Talk:Quantum dot display

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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
WikiProject Invention (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Better colour purity?[edit]

Better colour purity : the colour produced by QDs provides for an improved viewing experience for the end user. Compared to what exactly? An OLED?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this page even exist?[edit]

This is barely even an emerging technology, there are no names behind it, and the only articles written on the subject have little gems like this:

The quantum-dot LEDs require just 3 to 4 volts to run for over 300 hours non-stop

3-4 volts? At what current? And neither of these are a measure of capacity! What the heck...? (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's absurdly new (I don't care WHAT was covered in the 90's), but I'm not sure if there's a remedy other than time. This isn't a bad article per se, it's merely a first (or pre-first?) draft. However though, I do admit that on first read I'm more confused by this article than helped by it. For quick example, inside the "Optical Properties" section is this:
"Unlike atoms, ..."
This throws more wrenches than clarity. Again though, it's a first draft. I look forward to see where this goes.Tgm1024 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cons section, "... 50x greater brightness ..."[edit]

I'm only an amateur but as I understood it, people perceived colors at a ratio of about 0.85:1:0.15 (rgb respectively). I might be remembering wrong but even in the worst case scenario I think blue would be 0.05, so I can't imagine why the article says blue must be 50x brighter. It would more accurately say something in the range of 10-20x; Could someone verify the exact number and update the cons section? (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The fact that LCD monitors transmit only 5% of their backlight intensity would seem to corroborate my earlier guesstimate of 0.05 for perceived blue brightness. Maybe there's another technical reason, as I said I'm only an amateur with an interest in display technologies and how colors are perceived by the human eye, however it would make a lot of sense if blue was being transmitted 100% through the display while green was being intentionally limited to 5% to preserve the relative perception of color, and red would be like 10% or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Use in Sony Triluminos displays[edit]

The article mentions that the "Kindle Fire HDX 7 is the first product using the technology." I'm not sure about that -- in 2013, Sony Triluminos displays began using red and green (but not blue) quantum dots. The article should mention that the Triluminos was used in consumer products like the KDL-65W850A television and the Xperia Z1 smartphone. These products may have debuted before the Kindle Fire HDX 7. (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Environmental concerns?[edit]

What about environmental concerns? (Now that we're finally getting rid of NiCd batteries, and LEDs are on their way replacing fluorescent bulbs with their Mercury, Cadmium is making its way back into consumer products?...) -- mentions the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-LCD Quantum dot display[edit]

I was under the impression that a true quantum dot display would use only quantum dots as the display technology similar to how an OLED display uses only LEDs, and not merely used as back-lighting for an LCD display. Is this possible? ScienceApe (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This. In case it was not apparent to other readers: current prototypes and technology demonstrations of consumer electronic displays that utilize quantum dots are *not* quantum dot light emitting diodes. They are used as PASSIVE color enhancing thin films that are added as an additional layer to the display panel construction and are intended to increase/optimize the performance of an existing LED-LCD display.

EVERY display manufacturer with a nano/QD/nanocrystal (all of it marketing language) display at 2015 CES.... so basically every single company: samsung, LG, sharp, TCL, Hisense, Changhong, etc. used this type of technology. This is not immediately apparent to those of us who actually *EXPECT* that they might be using quantum dots as yet another novel semiconductor/photonic material (alongside monomeric, oligomeric, and polymeric organic and organometallic semiconductors and photonic materials, fullerenes and other materials that adopt the crystal structure of fullurenes).

Of course, they can fabricate light emitting diodes using quantum dots.... unfortuantely, QD LED will require its own, nearly/completely, unique fabrication infrastructure in order to be commercially viable for QD-LED.... Unfortunately everyone has already invested in OLED as the next generation of display technology. Keep in mind that companies like Samsung, AU optronics, Sharp, Japan Display, Toshiba, and Philips have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing the manufacturing infrastructure that will continue to enable OLED. It is the same with traditional silicon semiconductors.... The existing infrastructure is so expensive that trasitioning to a new technology is too expensive. Everyone has already spent all of their money installing the newest OLED gear, and they are not about to begin developing the equipment needed to fab QD LED displays in large quantities. (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


I've just removed a paragraph from the article, as it appeared to be a WP:COPYVIO lifted from this website. (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading use of term QLED TV.[edit]

Samsung as a major manufacturer of TV sets has decided to use the term QLED TV for its present offerings of LED-backlit LCD TVs with the intention of positioning itself for future genuine QD light-emitting TV panels, where the pixels will consist of electro-optical QD LEDs to act as display elements. At present, consumers are misled by this type of advertising. Therefore, the introduction to this article has to be modified.[1]--BBCLCD (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Geoffrey Morrison: How QLED TV could help Samsung beat LG's OLEDs. CNET News, 30 Juni 2016.