at this point. for oled to become multi billion dollar industry, it'll require a great product at lower price and continually innovative research and development. but on the other hand, lcd have been holding huge shares in the market for the last few decades, and its manufacturing cost is still decreasing today. for these reasons, even though oled is packed with better technologies, lcd manufactures will not likely to abandon lcd and switch to oled business. instead, they will continue to improve quality of lcd display and reduce the production cost even more. Tepx2el (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to editing wikipedia, but in this section it says that the lifespan of OLED is 14,000 hrs, and that of LCD, LED, and Plasma is 60,000 hrs, then it says that new technologies are going to double the lifespan of OLED making it last much longer than LCD. Maybe the 60,000 applys only to plasma but i found this confusing. maybe someone more knowledgeable can fix this... Thanks a ton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.229.5.43 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


I'd just like to add to this:

"In 2007, experimental PLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m² of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs."

This does not belong in the disadvantages section. I'm not entirely sure where to put it, which is why I brought it up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrisa (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Organic Light Emitting Device instead of Organic Light Emitting Diode

There are no diodes in an OLED so it must be Organic Light Emitting Device (or display) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubongo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The device itself is one diode. A diode is a two-terminal device with two active electrodes, often giving some directionality. OLED stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode because it is a two-terminal device with an anode and a cathode.Mookhow (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a distinction placed between organic-light-emitting-diodes and organic-light-emitting-devices which this article does not make clear. The first sentence of this article is erroneous because a diode (more specific than just a two-terminal device; it must have some form of a p-n junction) is not the only schematic for a device with light emission. Electroluminescence (EL) may be obtained using a phosphor and a very high electric field (applying AC100V+ over a few microns). It requires one less layer of material albeit more driving power. I'm not a professional expert in the field, however I have thoroughly surveyed the flexible display market and know there is a clear distinction. Someone with greater scientific knowledge should clear this up. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.122.195 (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this is a common misnomer. An OLED can be a diode, but this is not always the case. This article should be Organic Light Emitting Device. The error obviously originates from the confusion with LED. I'll change the article in due course, unless someone finds the time before me. Dom (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Google runs 10:1 in favor of "diode". Both tunnel diodes and vacuum diodes don't have pn junctions but are still called "diodes" - any non-linear electron device with two terminals is a "diode". --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME the title should be "Organic light-emitting diode". I've undone the move and the other changes to the article pending further discussion (though I think COMMONNAME makes clear our course of action here). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that an OLED need be limited to a two terminal device (as per the suggestion in bold, above). Diode also carries the implication of a unidirectional current flow, which is definitely not the case for every model of OLED. Perhaps it would be best, in the interests of WP:COMMONNAME, that the title is maintained, but that a subsection is added to make sure the distinction between OLE Diode and Device is clear. Dom (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OLED and grayscales

How is grayscale achieved using OLED's? Is there an analog input signal somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.13.225 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Greyscale can be digitally built up by using temporally modulated PCM and/or PWM. For example you have one frame consisting of 255 subframes, to get all white the pixel would be on for each subframe. To get all black the pixel would be on for none of the subframes. To get e.g. 60% greyscale the pixel would be on for 153 of the subframes. If the subframes are much faster than the flicker fusion frequency their amplitude is added in the eye.Mookhow (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So OLED rapidly switches the light on and off to achieve darker shades - interesting. Do all the other OLED variants such as PLED, or SOLED also exhibit this phenomenon?
On a related note, tracking moving objects with the eye may still pose a slight problem according to what this patent document says. I have no idea if this exists with say, Sony's 11" model, but it may be worth mentioning.--Skytopia (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue OLED Improvements?

The main known weakness of OLED production is proper Blue OLED composition and output. A recent South Korean press release indicates that this hurdle may finally be overcome True Blue for OLED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question. Here's a quote from the article:

``The biggest technical problem for OLEDs is the limited lifetime of the organic materials. In particular, blue OLEDs historically have had a lifetime of around 14,000 hours (5 years at 8 hours a day) when used for flat-panel displays, which is lower than typical lifetime of LCD, LED or PDP technology—each currently rated for about 60,000 hours, depending on manufacturer and model. Toshiba and Panasonic have come up with a way to solve this problem with a new technology that can double the lifespan of OLED displays, pushing its expected life past that of LCD displays. A metal membrane helps deliver light from polymers in the substrate throughout the glass surface more efficiently than current OLEDs. The result is the same picture quality with half the brightness and a doubling of the screen's expected life.[35]

From the above it follows that 2*14000>60000. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.69.179 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that section makes no sense and so I've tagged it Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OLED/Archive_1&oldid=462723927"