Talk:Plasma display

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Various prices & pro/con[edit]

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. -- 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: Plasma vs. LCD - Comparison of Plasma TVs and LCD TVs


That page is not very accurate. For example it mentions phosphor and electron beams for plasma, when there is no such thing used in plasma displays. --Xerces8 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, phosphor is the lining of every cell in a plasma display. The light photons react with the phosphor to create color. You'd be right about the electron beams as far as I know, but the phosphor stays :) (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, color plasma displays have phosphors; the original orange displays mentioned in the History section do not. Paul Koning (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Another error: The set shown on the left is a Samsung series 6 LCD model with matrix LED backlighting, not a plasma set at all. Colin99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a pro con section or something similar[edit]

I don't think this article is detailed enough. It is neither as detailed as the artclies about LCD nor DLP screen technology. There is only one con section there, which talks about burn in. What about the stuff where sunlight hits the tv making the gas messed up or something similar that I heard of.

I would like to be able to compare the technologies better; however, this article is lacking for a comparison. Sp0 (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Dangers[edit]

I found this link while doing a research project: [1] Any ideas on how it happened? Is it a consumer risk? Or just a rare occurence? However since this story has no proof behind in (no news references), it may just be spam. Still, I would like to know if anybody has any idea on whether or not it is an issue to be concerned about. Thanks much. (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding me right?

A random post, on some unverifiable forum made by god knows who, describing something literally physically impossible (Plasma gases are all inert and in far too small quantities to "explode") and your attempting to take it seriously as a citation to include within an encyclopaedia? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


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

This is a very late response but it is an important point. Initially plasma displays operated at a low pressure, it is relatively easy to induce a stable discharge at a low pressure (20mbar?) but low pressure equates with low brightness. Efforts to increase brightness included higher pressure. High pressure brings the problem of stable discharge (no sparks!). This was tackled with different techniques to initialise the plasma by preliminary discharges designed to produce higher levels of residual ionisation, facilitating stable discharge during the display period. I am not sure of the actual working pressure of a modern display is, it must surely depend on the temperature and thus the power due to brightness, but if you are thinking of 1 atmosphere you would not be far out.--Damorbel (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban Legend[edit]

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)

The earliest consumer models did suffer from an unacceptably high rate of premature panel failure, particularly when their price was taken into account. Sony stopped supplying Plasma panels in 2005 after being bombarded with complaints from early adopters. Five years was a pretty good lifespan for some early panels. It only takes one faulty transistor out of the thousands on a typical panel to make the panel unusable.

LCD screens run at much lower voltages and so are not nearly as prone to panel failure. Modern Plasma panels are much more reliable than they used to be, but I think 27 years is pretty unrealistic. In any case, it's far more likley some other more mundane component will fail before then, making the panel just as uneconomic to repair. Essentially a 27 year lifespan is not really appropriate for something that will probably get replaced for other reasons long before then.

Ultramince (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Early plasma displays suffered from degradation because the the display discharge between crossed electrode configuration resulted in excessive phosphor bombardment by ions. The main display period emision is now done between parallel electrodes on one surface, ultraviolet light strikes the phosphor on the opposite surface where it is safely out of the way of ion bombardment. An address discharge still has to take place between crossing electrodes on opposite surfaces to initate the individual cells, this does produce some phosphor degradation, about 10% of the older design, this probably has something to do with the 27 year claim. Ion bombardment was largely responsible for the "image burn" that displays used to suffer from. --Damorbel (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SPAM ALERT =[edit]

The last external link (Plasma TV) goes to where you can 'buy' Plasma TV at 'e-bay'

Another one: I removed the link to 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)

Removed "plasma drawbacks"[edit]

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 opera-- (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)tional for nearly 20 hours a day. 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 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.

People are buying more of them, and the out-of-box setting is usually set at Vivid; which makes the plasma television work hotter. They may also still be using cheap phosphors. This is the second year Panasonic has announced phospor improvements on their plasma. Maybe they should rush to CRT-grade phosphors.-- (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
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 B Wright 17:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with plasma is not the screen, but the need to replace sustain boards. People think they burn out after 5 years, but this is likely do to stress on one of the sustain or scan boards. And most Plasmas are not calibrated for full life out of the box being at factory defaults for glare heavy viewing. On the plus side is the CRT like picture.

Added sentence on IBM[edit]

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.


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)
Take a look in the Wikipedia image collection at [2]. It's a nice historic image of a U of Illinois monochrome plasma panel in a second generation Plato terminal. Shows how far things have come with this technology. (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The history section reads like an advertisement for Larry Weber's personality cult. I'm sure he is an impressive man who has had a lot to do with the development of plasma technology, but some of the material belongs in an article about him instead of the article about plasma technology. (E.g., the comment that as of 2008 he is back at work, and if he is successful plasmas might regain market share vs. LCDs. The point isn't if he is successful — it's that if anyone is successful. In any event, this whole sentence feels out of place in an encyclopedia article, whose purpose is not to predict future developments of the plasma/LCD battle for market-share.)Dsspiegel (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The history section says nothing about the work done by the group at SAI Technology (part of then Science Applications, Inc.) and Roger Johnson. This group delivered the first plasma display terminals for military application in 1975. Military sales of plama display products for the next 25 years kept the technology active and viable during the time when LCD technolgy nearly completely took over the flat panel market. You may not like the military marketplace but it not only kept plasma alive it greatly helped in its birth in the first place.

And BTW, Roger Johnson (originally from UI) was doing plasma color work on a 19 inch panel at SAIT in 1977.

Color, in 1977? That doesn't sound right. I visited SAI a year or two later. They definitely had orange panels, like the PLATO ones but in several sizes. In particular, I saw a 1024x1024 panel -- 16 inches square, double the 512x512 one. I heard rumors about a 2048x2048 one but I can't confirm that. So yes, SAI and their larger panels definitely should be mentioned. Paul Koning (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pixel orbiting[edit]

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)

TV page has a link with the statement "In 1936, Kálmán Tihanyi described the principle of Plasma Television, the first flat panel". References are included. This should be part of the history page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Brightness and Contrast[edit]

"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.


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)

First sentence[edit]

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)

First Paragraph[edit]

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)

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

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 to pro and Cons[edit]

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.

Buzzing at altitude[edit]

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: [3] 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)
I believe this is relevant to the disadvantages. On November 2009 we noted manufacturers' caveats about high altitudes, and came here to find out why. The cite above appears accurate and the website is already ref'd in this article, so I have added a line to the disadvantages paragraph. However, I will not be offended if someone has more up-to-date and reliable information to cite. Tkech (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right that altitude would change internal pressure - the screen would have to expand significantly to change the internal pressure. I can't quantify significant because I haven't seen a quantitative tech explanation of the plasma formation process. It seems more likely that the voltages used to create plasma in the screen are nearing the point where external arcing would start in the reduced pressure at high altitude. I looked a few patents - an early one mentioned low internal pressure, a later one mentioned high pressure. The higher the pressure, the more voltage is required to create a plasma and the faster the plasma extinguishes when voltage is removed. Explaining the noise is because the display works harder leaves out a few steps on the science/engineering side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fodel paste[edit]

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. (18 January 2007). "Upgraded DuPont material will improve plasma TVs". Delaware News-Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-18.  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I disagree with the statement, "Plasma displays use as much power per square meter as ... an AMLCD television." PDPs actually lower the drive when the APL is high, because the heat and power draw would be prohibitive. LCDs do not have this limitation. -- algocu 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Removed link to Link leads to all ad site. Please watch for resubmission.

>> Actually, this seems like an info site to me. Just because it has ads on it doesn't make it spam.

Can anyone tell me the difference between an LCD TV and a plasma TV???

Anyone know the reason why laying a plasma screen hortizonal flat would be bad? Is it do to the glass possibly cracking or something with the gas internally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture data input[edit]

Is there anywhere any info how the picture data is "put" into the pixels on a typical plasma display (like a TV set)? One after another ? Line by line ? At what frequency ?

--Xerces8 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, if anyone else is interested, I found this: (may not apply to all actual plasma displays) The picture is built line-by-line, until the entire frame is done. Then the next frame is displayed. In a line, all pixels are drawn at the same time. The "drawing" goes in several steps, as the pixels are on/off type, so different brightness values are done with Pulse-width_modulation. This can be done in 8 steps, for 8 bit input data. First a short pulse is used to lit each pixel (or not, according to the LSB of the pixels data). Then twice as long pulse is used, controlled by the second least significant bit of each pixel. And so on, until the eight pulse, which has 128 times the length as the first one. A certain type of plasma displays, called Alis (Alternate Lighting of Surfaces) imitates interlace by drawing odd lines in one go and then the even ones in the second go. Source: plasma_physics.pdf

--Xerces8 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are various ways the data gets into a PDP but essentially it is written for the whole image by applying voltage pulses to electrodes on the two inside sufaces that cross at a pixel; the data is held by the characteristic ionisation memory effect (plasmas hold their ionisation state for a while). This writing of data is done by scanning the electrodes. Scanning can be done vertically or horizontally, this has no effect on the display. Once the data is written a separate display period (light emission) starts, normally using a surface discharge. The longer display the period lasts the brighter the image.

To get a good dynamic range this write/display cycle is repeated a number of times during the image frame period (16.7ms or 20mS) in periods called subframes, with different data possible in each subframe. Depending on the combination of subframes that are emmitting during a frame a greyscale is assembled. Light output is nominally constant during a subframe emission period and zero during the data write period.--Damorbel (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


"In an effort to stem the growing popularity of LCD panels in the market Vizio has unveiled a 32" plasma television which will debut shortly. This set will use a 32" panel made by LG. This set promises to offer contrast ratios that greatly exceed those of competing LCD TVs in the size range. This segment previously has been limited to LCD TVs, and will offer another choice of plasma display technology to consumers in a smaller size allowing them to sample both technologies and recognize some of the benefits offered by plasma technology."

Could this be taken as a form of advertising and/or bias? Bizzmag (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vizio couldn't make a small plasma, thus they are no longer directly in the plasma business. Maybe this topic should be removed.-- (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Noble gases[edit]

I NEED TO KNOW WHAT NOBLE GASES ARE FOUND IN THESE THINGS!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens what's the urgency? Rico402 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixtures of gasses are used under the title Penning mixture in the case of PDPs it is generally maade from varous percentages of neon, helium and xenon. Some of the components are present in very small quantities but the effect on the ionisation potential can be large.--Damorbel (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Style problems[edit]

Some of the history section has an "essay-like" feel, with overdramatic expressions like "it is no exaggeration" and "in the wilderness" and, worst of all, "certain death". Someone who is more interested in this subject than I am should clean it up. I'm adding the applicable tag.

-- (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New Introductory Picture...[edit]

I felt the old one was a bit ad-hoc (off angle, lots of glare on the screen) and out of date for such a rapidly advancing technology, so I decided to upload a picture of my own. If anyone has any objections, feel free to bring them up.

Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Patent statements as facts[edit]

In one of the last edits a patent is uses as a fact. Considering the current state of the US patent office. Just about anything obvious seems to be granted a patent. So using patents as facts is not a good idea. Good facts are research reports that can prove their claims and/or is reproduced by other qualified persons. Electron9 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, patents are similar to holy scripture of Bible. There are NOT EXIST more "official" or responsible source in this planet. BYE! --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Patents can only be used as a reliable source in the context of demonstrating that a patent exists. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That the patent exists is not being questioned. The sense that the patent applies to a plasma design is challenged. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I question the existence of the patent. Katalin Tihanyi herself only asserts that the device "was apparently patented in England in 1939". (Emphasis added.) There is no evidence that the application was ever even filed, let alone a patent granted. Horvath's only evidence is a 1936 manuscript that even Tihanyi says was "probably further improved upon until the actual filing of the patent application". I.e., no evidence of the "actual filing" of an application, let alone the granting of a patent, has yet been found. And please keep in mind, the only citation here is the "introduction" to Horvath's article by a Kálmán Tihanyi's daughter, whom I would argue should not be relied upon as an objective author in this regard; the actual Horvath article isn't even cited. I don't doubt that it exists, somewhere, but my repeated internet searches have thus far been fruitless, and our antagonist has yet to provide it.
Furthermore, I know all too well the many repeated attempts that Celebration1981 — or when he refuses to sign his posts — has made to get poorly sourced (or unsourced, or plagiarized) material into Wiki articles. And all this nonsense — the personal attacks, the claims of "nationalism" or that a patent is the most "responsible source in this planet" — is his standard modus operandi. Not long ago it was UNESCO for which "More official opinion [for priority of invention] dosn't exist in this planet." And if indeed "patents are similar to holy scripture of Bible", then they are essentially worthless as historical documents.
Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

UNESCO is a superior authority to make decides about inventions. But rico402 belived that United Nations is no more a peace maker organisation :))))))) Most of media and newsreel speak about wars (because they are top news) and the average people as rico402 belived that United Nation is just a peace maker organisation. :)))))))))) Please read about United Nations and UNESCO. When UNESCO (with cooperation of all patent offices around the world) decide that something was invented by somebody, that is official fact. Your differing oppinion is no more than a private (or irrevelant) oppinion. Because decisions of UNESCO based on primary sources (national patent offices, original old contemporary magazines newspapers from authentic national libraries (Forexample: Library of Congress in USA). They examined the original evidences/proofs, what you can never do.

In the public discussion forums (like this) you try to show yourself as a fair and impartial person. But actually you are a very very insidious person, You always try to collect "comrades" against me, you often use degrading brutal personal attacks on the pages of your comrades. It is simply abominable. --Celebration1981 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a vivid imagination you have. How could you possibly fathom the depth of my knowledge of the United Nations. UN just a peacemaker organization? That's about what many over here would argue is its least effective role. And actually, I believe you'll find that I've never mentioned you on any User's Page other than Binksternet — exactly twice; the second time only to leave an apology because you used his page to attack me. Of course, I don't expect you to actually do any research on this. You've demonstrated time and again that you require no motivation to hurl verbal insults and unfounded accusations at someone other than that you disagree with them, all the while hiding behind your anonymity. (Your User Page is blank, Dude! Who and what are you?)
Incidentally, and not that it matters a whit, but "comrade" means "1. A person who shares one's interests or activities; a friend or companion." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000., and any other lexicon you care to consult.) And for the record, I'm not a communist, fascist, nationalist or any other nasty epithet you can come up with. I'm actually a capitalist and a liberal-leaning member of the US Democratic Party. (Granted, some would find that in itself reprehensible.)
And guys, I'm truly sorry for dragging these attacks from this individual over here. I suppose I should simply not respond to his senseless invectives, but rarely is it not in service of the accuracy and defensibility of a particular article. Perhaps now he'll return to attacking me at Talk:History of television.
Best, Rico402 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Improvements & environmental impact[edit]

See for a dramatic improvement that can be integrated in pdp displays and for environmental aspect 1 (NF3) electricity use to implement too

Nitrogen trifluoride[edit]

The environmental aspects of nitrogen trifluoride [4] have no relevance to plasma displays (PDPs) since the material is used for etching in some processes, it is not part of the functionality of PDPs; it is used for etching other devices also. I propose to delete this section unless someone can show how nitrogen trifluoride is specific to PDPs. --Damorbel (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at Plasma etching, it is extremely unlikely that plasma etching is used for Plasma displays. Plasma displays do not require etching of silicon, they are made by printing on glass. Silicon is not transparent to visible light, making it useless for a display. It is highly likely that the writer of the article thinks that all plasma devices use nitrogen trifluoride, he is very much mistaken.--Damorbel (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the original research?[edit]

If someone wants to go ahead and cleanup or cite the original research, please do so, otherwise the tag comes off. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research or unverified claims tag removed, no one pointed to any specific examples since June 2009. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 13:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is...[edit]

Kálmán Tihanyi?--B@xter9 14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussed at Talk:Plasma_display#Patent_statements_as_facts. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
THX! :)) (But I mean from the article?)--B@xter9 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing Plants (where)[edit]

if anyone knows where panels are manufactured (by or for who) i think it would be useful information. Especially as when a company initiates a new plant, technological advances are often forthcoming and the extra competition may affect prices thus availibility. (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plasma ghosting and other image artifacts[edit]

Why didn't anyone mentioned on pro/con page, that most plasma displays have greenish trails after bright fast-moving objects? Videos demonstrating this effect can be easily found on youtube. Also, why no mention of PWM noise? Both problems are easily noticeable on my Viera PY(PZ)80 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the artifacts arise from defects in the plasma display? Care is needed when looking for image defects since it is not easy to find an artifact-free video signal. Computer generated video, as in games and cartoons can be very good, generally better than broadcast signals, but as always it is the weakest link that defines the quality of an image. The most sensitive test I know for plasma images is zooming a face or other low contrast image in a digitally signal. I first bought a plasma screen about six years ago, eventually choosing a Panasonic partly on the basis of this test, there was a "video ally" and some models were quite poor or this admittedly tough test (you won't notice unless you are looking for it). Ten years ago this was a hot developement matter, I know because I was dealing with patent applications at the time. I couldn't say which technology(ies) won out but I got a good idea what to look for in a display.--Damorbel (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is something like ghosting, which is either lack of color control or a strange Image retention where the pictures are brighter than they should be from lack of use.-- (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Earlier example photos of UNIVAC military plasma display c. 1973[edit]


In my posession is a 37 year old Digivue PDP. It is integrated into a UNIVAC military display predating the particular PLATO personal computer/terminal example pictured in the Wikipedia article.

The contract date of this equipment is 1972, and date codes for the various devices I have examined inside this equipment are no more recent than 1973.

The verification is online at my website:

The display tube and driver assembly appears to have nine rows of 32 circuit connections on each of four sides of the PDP which is an array of 576x576 connections. I suggest that its actual resolution is 512x512 as in the PLATO system.

I have not applied power to this relic because it is one of a kind, serial #1 (or #0 depending which nomenclature tag is to be considered), and it is not worth risking circuit failure to appease curiosity. It requires 120V 400Hz aircraft-type power.

No others of this model were built. I assert only that it predates the commercial Digivue-empowered example photo by several years.

The display was used by the U.S. military and the engineering was managed by UNIVAC and E-systems.

At this time I cannot share more information than what is on the www page. The slow process of gathering information from the display unit continues, and I hope that once all of the subassembly numbers are retrieved, it will be possible to obtain permission to obtain engineering drawings and make them available for historical study.

I suggest therefore that someone familiar with editing the wikipedia may care to include some of this information, perhaps some images from the website, concerning PDP history.

Permission is hereby granted to use, all or in part, the text and images from to improve the article on wikipedia.

Anecdotally, at one time the display was put up for sale to collectors. A person claiming to be descended from one of the designers of the display tube contacted me wanting to buy the display tube only, and asked me to remove it and ship it alone, simply to avoid the cost of crate & freight for the 160 LB display unit. No doubt the intention was to frame the poor old tube on the household or office wall, which would probably result in it eventually being discarded by future generations. While respecting the person's desire to posess a relic of their cherished forebears work, I could not allow historical equipment in my care to be treated in so vulgar a manner as to slight the overall artifact, not to mention insulting the life work of the engineers and technicians who created the larger system. Once a unique technological artifact is destroyed, it is gone forever.

regards, Opcom (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Digivue (the manufacturer name you can see on the display module, in the bottom right photo) is the manufacturer of the display units in PLATO terminals. And that unit looks similar to a PLATO display. Don't be confused by the 1981 date on that PLATO terminal photo; that model (the "PLATO V" programmable terminal) appeared in 1978, and the original PLATO IV terminals date back at least to 1973 (that's the date on the terminal manual published by University of Illinois). Paul Koning (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi. The advantages section is not exactly correct about the blacks. Black levels vary with manufacturer and model and are often worse than LCD tvs nowdays. There are many sony and samsung LCDs that have just as good or better black levels than competing plasma displays. (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Composition of plasma display panel

A plasma display is made up of many thousands of gas-filled cells that are sandwiched in between two glass plates, two sets of electrodes, dielectric material, and protective layers. The address electrodes are arranged vertically between the rear glass plate and a protective layer. This structure sits behind the cells in the rear of the display, with the protective layer in direct contact with the cells. On the front side of the display there are horizontal display electrodes that sit in between a magnesium-oxide (MgO) protective layer and an insulating dielectric layer. The MgO layer is in direct contact with the cells and the dielectric layer is in direct contact with the front glass plate. The horizontal and vertical electrodes form a grid from which each individual cell can be accessed. Each individual cell is walled off from surrounding cells so that activity in one cell does not affect another. The cell structure is similar to a honeycomb structure except with rectangular cells.[1][2][3][4]

To illuminate a particular cell, the electrodes that intersect at the cell are charged by control circuitry and electric current flows through the cell, stimulating the gas (typically xenon and neon) atoms inside the cell. These ionized gas atoms, or plasmas, then release ultraviolet photons that interact with a phosphor material on the inside wall of the cell. The phosphor atoms are stimulated and electrons jump to higher energy levels. When these electrons return to is natural state energy is released in the form of visible light. Every pixel on the display is made up of three subpixel cells. One subpixel cell is coated with red phosphor, another is coated with green phosphor, and the third cell is coated with blue phosphor. Light emitted from the subpixel cells is blended together to create an overall color for the pixel. The control circuitry can manipulate the intensity of light emitted from each cell, and therefore can produce a large spectrum of colors. Light from each cell can be controlled and changed rapidly to produce a high-quality moving picture.[5][6][7][8]

Composed from stuff elsewhere on Wikipedia

By appropriately flashing the pixel on and off rapidly, the control circuitry can manipulate the average intensity of light coming from the pixel. (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wear leveling, using flash memory to track brightness?[edit]

Does any manufacturer of plasmas do wear leveling? They could track pixel usage activity with some RAM and flash memory. Track live cell usage in RAM, and write usage results per viewing session to flash when the monitor is turned off or the power is disconnected.

1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels ... times 3 RGB cells per pixel = 6,220,800 cells

48-bit unsigned integer representing cell brightness on an 8-bit intensity scale (0-255) each 1/120th of a second = 572,662,306 seconds per cell (6,628 days .. 18 years at cell brightness 255)

6,220,800 cells * 48 bits per cell = 298,598,400 bits or 37,324,800 bytes of RAM/flash memory to do this intensity tracking per cell for 18 years. (At current prices, this can be achieved with 64 meg of RAM and flash for maybe 1 US dollar.)

To remove effects of burn-in, tally up the cells with the lowest usage time, display a reverse brightness pattern with the least-used cells the brightest, so that they all wear down to match the burned-in area, and the screen image looks good again.

DMahalko (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Dale Mahalko, Gilman, WI

Color accuracy[edit]

Thearticle asserts: "Plasma displays use the same phosphors as CRTs, accounting for the extremely accurate color reproduction"

The color accuracy of the display is not determined by its primary lights (in this case color phosphors). The color accuracy is determined by how these phosphors are controlled. I don't feel bold enough to edit the text - but I suggest changing it to simply ...

"Plasma displays use the same phosphors as CRTs."

Perhaps a more experienced user would be willing to make the change.

Wandell (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Motion blur[edit]

No visible motion blur, thanks in large part to very high refresh rates and a faster response time, contributing to superior performance when displaying content with significant amounts of rapid motion This is incorrect. There is no actual motion blur on (modern) LCDs. The blur is an optical illusion caused by afterimages on the retina. CRTs and plasmas do not cause this becuse their light isn't continuous but rapidly flashing.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course you have a reliable source for that statement?--Asher196 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There is still detail loss as the picture moves on an LCD screen.-- (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is referring to sample-and-hold blur, which is due to the combination of the image staying on screen for the entire frame and the viewer's eyes moving during this time. Since the image stays on screen, it effectly paints the blur as the viewer's eye scans. CRTs don't do this nearly as much because they effectively flash the image one time for a small fraction of the frame. (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Let me quote: This PLATO V model illustrates the display's monochromatic orange glow as seen in 1988. This is confusing, since the device is from April 1981 (as to be read in the image's info) -andy (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall Tone and Bias[edit]

I believe parts of the article are exceptionally negative and take on a very biased tone to deter interest from the actual article. Such as the section on "Notable manufacturers that abandoned Plasma", which is largely absent from other viewing technologies. A very large and extensive list of cons that are extremely specific. The LCD article on Wikipedia doesn't even have a Pro's or Con's section. Plasma display's aren't even really mentioned in the LCD article. They're only compared to CRTs, where as on here Plasma is directly compared to LCDs at every benefit even if LCDs don't pose a real advantage at the remark.

Overall it seems like heavy and underhanded editing took place to make Plasma seem like a completely inferior technology to LCDs and Plasma comparisons in the LCD section are completely absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Update Required for Plasma sales...[edit]


What about the wierd colour flashes that Plasmas and front projections emit when viewed from certain angles?Bolegash (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How a plasma display works (in more detail)[edit]

I've recently done a lot of research on plasma displays as I have been attempting to understand them more.

The current explanation is out of date and describes DC PDPs. Modern plasma TVs are AC PDPs. Here is a new section I've written - I'm not including it yet, but I will try and integrate it soon. I think I need to add a few more sources. Please feel free to critique.

This goes under the paragraph "A plasma display panel is an array of hundreds of thousands of small...":

The long electrodes are stripes of translucent electrically conducting material that also lie between the glass plates, in front of and behind the cells (typically a material such as indium tin oxide or ITO.) There are row electrodes, one for each row, and a single large common electrode which connects to each pixel. The "address electrodes" sit behind the cells, along the rear glass plate, and can be opaque. The transparent display electrodes are mounted in front of the cell, along the front glass plate. As can be seen in the illustration, the electrodes are covered by an insulating protective layer which forms a small capacitor.[9]

Most modern plasma displays use Address-Display Separated (ADS) technology[10]. The display data is written to the panel, line by line, with a voltage too low to induce light emission (typically around 60V, known as Va or Vadr), but sufficient to create a wall charge on each pixel. The display is then "sustained", by applying an alternating polarity 200V square wave (typically around 80kHz) to the panel's common and row electrodes. This causes light emission from each pixel which has a wall charge built up. This scheme would only give one-bit pixel resolution (on or off), so the display update is broken into 8 or more subfields. The first subfield (coding for the LSB) lasts for 1 unit of time, the length of which depends on the refresh rate of the display, and the last subfield (coding for the MSB) lasts 128 units of time. This allows for 8 bit colour resolution per pixel. The fields do not have to be binary weighted; modern PDP control systems will adapt field lengths for greater detail on certain scenes or to reduce the effect of false contouring.

After each ADS subfield has completed the plasma panel must be erased of the wall charge. This is done by applying a large negative voltage, typically -180V, which zeros the charge on each pixel. Failure or misadjustment of this circuit is common on PDPs, leading to stuck flickering pixels (called "mal-discharge".) If a plasma display has displayed the same content for a long time, it may have difficulty erasing this wall charge and an image may persist for a few seconds to a few minutes. However, this image retention is temporary, unlike burn in.

One disadvantage of older plasma displays is known as "dark glow". In order to get the display to update at a sufficient rate, the gas in the PDP must be primed after each reset. This involves applying a ramping positive or negative voltage for a short time before each line is displayed. The ramping matches the negative resistance characteristic of the noble gas, and briefly frees electrons from the atoms of the gas, preparing them for a sustain cycle. With the ramping comes an emission of light which although undersirable, it is necessary to obtain fast update times. Newer PDPs use different technologies to avoid this dark glow; some have now all but eliminated it.

One of the major disadvantages of earlier plasma TVs was the high power consumption: a typical 42" set would consume upwards of 600W. The plasma panel is essentially a large unwanted capacitor, and the sustain process (alternating voltage) causes significant heating losses from alternating current in the panel and driver electronics, emitted as heat. In order to reduce this an energy recovery circuit is used in every modern plasma TV. This circuit behaves as normal on each sustain cycle, but just before the polarity swaps, it briefly "steals" the charge that has built up on the panel and stores it on bulk capacitance in the TV, which is used for future sustain cycles. This reduces power consumption by up to 200W, and increases reliability of the PDP.[11] Although this circuit costs a bit more to include, it greatly reduces the power supply requirements, reducing the overall cost of the display.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom668 (talkcontribs) 22:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest the "energy saving" component is an inductor which stores the screen capacitance energy during the first half of the sustain pulse and returns it during the second half. Using an inductor avoids the 'short circuit' that occurs when a capacitor is driven with a square wave.
The sreen capacitance is in no sense 'unwanted', it arises from the wall charge required for the 'plasma screen's' operation. --Damorbel (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


How the heck is something so incredibly complex manufactured? To be more specific,I'd love to know how they fill upwards of 300,000 tiny adjacent rectangular glass compartments with gases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'compartments' are not separate, pixels are formed by the spaces between electrodes; the display is one large, multi electrode, discharge tube. --Damorbel (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

health concerns[edit]

Plasma display emits strong radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlouiemark45546 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article you cited of course says no such thing. I will assume what you said is fiction, but if you have any credible sources for this claim, please feel free to cite them. Paul Koning (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Plasma 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Plasma 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Fluorescence is missing from the article: User:ScotXWt@lk 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Article written by couch potatoes without knowledge of physics[edit]

Did we already purge "drive away" the people with a basic knowledge of physics, or are there still some of them around? Would be nice to rewrite this complete article. User:ScotXWt@lk 16:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're still here. We can benefit from your expertise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I stumbled upon something: it's written in German, and it is how I think the Wikipedia article should have looked like. Have a look at the numerous schemes. Good look with your attitude! User:ScotXWt@lk 13:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)