Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MIT Develops Inexpensive Transparent Display Using Nanoparticles

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the as-seen-on-babylon-five dept.

Displays 87

rtoz writes "Researchers at MIT have come up with an innovative approach to creating transparent displays inexpensively, while providing wide viewing angles and scalability to large sizes. To create the transparent display, silver nanoparticles are embedded in plastic, tuned to scatter only certain wavelengths of light and to allow all other wavelengths through. In this example (video), it is tuned to scatter only blue color using 60nm silver particles. The researchers believe that it can be easily enhanced to a multicolor display by creating nanoparticles that can scatter other primary colors. The ability to display graphics and texts on an inexpensive transparent screen could enable many useful applications. For example, they could bring navigation data to windshields of cars and aircraft, and advertisements to the sides of skyscrapers. Cheap 'stick-on screens' could be developed using this technology. The messages broadcast on nanoparticle screens are accessible from virtually every angle. Transparent screens themselves are not new; for example, Google is working on Google glass. But they are expensive. This MIT invention will help to produce transparent displays easily and inexpensively."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Need a transparent government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46036991)

We had transparent displays in the 80s. They were useless.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46037053)

Eh, I can see the most loathsome terrible people in the universe getting a little ad-revenue out of store windows.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 8 months ago | (#46037177)

Huh. Loathsome and terrible? A store window seems like the perfect place to be selling things. People have been putting animated advertisements in them for decades. That being said, this seems a rather expensive way to do it. Glass is much cheaper to replace.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037501)

Huh. Loathsome and terrible? A store window seems like the perfect place to be selling things. People have been putting animated advertisements in them for decades. That being said, this seems a rather expensive way to do it. Glass is much cheaper to replace.

Always expensive the first generation is.

Each succession more accommodating is.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 8 months ago | (#46037657)

That occurred to me to, but I think it is a safe bet that a pane of glass will *always* be cheaper than glass plus nanoparticles plus circuitry and power. That being said, I'm sure there's a point where it'll eventually become cheap enough to make an entire storefront window out of it, and realise some benefit from the visuals over more traditional forms of advertisement.
Assuming storefronts still exist then, and assuming it becomes common to use, I'd move on to the main point. What's the big deal? Store windows basically are nothing *but* advertising...

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 8 months ago | (#46037817)

But how much cheaper? And is glass plus replacement animated neon sign cheaper than glass plus nano particles plus electronics (which might also include laser tripwires in the glass for alarm systems)? Is the neon sign as versatile as the nano particle glass? The nano particle glass can even be sponsored to pay for itself, and with a capacitive touch screen somewhere on the glass could be used as a store catalog.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 8 months ago | (#46041629)

Only the store and advertiser will be able to determine if it's worth the money to them. Ads aren't cheap now.

Re:Need a transparent government (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 8 months ago | (#46039007)

That occurred to me to, but I think it is a safe bet that a pane of glass will *always* be cheaper than glass plus nanoparticles plus circuitry and power. That being said, I'm sure there's a point where it'll eventually become cheap enough to make an entire storefront window out of it, and realise some benefit from the visuals over more traditional forms of advertisement.
Assuming storefronts still exist then, and assuming it becomes common to use, I'd move on to the main point. What's the big deal? Store windows basically are nothing *but* advertising...

Well, actually, what they were saying was that the actual display was a sheet of plastic stuck onto the glass. Meaning that you could retro-fit an existing window.

This could be even more interesting if it can be done as in the paperwhite displays, where the image consumes no power while static. You could then easily have your own programmable "stained glass" windows, Not to mention a new approach for automatically-shading windows.

Speaking of paperwhite displays, at least one major retailer has been peppering their stores with fairly sophisticated units, radio-updatable. So I doubt they'd balk at a reasonably-priced transparent display.

Re:Need a transparent government (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 8 months ago | (#46039475)

That is interesting, but doesn't change anything on the point of replacing a vandalised window or cheapness of glass :)

But, yeah, my main point was, I don't get why the parent, way back up there, was so worked up about a store window having advertising. That's what those large front store windows are *for* and even today are often filled with transparent plastic decals, paper posters, store merchandise, TV screens, even animatronics.

And certainly if this comes down in price it could be worth augmenting all the other storefront stuff with. Assuming storefronts still exist :)

That's just great... (1)

pigiron (104729) | about 8 months ago | (#46037173)

All high-rises will become huge billboards. Shades of our future Blade Runner aesthetic.

Re:That's just great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46038047)

Huge hacked billboards displaying Goat.se. If you build it, hackers will abuse it, so let's nip this one in the bud and not build giant electronic billboards.

Re:That's just great... (3, Insightful)

Lanforod (1344011) | about 8 months ago | (#46039025)

Times Square ever displayed goat.se?

Re:That's just great... (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 8 months ago | (#46044793)

Obviously it's impossible to not connect the billboard to the Internet.

Re: That's just great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46054117)

If we have ever learned anything from movies and TV it is that anything with electronics can be hacked from anywhere anytime regardless of its connectness to the internet.

It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037047)

I'm sick of people coming up with these inventions that use some form of exotic material. Silver, gold, palladium, rhodium ... for God's sake, use something that is not an investment grade metal.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 8 months ago | (#46037131)

The amount of silver in this is likely to be extremely small. They're nanoparticles for a reason. I doubt this'd stop adoption; a problem with scaling production is much more likely.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037155)

Captain, I must have some platinum. A small block would be sufficient, five or six pounds.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037195)

I'm sick of people coming up with these inventions that use some form of exotic material. Silver, gold, palladium, rhodium ... for God's sake, use something that is not an investment grade metal.

Considering the prices people pay for electronics, the raw materials are a tiny fraction of the cost. The quantities of these metals is likely no more than you're already getting in your $300 Samsung 27 inch monitor.

I for one would pay extra for something much cooler than ordinary LED, especially if I could stack them and get some cool 3D effect out of it. :P

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46042305)

Remember the old light-room type photo developing process utilized silver in the photo paper. Enough to be reclaimed from the waste.
Seems like just as that era passed and that use of silver fell out of favor a new one pops up in its place. The more things change...

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46099975)

It can only work with metallic nanoparticles which show the plasmon resonance. Ag is the most ideal metal as its imaginairy refractive index shows a pronounced plasmon resonance peak.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (3, Informative)

Khashishi (775369) | about 8 months ago | (#46037229)

Standard mirrors probably use much more silver than this.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (2)

jdschulteis (689834) | about 8 months ago | (#46038111)

Standard mirrors probably use much more silver than this.

Standard mirrors are generally "silvered" with aluminum.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46037455)

Stop being afraid of prices. If silver is $20/oz and one of these displays requires one thousandth of an ounce, then the cost of silver in one is two cents, so who cares?

Go figure out what the actual cost is and then you can figure out whether you need to engineer a suitable replacement 60nm (polar?) nano-organic for mass production.

We have plenty of silver on Earth - my god, you must've been locked in a closet in fear when everybody was running around with semi-disposable silver halite emulsions in their pockets.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037575)

Stop being afraid of prices. If silver is $20/oz and one of these displays requires one thousandth of an ounce, then the cost of silver in one is two cents, so who cares?

I only have a penny in my budget for silver, you insensitive clod!

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (2)

cusco (717999) | about 8 months ago | (#46038379)

Bit of historical trivia; when the Spanish arrived in the Americas silver and gold were very close in value to each other. The conquest of Mexico and Peru flooded the market with so much silver that the price dropped to 1/10th that of gold. There are altars in churches in Lima and Cusco (and probably in Mexico) made of half a ton of solid silver.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (3, Funny)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#46038433)

Stop hording all our good engineering materials because you foolishly think they have some worth just sitting there.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 8 months ago | (#46040577)

There's probably more silver in the solder inside your LCDTV than there is in this panel. Calm your tits.

Re:It's inexpensive, yet it uses Silver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46060495)

But I like them jiggly!

MIT is pure evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037089)

Aaron is dead! Abolish MIT immediately. How dare they do research.

This on the heels of BBC - Carbon, Part II (-1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037093)

Driving in to work I usually listen to the BBC World Service and they have been running a series on the Elements. This morning was Carbon, Part II - which covered Graphene and flixable displays, due to the nature of Graphene's transparent nature. While it's been interesting to see the series of articles on /. regarding Nanotubes and Graphene, this brought it more to life.

The prospect of using Graphene as custom-tailored filters, perhaps to trap CO2 was also pretty good.

At some point it should appear on the PodCast directory [bbc.co.uk]

Blue screen of death (5, Funny)

blindbat (189141) | about 8 months ago | (#46037105)

Blue screen of death will have a whole new meaning if that pops up on your windshield.

Re:Blue screen of death (5, Interesting)

iksbob (947407) | about 8 months ago | (#46037375)

That came to mind for me. The "display" they appear to be demonstrating uses a projector to illuminate desired areas of nanoparticles. The new technology here is that the particles respond to a specific bandwidth of light, letting others through. If one had a bright light of that specific bandwidth (say, a deliberately de-focused laser), he/she could illuminate the screen from another location, blinding the driver if the screen covered a large enough area of the windshield.

Re:Blue screen of death (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 8 months ago | (#46038149)

Cars? Depending on the resolution (and they are using nanoparticles, while film used grains of silver) we're looking towards having holographic computer displays in the near (?) future.

The way a hologram (that uses film) works is, you take a laser and a dark room and unexposed film. IIRC (and it's been almost four decades since I took that class) you split the beam, and illuminate the film with one half of the beam (focused IIRC) and the subject with the other.

When you develop the film there's nothing recognizable on it at all, just refraction patterns. Shine a laser at it and it changes to a grainy 3D, but a true 3d. Focus your eye at the foreground and the background gets fuzzy, move from side to side and see different views.

A holographic computer display would need a freakishly high resolution LCD panel backlit by three lasers, each tuned to a primary color. Maybe these silver nanoparticles are the ticket?

Crap, I could have saved a lot of writing with a link to wikipedia, which is most likely more accurate and surely more detailed. Hell, google if you're interested.

Re:Blue screen of death (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 8 months ago | (#46040905)

If I had a bright light, I could blind the driver no matter what.

Re:Blue screen of death (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037593)

Blue screen of death will have a whole new meaning if that pops up on your windshield.

Did you see the aircraft windshield they showed in the video? It was shattered!

Why do we all have to wear these ridiculous ties? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037113)

They're waiting, Gordon, in the test chamber ...

Re:Why do we all have to wear these ridiculous tie (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 8 months ago | (#46039033)

I don't see why you got modded down. Guess it's the unforeseen consequences.

Interesting but needs more work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037115)

If you watch the video (skipping the useless talking parts), you will see that the product demos are in front of a very dark backdrop. When the random hand picks up a MIT mug behind the active elements on the screen, the purple color becomes very washed out by the mild lighting off the mug.

I'm not sure whether this is a raw power problem or a limit of the method they are using, but it needs something more before it can even work in a dimly lit room. If they get it to work under standard fluorescent office-lighting, it'll have some use. If they get it to work under the fierce glow of a gravitofusion reactor, then I could believe the car-HUD claim in the summary.

Re:Interesting but needs more work (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#46037405)

The nanoparticles are sized to only interact with a certain wavelength and smaller, in this case, purple. Any larger wavelength light will pass right through.

Hey look (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037139)

Hey look! The people who arranged for the death of Aaron Swartz have come up with something new.

Re:Hey look (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037209)

Aaron arranged for Aaron's death. What did he come up with?

Re:Hey look (1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037285)

Aaron arranged for Aaron's death. What did he come up with?

"Death By Conspiracy Theory"

It's all the rage these days. I'm thinking I need to come up with something memorable when I drive off a cliff in a stolen flying car.

Re:Hey look (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 8 months ago | (#46037445)

I'm thinking I need to come up with something memorable when I drive off a cliff in a stolen flying car.

Pretty much all cars that drive off cliffs are flying. Not for long and the landing sucks, but flying none-the-less.

Re:Hey look (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037473)

I'm thinking I need to come up with something memorable when I drive off a cliff in a stolen flying car.

Pretty much all cars that drive off cliffs are flying. Not for long and the landing sucks, but flying none-the-less.

This is why I need something out of the ordinary - zapped by aliens, crushed by a giant Terry Gilliamesque foot, that sorta thing.

Re: Ah, flying.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46041443)

If flying means "moving through the air without touching ground", then true. And pigs can fly too.

If flying means "generating lift", then false.

Re: Ah, flying.. (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 8 months ago | (#46046379)

"The bullet flew through the air and hit me in the shoulder." I guess that doesn't meet the second definition, but it's not uncommon usage.

Re:Hey look (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46037219)

Hey look! The people who arranged for the death of Aaron Swartz have come up with something new.

It's called The Ring. You should watch it!

Re:Hey look (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037239)

Ooooooo...something new! Is it another homicide?! PBS should do an MIT mystery series! Based on true events! How did MIT get away with murder?!!

I told you never to call me on this wall! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037199)

This is an unlisted wall!

Include Adverts on my windshield (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 8 months ago | (#46037213)

and I will never buy your product again. Hell if I'm in an accident due to your advertisement and I survive, I'll sue you into oblivion and guess what, Your insurance company is not going to cover you.

One thing this tech may be used for is improving vehicle safety by providing a better HUD (heads up display) for things like a NiR (near infrared) and UV camera that allows me to see the fucktard driving w their headlamps off just after sunset because he thinks he don't need them.

How about seeing the damn idiot who's broke down on the shoulder in the fog/rain/snow/night, whatever makes it more difficult to see. These are the kind of uses I can think of that have a great benefit to us if they make it cheap enough to actually be applied as a film - we already do this for safety glass so incorporate it into the safety film. Hell you even have the ability to use it for highway safety information such as "Rt 3 lanes closed 2 miles - Merge Lft".

Re:Include Adverts on my windshield (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037333)

and I will never buy your product again. Hell if I'm in an accident due to your advertisement and I survive, I'll sue you into oblivion

and lose. Google's advertisements are more valuable than your puny human life. The jury will vote to execute you as soon as they see your browsing history.

Re:Include Adverts on my windshield (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 8 months ago | (#46037507)

There is no potential for this to be used as a better HUD. One of the fundamental principles of HUDs is that they use reflex optics. The image is not projected onto the glass but rather is reflected off of the glass and focused such that it appears to be at approximately the same distance from you as whatever physical object it is being displayed in front of. This is done so that you do not have to continually refocus your eyes to flip between the display and your forward view.

The only real value for such a thing as this in a car is a selective filter to block only the incident light from the sun.

Call me when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037227)

...it's actually being used in something I can buy. I get tired of being teased by an awesome idea that ultimately never gets used in a practical consumer application.

A little misleading (5, Informative)

Professr3 (670356) | about 8 months ago | (#46037379)

According to the abstract, this is a projection screen only. They fill a transparent sheet with tuned nanoparticle subpixels, and they project monochrome light onto the subpixels that are tuned to the color of light they want. So, it still requires an external monochrome image projector with at least three times the resolution of the "transparent display". It'd be simpler to just fill a transparent sheet with *regular* silver particles and use a *regular* color projector. The science is cool but - as usual - impractical for this particular use

Re:A little misleading (2)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about 8 months ago | (#46037647)

Not only that, but notice that the demo video conveniently has them moving a set of cups behind the screen, none of which are blue. The glaring omission here is what happens if something blue does get moved behind the display - like say when you're out driving and a blue car goes past, or you look at the sky? Does that get badly distorted/dimmed? And if so, and I want an RGB version of this, what happens?

It would be sweet if you could project e.g. IR light at it and have that come out with a frequency shift, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

Re:A little misleading (1)

GameMaster (148118) | about 8 months ago | (#46038521)

How badly things get distorted probably depends on the specific frequencies of light they choose to represent the primary colors; how common those specific frequencies are in nature; and how tightly tuned the silver nanoparticles really are (how much of the light a little above and a little below the target frequency also gets reflected). If they can target the frequencies closely enough and choose shades that aren't quite as common, then the effect might not be very notable. If they can select all three colors with this effect in mind, they might be able to make the effect seem like more of a general slight darkening rather than an odd looking color shift.

Re:A little misleading (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 8 months ago | (#46040651)

"It would be sweet if you could project e.g. IR light at it and have that come out with a frequency shift, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening."

You would need a fair bit of power to upshift. You need almost none to downshift. You can do it, though. There are 'green' lasers that are made from dual red lasers timed just so and thus the apparent wavelength is effectively a ~530-550nm 'green'

Re:A little misleading (1)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#46038161)

Right. Mode parent up.

MIT's "nanotechnology" articles are getting really bad. Their press office overhypes every little effect someone demonstrates into "big new product really cheap real soon now".

Re:A little misleading (1)

Al Al Cool J (234559) | about 8 months ago | (#46039719)

Yes and no. By tuning the particles to very specific frequencies they can make the material more transparent than something that scatters light in general.

Screens that scatter general light already exist - a fairly well-known example is a DILAD screen, which uses microscopic bubbles. MIT's screen looks to be significantly more transparent than a DILAD screen. DILADs work best with rear-projection, while MIT's seems geared for front-projection. DILADs are used for advertising displays, trade shows, and - most famously - Hatsune Miku concerts.

Re:A little misleading (1)

Professr3 (670356) | about 8 months ago | (#46040053)

Yes. You can improve the transparency at the cost of a huge increase in complexity, but DILAD screens are already perceived as essentially transparent by the normal human eye. Again, not sure how this is going to be useful except in a research facility :\

How it actually works... (3, Interesting)

torkus (1133985) | about 8 months ago | (#46037391)

...is as a projector screen that is only reflective at one very specific wavelength. It doesn't emit any light...there are no pixels...nothing about it changes what parts light up.

It's still quite novel...i'm not sure why they couldn't be more specific (or less misleading?) in describing it.

Keep in mind it's not totally transparent - see how the table looks yellow behind it? Add red and greed and you're going to reduce the incoming light further. They said it can be tuned...so could be changed to avoid any of the peaks in LED, CFL, and daylight. Will be interesting to see where this goes...but if they start painting cars and buildings with this it's going to do odd things to the incoming light.

RGB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46041663)

Re: "Add red and greed..."

So that's what the G in RGB stands for! What does the B stand for, Blasphemy?

Can it display black? (2)

Ralph Barbagallo (2881145) | about 8 months ago | (#46037415)

I'm curious if this can display black. One big problem with AR glass displays is drawing the color black. This could be a big a pretty big deal for AR glasses!

Re:Can it display black? (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 8 months ago | (#46042581)

You cannot do black on a reflective or emissive screen without material to absorb light. These reflective screen technologies work by adding light on top of whatever you are already seeing... kind of like an additive alpha overlay where "black" simply means don't add anything to whatever is already there.

70's British Scifi look is back in style! (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#46037417)

It reminds me of something you'd see in a 70's or early 80's British scifi TV show, like Doctor Who or Blake's 7. Some sort of plexiglass being used as a monitor.

Or peril-sensitive sunglasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037983)

http://hhgproject.org/entries/perilsensitivesunglasses.html

Pretty cool, but... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 8 months ago | (#46037447)

It's a cool demo, and a neat idea, but I keep hoping that the era of projection of images is winding down, with direct displays taking over. Even with advanced aspherical optics and laser projection there's limit to how close you can get to your viewing plane and still have a good display image.

Or transparent phones and tablets! (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46037517)

They could also be used to develop transparent displays for, say, a really cool looking cell phone or tablet! And then ten seconds after buying it, everyone would realize how hard it is to read on them.

It will be like glossy vs matte on your laptop screen: you will know that it looks cool until you need to use it, but idiots buying them will make it hard to find anything else.

I guess I probably shouldn't worry about minor annoyances in consumer electronics in the future based on undeveloped technology...

Re:Or transparent phones and tablets! (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 8 months ago | (#46037747)

Plus when you watch pr0n, everyone else will be watching too.

xmas decorations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46037621)

Isn't this the most likely use of this technology?

Voxels (1)

spankey51 (804888) | about 8 months ago | (#46037661)

Stack a bunch of these screens into a cube or sphere to create a volumetric display.

Re:Voxels (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about 8 months ago | (#46037915)

Unfortunately this is just a projection screen that happens to only reflect the color blue, so only the outer layers would have an image projected on them. Your best bet for voxels would be sandwiched monochrome LCD.

Re:Voxels (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 8 months ago | (#46039823)

Or... use different wavelengths of light for different depths, and have the nanoparticles arranged in concentric rings per "slice", so you'd end up with 3D voxel objects, but they'd be psychedelic tie-dye rainbow colored.

One-way for windshields (1)

joshuao3 (776721) | about 8 months ago | (#46037735)

To be useful for windshields, I think it would be necessary to allow light in from the outside (into the car) regardless of wavelength. I watched the video but it wasn't clear to me that they could make the reflection only occur on only one side of the surface.

Cool (1)

careysb (566113) | about 8 months ago | (#46038147)

Cool, p0rn while I'm driving.

Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46038565)

I can see day when people have their car drive them somewhere while all the windows play surround-screen movies. Of course, this will mean more entertainment for the overly-entertained, and more social detachment for the already socially-deprived, but who am I to stand in the way of progress?

Hey... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 8 months ago | (#46038757)

Weren't OLEDs supposed to deliver a lot of that same stuff a few years ago? What ever happened with that?

Re:Hey... (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 8 months ago | (#46040325)

Weren't OLEDs supposed to deliver a lot of that same stuff a few years ago? What ever happened with that?

You can purchase the Samsung KN55S9C â' 55" OLED Smart TV today, and they are expecting 65" and 75" later this year.

Re:Hey... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 8 months ago | (#46041413)

Well I remember one of the big thing with OLEDs was you were going to be able to have a stick-on transparent display that you could put anywhere. I guess they just promise that with every new display technology that comes along.

reminds me of a coca cola fridge I saw in Chicago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039329)

except that it was in color, but granted probably wasn't inexpensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1WGFMAKLT4

Transparent? (1)

HtR (240250) | about 8 months ago | (#46040513)

Actually, it looks like the background is translucent, not transparent. Also, the foreground looks almost opaque!
I'm working on a real transparent display, where both the background and the foreground are completely transparent.
Where do I get me some of that venture capital?

It is only a beginning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46041089)

What they need to do now is figure out a way to enable/disable pixels that show the light...

Once that is done, they would be able to make an active display rather than a passive screen.

Then they can put a LOT of layers... and have a 3D display, that is usually transparent.

Poor-mans transparent display (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 8 months ago | (#46041415)

If you have an old LCD screen with a burned-out CFL tube, you can pull of the back diffusers and have a fully-transparent LCD display.

Sure there's no self-illumination whatsoever so you need to have it against a bright background (eg a window during the day), the the effect is rather novel.

Most of the power needed to drive monitors is in the backlight, so chances are the power supply will be unnecessary. You'll probably be able to power it from the +12V/5V lines of your computer PSU.

If you're lucky and get a good model you can power the whole thing with just +5V from a USB port!

Re:Poor-mans transparent display (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 8 months ago | (#46042837)

Most LCD displays, even older CCFL-based ones, use less than 50W so there would be no problem powering most of those off the PC's PSUs if LCDs and PCs had such power options. With the USB3/3.1 power spec going up to 5A @ 20V and LED-lit LCDs usually using less than 30W unless either very large or very bright, we might actually see PC-powered 20+" displays in a year or two.

MIT (1)

Okonomiyaki (662220) | about 8 months ago | (#46041535)

Is that really the official MIT logo? Terrible...

Great but I'm not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46043753)

if it will prevail ahead of carbon nanotubes, not on a large scale at least, because silver is precious and I doubt our masters want everyone going around with extra devices that use it but then again, if its a minuscule amount, maybe I'm wrong. And as long as sufficient recycling is set up also.

Where are... (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | about 8 months ago | (#46044391)

... the "wake me up when it displays full colour" messages?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>