Page 2 of 3
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 15.26
by Sput
I KNOW HOW TO DO AN AREA MEASUREMENT THANKYOUVERYMUCH
You said per *inch*. Do you mean per *square inch*? It's hard enough dealing with your antiquated measurement units
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 15.36
by Sput
Well that's the original basis for my confusion! Gav said W/diode/inch so I don't know what's happening. 0.3W for one LED seems high, particularly for one so small considering how efficient they are. Per square inch seems to be the one to go with.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 16.04
by Gavin Scott
Oh you silly boys.
The LCD screen is made up of pixels and is rear lit by an array of LED diodes which are positioned every 1" square, so as to illuminate the entire screen area evenly. Like a grid.
The 1" I mentioned is a nominal measurement, based on what I used to deal with in the entertainment industry - it may be that they are more or less densely packed, and it may also be that they are using more efficient luxeon LED diodes.
In any event, its a lot of light required to punch through the screen - which is fairly thick and not 100% transparent.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 17.24
by marksi
I've just read the following on MediaGuardian:
Exactly one year ago, the Daily Mail offered its readers two free energy-saving lightbulbs.
Last week, following a headline that it was "the end of light as we know it" and a story about retailers agreeing to ditch traditional and "beloved" bulbs for more expensive, low-energy ones, the paper was at it again. Only this time the lightbulbs were of the incandescent variety.
After "unprecedented public demand" for the 5,000 traditional bulbs the paper had obtained, the Mail offered five free 100w light bulbs for every reader in return for 12 tokens and 1.63 for postage.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 17.27
by Gavin Scott
marksi wrote:I've just read the following on MediaGuardian:
Exactly one year ago, the Daily Mail offered its readers two free energy-saving lightbulbs.
Last week, following a headline that it was "the end of light as we know it" and a story about retailers agreeing to ditch traditional and "beloved" bulbs for more expensive, low-energy ones, the paper was at it again. Only this time the lightbulbs were of the incandescent variety.
After "unprecedented public demand" for the 5,000 traditional bulbs the paper had obtained, the Mail offered five free 100w light bulbs for every reader in return for 12 tokens and 1.63 for postage.
Well the jokes on them - the only ones still in manufacture are from China, and the tungsten is so impure they last no time at all.
That'll only serve to convince the readers that long lasting is better.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 17.30
by Sput
Gavin Scott wrote:Oh you silly boys.
The LCD screen is made up of pixels and is rear lit by an array of LED diodes which are positioned every 1" square, so as to illuminate the entire screen area evenly. Like a grid.
The 1" I mentioned is a nominal measurement, based on what I used to deal with in the entertainment industry - it may be that they are more or less densely packed, and it may also be that they are using more efficient luxeon LED diodes.
I still blame gav for his *WACKY* units
I see now, it's per diode or per square inch. It also makes sense that you'd need more power what with them being white lamps.
And go on, admit it, I BET you had made a typo when you wrote "luxeon"!
And marksi: what, the daily mail being inconsistent? I for one am SHOCKED
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 17.42
by Gavin Scott
Sput wrote:And go on, admit it, I BET you had made a typo when you wrote "luxeon"!
Indeed I didn't.
One is bright, requires no effort or faffing, and will illuminate whatever it shines its light on.
The other is not.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Mon 12 Jan, 2009 21.22
by marksi
Just measured the consumption of my 37" Panasonic and it was 230 watts, or 2.3 DMFLs*.
*Daily Mail Offer Lightbulbs.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Thu 15 Jan, 2009 14.53
by iSon
You can now find all the lightbulb talk at
http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/view ... 17&start=0
And Sput...you're an ass.
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 17.10
by rts
Re: No more inefficent plasma screens
Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 17.26
by Pete
my old digital camera years ago had an OLED screen and it was amazing. Such a stunning image compared to every LCD one I've had since. I do hope they are able to get the prices down and sizes up soon, its a screen technology I find far superior to plasma and LCD