Carbon nanotube TVs to enter production trials

The last time we checked out Applied Nanotech's carbon nanotube TV, the company had an intriguing low-res video (right) and very little else to show for their research. Now Applied has taken the first step to actually making some usable prototypes, by signing an agreement with Taiwanese manufacturer Da Ling to do manufacturing trials later this year. Carbon nanotube sets use tiny flexible tubes to display images, and Applied claims that their technology can produce HD-quality sets that could sell for less than comparable LCD or plasma models. Of course, it'll be at least two years until Applied and Da Ling actually produce anything that you might be able to buy, and by then we assume that you'll be able to get a 50-inch LCD for about $400 (or at least that's what we're hoping for).

[distantbody @ Mar 20th 2006 3:50PM]

To be available at the same time as SED (expected 2020).

-The US administration WANTS an Iraqi civil war.

[wxrman @ Mar 20th 2006 4:07PM]

Oh look!

Grainy porn, just like back in the old days of analog cable!

[Santz @ Mar 20th 2006 4:15PM]

50 Inch LCD for 400$?

Questionable...

[ProZach @ Mar 20th 2006 4:17PM]

Is this the same as nano-emissive display (NED) from Motorola?

http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/09/motorola-shows-off-first-nano-emissive-display/

[matt @ Mar 20th 2006 5:05PM]

Stick to the topic of Carbon Nanotubes people, This technology could potentially be the sucessor to LCDs, just as LCDs are to CRTs.

[Marshall @ Mar 20th 2006 5:19PM]

Unless you are proposing that carbon nanotubes should run for president, I think you might be off topic.

Speaking of which, why not? If these little tubes are versatile enough to make televisions, space elevators, and cell phone blocking paint, they should be versatile enough to make a viable political candidate.

Hey, maybe they could combine two of those and make a TV that will stop people from calling me while my favorite shows are on.

[AutoDas @ Mar 20th 2006 5:38PM]

#4. LCDs are not a successor to CRTs. Just because something is new doesn't mean it has to be better. Only SED will replace CRTs.

[Ted @ Mar 20th 2006 5:57PM]

"Just because something is new doesn't mean it has to be better."

And you are putting the cart before the horse with SED as well!

SED is an unproven technology at this point. Sure the prototypes at CES were certainly impressive, but until they can mass produce them and sell them for a profit, nothing can be said with absolute authority about any of these technologies. SED has apparently been in one stage or another of the "design" phase for about 20 years and the stumbling block over and over again has been mass production. At this point Canon/Toshiba haven't really given definitive assurances that they have figured out the mass production problems either.

Although I do think SED is a very very promising technology and appears to be a very strong contender.

[Bradley @ Mar 20th 2006 6:05PM]

Looking forward to any improvements that will happen before I'm too old to enjoy what I'm watching. Not sure but I think the babe in the Vonage ad at right just flipped me the bird.

[Siege @ Mar 20th 2006 6:18PM]

I have a friend who worked with the precursor form of SED. It worked incredible well; the problem was that the hundreds or thousands of emitters were shaped like pointed cones, and tended to wear down to lumpy rounded nubs as electrons sprayed from them (rather like a thousand tiny ion engines).

I'd like to see more information on how this nanotube TV works.

[LongshotX @ Mar 20th 2006 8:08PM]

LCD is not the successor to CRT. LCDs are still plagued by poor response times, contrast, and lack of deep blacks. SED is the successor to CRT. Even today CRTs produce the best picture quality available. Their only drawback is size, lack of portability, and power consumption.

[John Henry Brown @ Mar 20th 2006 9:23PM]

Production trials, huh? I heard that some people in Britain were given carbon nanotube TVs to try and they got really sick.

[Mike @ Mar 21st 2006 9:39AM]

has anyone ever noticed how, there is always someone here who is "the friend" of someone who is involved with the technology in the article.

[Richard @ Mar 21st 2006 11:18AM]

Hey "Mike," maybe that's why those people are interested in gadgets, huh?

[Dr. J @ Mar 21st 2006 11:23AM]

What is that? Deep Throat?