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!

Nanotech Brings Cheap Flat TVs From Diamond Dust

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it dept.

Television 193

neutron_p writes "Nanotech scientists are going to develop new TV display technology made from diamond dust. It opens up the possibility of cheaper and more power efficient flat panel displays, for use in wide screen digital TVs and many other applications. Toshiba recently announced plans to launch a television based on a new flat-panel display technology called SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) in 2005. Sony and others have been working for several years on another technology called FED (Field Emission Display) but that too has yet to reach commercialization."

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

Nanothech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109605)

Nice spelling.

Re:Nanothech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109794)

Donth make fun of people with lithps. The cant helpth it if their crippthled.

Re:Nanothech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109867)

Hey, nanothechnology ith the waith of the thuthure. Ith going thoo retholuthunith ethrything, including the way we speath.

cheap? (4, Funny)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109624)

Combining nanotech (expensive) with diamonds (expensive) yields cheap monitors?

It's been a long day, so I know I must be missing something

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

Re:cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109648)

" Combining nanotech (expensive) with diamonds (expensive) yields cheap monitors?"

Wow, and only for 1 million pounds? If the technology is so cheap, why has no one developed it before?

Re:cheap? (4, Informative)

chochos (700687) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109715)

Probably synthetic diamonds, you know, the ones made in high-pressure ovens that cost about $50 and are the bigger than a fist, and are great for this kind of stuff. There was an article on Wired a while back, which I think was also mentioned in /. about this technology. But since nanotech is being mentioned this time, then probably now the diamond dust is being created by nanobots?

Re:cheap? (1)

G-Mac123 (837904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109737)

fyi: Nanotech is not synonymous with nanobots. Nanotech is most often associated with computer processors and the like. In addition, they are nanotech scientists, they did not say which technology they were going to use.

Re:cheap? (1)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109768)

After all, the article had nano-content.

Hard to say how the diamond dust would be made, but I'm sure there are probably more than a few ways (the like the way c-60 is grown).

It just strikes me as funny to see something saying "we'll take 2 really expensive things and make something really cheap!"

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

Re:cheap? (1)

advance512 (730411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110039)

The diamonds cost 50$, not the ovens..

The ovens would have to be very very expensive, heating up the raw material (to be carbonized) up to 3000 degrees celcius and applying pressure of hundreds of thousands kilograms per CM^2.

Haven't heard of anyone making such ovens. Anyone care to point me at details?

Re:cheap? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110053)

GE invented the process for making diamonds with an array of hydraulic presses, I believe in the sixties. Pressure is required.

Re:cheap? (2, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110056)

That isn't how they make them. The giant synthetic diamonds are made by chemical vapor deposition (CVD).

Re:cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110251)

True, but CVD diamonds aren't single crystall diamonds like the HTPT (high pressure/high temperature) ones.

Re:cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110155)

First of all high pressure diamond ovens are waaaaaaay more expensive than $50 -you need 50000 times atmospheric pressure!

But really cheap diamonds are made under vacuum using CVD (chemical vapor deposition) techniques.

Re:cheap? (1)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110406)

There was a show dedicated to the making of real diamonds on either Dateline or Discovery a while back. It went over how carbon can be converted into diamonds through the heating and pressure process taking several days as mentioned somewhat above. The diamonds are less than natural diamonds but significantly more than $50. In addition to that, however, the synthetic ones are completely decieving to jewlers, lust, purity, and every other aspect [including molecular composition]. The only way to tell it to get a test that can tell how much time it took to compress into that molecular compound. Rather interesting and here is one good use for it...

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109735)

Platinum makes great toothbrush handles.

Also, have you considered bathing in Bollinger? It'll change everything.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110132)

Why would I go to Missouri just to bath?

Re:cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109747)

Well they didn't say what type of diamonds. They could be man made ones and/or ones which aren't white diamonds. What do you think they use in commercial diamond tip drills?

Diamonds aren't rare (5, Interesting)

Schezar (249629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109788)

Diamonds aren't rare. In fact, there are more jewel-grade diamonds of large size and high quality than there are people.

The diamond industry works entirely off of the perception in most people that diamonds are rare. They strictly limit the supply, and spend more money advertising than they do mining.

If you don't believe me, take a piece of diamond jewelry to several jewelers and have it appraised. They'll all quote a fairly large sum. Now try to sell it to them. They'll offer you maybe 5-10% of what they quoted.

If you shop around, you'll find that you can't actually sell a diamond for anywhere near what it's "worth."

That said, synthetic diamonds scare the living hell out of the diamond industry, since they're cheap to manufacture and indistinguishable physically from a "real" diamond (which itself isn't rare, but I digress).

These displays will drive more research and capital into the diamond manufacturing market, which will drive diamond prices down.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (3, Interesting)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109910)

The diamond industry works entirely off of the perception in most people that diamonds are rare.

I heard a story about how Russia had been stockpiling large quantities of high grade (natural) diamonds from their own mines. They went to DeBeers and invited them to buy their stock to prevent Russia from dumping them on the diamond market. DeBeers happily bought their entire stock at a excellent (for russia) price. How's that for limiting supply? :-)

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (2, Informative)

amembleton (411990) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109982)

According to this article [aw.com] , Russia did flood the market with low quality diamonds. DeBeers reacted by concentrating on high quality diamonds which went up in value rather than down as the low quality ones did.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (2, Funny)

rjelks (635588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110135)

I find this funny...and kind of sad.

I've had 3-4 places talk up the "high quality" Russian diamonds. I'm sure I'm getting royally ripped off, but I have little choice.

Does anyone think she might go for an "engagement plasma TV" now?

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110085)

There is a book on this subject called "the rise and fall of diamonds" and it tells the story of who is behind the social constrction of the diamond mythology, why they were interested which was not purely monetary, when they got started, what they did, and how they pulled it off. When I found it listed on Amazon, it was listed as "RISE FALL DIAMONDS". I got it for about $12 and so far it's been fascinating.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (1)

brentl (808343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110240)

indistinguishable physically from a "real" diamond

Under normal light they're indistinguishable, but under UV light they have a yellow colour where a naturally made diamond will have a clear colour. I don't think that diamond industry is really scared of synthetic diamonds since, like you said, the main reason people like diamonds is the percieved rariety.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110319)

Actually, there are synthetic diamonds which are indistinguishable from regular diamonds unless you use x-ray chromatography. I read about them a while back but can't seem to find the link anymore. Anyway, this would disturb the diamond industry because they have a monopoly.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110384)

X-ray chromatography doesn't exist. Guess you mean x-ray diffraction.

Re:cheap? (1)

non-registered (639880) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109888)

You know, like nuclear power will be so cheap we won't have to meter it.

RTFA (5, Insightful)

marcus (1916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109902)

If you had RTFA, you'd know that no one here knows more than you do know. ;-) The linked piece was nothing but fluff, no substance at all. Here's a summary:

"Nanotech is great. Diamonds are great. Venture capitalists are great. Flat screens are great. We are going to be rich!

1) Nanotech
2) Diamond dust
3) Flat screens
4) Profit!"

What's missing is something worth reading.

Re:RTFA (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110078)

That's very insightful.

The only wildcard is if these blokes in Britain have figured out how to make a gozillion* itty-bitty diamonds all grow exactly the same. My guess is they haven't, but they'll take the venture money to prove you can't.

* For those of you in Great Britain, a gozillion is a thousand gajillion :-)

Re:cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110036)

It was my understanding that over 75% or so of the worlds diamonds were used in other industrial applications (e.g. rock drilling,etc...) rather than jewelry (therefore "sort of" explaining their cost).

Re:cheap?; how about cell phones, though (1)

captainthomassmith (841059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110086)

It'll be the solution that will address batteries which only last two or three hours of talk time. Or so we might be led to believe... I'll belive it when I see it! [interdigital.com]

ODE TO SLASHDOT (-1, Troll)

arothstein (233805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109631)

LITTLE BROWN RING,
LITTLE BROWN RING

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_FUCK_\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)___MY__|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_ASS__/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Ron White quote (2, Funny)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109637)

Diamonds... That'll shut her up... For a minute at least.

Re:Ron White quote (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109821)

I can see it now. "No, really, honey its not a TV, its a 60" wide rectangluar DIAMOND" ;-)

Re:Ron White quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110126)

What is "nanothech?" Does Taco even preview his articles or glance at them after posting? Does he even load his own site?

Ob Family Guy Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110130)

Diamonds.

She'll pretty much have to.

Cheap? (0)

Apro+im (241275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109650)

Does it say something about the cost of electronics when it makes it cheaper to make them out of diamond dust?

Re:Cheap? (3, Informative)

Gadgetfreak (97865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109694)

Diamond dust is a very common by-product from industries that use larger diamonds Synthetic diamonds are also a lot cheaper than most people think. Diamond-embedded grinding and cutting tools have been cheaply mass-produced for quite some time now. Compared to current LCD/plasma display costs, I don't think it'd be crazy expensive.
I guess it depends how perfect you want it.

Re:Cheap? (1)

Apro+im (241275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109849)

I actually got the disstinction between expensive engagement diamonds and industrial dust - it's just that sometimes, one has to feign ignorance to make a bad joke.

Re:Cheap? (1)

Gadgetfreak (97865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110035)

Yeah... I'm surrounded by co workers who insist on making the worst jokes and puns imaginable at every possible opportunity. I let my guard down a bit when I'm on Slashdot, and this one slipped through... dammit..

Re:Cheap? (2, Insightful)

kesuki (321456) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109781)

Diamonds are actually cheap they come from one of the most common elements, carbon... DeBerrs controls 80% of the worlds gem quality diamond productions, and they refuse to sell more gem quality diamonds that the number of engagments in a year... they actually cut supply below demand*, thus making the price inflate. as an industrial material, cutting diamonds and diamond dust are market priced by more conventional market forces, and since most diamonds that come out of a mine are not gem quality, that makes industrial grade diamond products relatively affordable.

*= Yes I'm aware, Russia and canada are also producing gem quality diamonds, but those mines can't exactly afford to flood the market so far that diamonds plummet in value, because thier mines have less diamonds than the debeer's mines.

Re:Cheap? (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109953)

"*= Yes I'm aware, Russia and canada are also producing gem quality diamonds, but those mines can't exactly afford to flood the market so far that diamonds plummet in value, because thier mines have less diamonds than the debeer's mines."

not to mention that they are very happy to be selling their products at artificially inflated prices. Besides DeBeers could easily undercut their prices if they ever tried a price war, but that would be mutually destructive. If anything the Canadian diamonds have been marketed as a more exclusive item.

Re:Cheap? (2)

kesuki (321456) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110367)

Diamond prices did fall when the soviet union collapsed, and when the canadians found diamonds, but the bottom never really fell out of the diamond market... 1 carrot of diamonds below $2,000 would have been unthinkable, in any type of cut, back in the golden days of communist russia and debeer's and yet on froogle I can find a nice 3 stone 1 ct total band for $800. So yeah, there has been some loss in control over diamond pricing, but it's still at a level that DeBerrs can survive with.http://www.google.com/froogle?q=diamond&btnG= Search+Froogle [google.com]

Re:Cheap? (1)

TheGorilla (840343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109813)

it's simple really, instead of using whole diamonds they grind them up. Now if we could only apply this technological breakthrough on women.

Look dear, I got you a diamond dust ring.

Re:Cheap? (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110022)

> it's simple really, instead of using whole diamonds they grind them up. Now if we could only apply this technological breakthrough on women.

Been there, done that. Threw Saddam in jail for it.

Both Saddam and the US lost money on the deal. Probably like diamond-based flat-screen TVs, neither the solution to the problem nor the solution to the solution were particularly cheap.

Re:Cheap? (1)

tunah (530328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110197)

it's simple really, instead of using whole diamonds they grind them up. Now if we could only apply this technological breakthrough on women.

I'm missing something... grind women up? You're not bitter, are you?

Re:Cheap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110174)

Yeah, making diamond dusts is pretty cheap.

I think thomeone (3, Funny)

Almonday (564768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109651)

...neeth to theck their thepelling, thister.

Re:I think thomeone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110051)

I know. The submitter was *obviously* German, and so the correct spelling is "Nanothek."

Pefect anniversary gift (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109654)

This diamond television means I can now buy the expensive tv I've always wanted and call it an anniversary gift.

"But, honey, you said you wanted diamonds, right?"

The Slashdotting Continues... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109656)

Everyone click here [komar.org]

So informative (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109658)

The article has so little information! it describes nothing of the technology except that it's going to be worked on.

Re:So informative (1, Insightful)

confusion (14388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109680)

I thought I had clicked on the wrong link at first. It is completely devoid of anything useful.

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

Re:So informative (0, Troll)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109944)

Re:So informative (Score:2, Insightful)
by confusion (14388)on Thu Dec 16, '04 03:56 PM (#11109680)
(http://www.syslog.org/)
I thought I had clicked on the wrong link at first. It is completely devoid of anything useful.

Your nick makes so much sense now...

Re:So informative (4, Informative)

gaber1187 (681071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109924)

The main publications page for this group is listed here:
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/pt/diamond/publicat.htm [bris.ac.uk]


Looks like they are using Diamond Like Carbon quite often... so its a quasi-zinc-blend structure apparently.


With field emission they are generating electrons so somehow the electrons get enough energy to reach the vacuum level. I wonder how efficient this is since diamond's bandgap is something like 5.5 eV.


-Gabe

Re:So informative (3, Informative)

gaber1187 (681071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110072)

Ahh, I just figured out the answer. It says that diamonds have a Negative Electron Affinity. Which means that the vacuum level is more stable than the conduction band. Once the electron is excited to the higher state equalling the difference between the bandgap (5.5 eV) and the NEA value (which is 2.4 eV on hydrogen saturated surfaces) , the electron just flies out of the material instead of becoming delocalized into the crystal. So basically what they are doing is replacing the cathode ray tube as the source of the electrons. First flat speakers, now flat tv's!, cool!

Diamond Dust?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109665)

We should call Shiva! [google.com]

Insensitive clod! (1)

Apro+im (241275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109723)

I know what you mean, but maybe you should have linked an image that actually showed the test or context - after all, Shiva's a name of a Hindu god.

TV's made of diamonds (4, Funny)

loteck (533317) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109666)

Finally, men and women will be able to agree that buying a bigger one is a good idea.

You'll find something to argue about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109991)

You'll want 16:9 while she'll argue for an emerald or marquis cut display.

size ;-) (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110043)

women [..] agree [...] a bigger one is a good idea.

That... isn't new.

Title's wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109673)

Nanothech Brings Cheap Flat TVs From Diamond Dust

NanotHech? typo guys...

Also, diamonds are expensive, yes, however the dust may not be since it may be a by-product of the refinement of a diamond, dunno, I'm no jeweler...

Re:Title's wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109783)

Naaa, neutron_p just speaks with a lisp.

diamond tv? (0, Redundant)

xlyz (695304) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109679)

make your wife happy with a luxury present and enjoy watching superbowl on it

oblig *nix joke (0, Offtopic)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109684)

How long until the AWK (Advanced Watchable and Karryable) and GREP (Graphics-Rendering Efficient Power) technologies come out?

Use Synthetics! (1)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109686)

Wired had a great article in the past about how the synthetic diamond industry is breaking through, which means that quality synthetic diamonds may soon be cheap to use for electronics purposes. (Real diamonds are more expensive just they are naturally made, but synthetics can be virtually indistinguishable quality-wise.)

Re:Use Synthetics! - It's all marketing (1)

Graemee (524726) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109750)

De Beers has controlled the majority of the diamond trade to the point that people believe they are the rarest of stones. They're not.

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/de be ers/

Best line ever (2, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109807)

One of the cleverest plays on words I ever heard was in regards to DeBeers during the Apartheid years in SA:

"You bring DeBeers, and lets have Apartheid!"

Wish I could remember who originated it...

SED vs. FED? (2, Interesting)

chochos (700687) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109693)

Is this some kind of reference to Neal Stephenson's Age of Diamonds? The feed was the way nanotech was controlled by the Victorians, and the seed was the way to free it from that control... I know this is offtopic but a post about real nanotech mentioning SED vs FED was just... strange.

Re:SED vs. FED? (1)

youlogee (658632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109719)

Diamond Age [amazon.com] m'man

Re:SED vs. FED? (1)

auf_weiderzen (105189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109825)

I'm just concerned that Neal Stephenson wrote about an interactive _book_, but the real concern seems to be cheap TVs. sigh.

Re:SED vs. FED? (4, Funny)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109837)

Neal Stephenson's Age of Diamonds?

I always thought his earlier book The Snow That Crashed was better.

Re:SED vs. FED? (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109914)

Oh, man, you completely botched that title. It's really The Crash that Snowed. Ranks right up there with "Sale of Two Titties" by Mile Pikkens with four 'm's and a silent 'q'.

Re:SED vs. FED? (1)

chochos (700687) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110092)

Shit, you're right. Yeah, Diamond Age. Sorry. Oh, and very funny, BTW.

What a perfect use of new technology. (4, Insightful)

Canthros (5769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109707)

Bring stupidity into my living room with crystal clarity. I can't wait.

Re:What a perfect use of new technology. (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109740)

Shut the fuck up, you fucking hippy. No one cares about the fact that you don't own a TV or think TV is only for idiots, or whatever other attitude your elitist comment is about. Take it to the coffee shop, asshole.

Re:What a perfect use of new technology. (1)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109829)

I agree. I can see the worthless sitcom of the month + advertising *just fine* on my 20 year old zenith.

Admittedly, I had to buy an adapter so I could watch DVDs :/

Re:What a perfect use of new technology. (1)

JimmehAH (817552) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109940)

TVs aren't the only use for this new technology.
I think computer users of all types (designers, programmers, gamers and casual users) would love a large, cheap flat panel display.

Re:What a perfect use of new technology. (1)

Canthros (5769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110146)

Of course they would. Hell, of course I would love a large, chear flat panel display. My 17" inch monitor is old, kind of fuzzy, and does not respond well to large resolutions. My TV was put on the fritz by the TiVo (I think--it's one of those long, uninteresting stories, and involves no actual flaws in either device, AFAIK).

But, all the same, it's not some life-changing thing. I have computer monitor. I have a TV. My life will not be amazingly improved just because I can watch movies or TV on something the size my living room wall without going to a theater. There was an announcement about five years ago presaging a new form of computer memory to replace all our harddrives. It would be non-volatile, solid state and dense enough to fit a terabyte in something the size of a credit. *That* would get me excited.

Re:What a perfect use of new technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109969)

Sounds like you're all stocked up already. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

I wonder.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109711)

if my girlfriend would wear the diamond dust flat screen on her finger when I propose. It can display the diamond ring that I will eventually get for her after I invent the next nanotechnology breakthrough, using common household dust to make dirt cheap displays.

Cheap Diamonds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109721)

1. Make synthetic diamonds. This technology has been around since the 1950s and people seem to be getting closer to making it relatively cheap.

2. Drag a white dwarf into orbit and mine it. On second thought, that might be *more* expensive. Oh, well.

Re:Cheap Diamonds (3, Funny)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109896)

Drag a white dwarf into orbit and mine it.

If one such white dwarf is made to orbit Earth, it would be Earth orbiting around it instead of the other way around. Depending on the orbital distance, the orbital period can be extremely fast, could be much faster than twenty-four hours, Earth's rotational period will be locked into this orbital period, resulting that the length of a day will change (it will probably be short). The side that face this white-dwarf will be bathed in radiation. Not to mention the sun and this white-dwarf will also share a center of rotation somewhere in the middle of each other, will definitely throw Mecury and Venus into unpredictable orbits, Mars will also have its orbit messed up, the asteriod belt will destablize, Jupiter and the rest of the planets may also be slightly affected by this new gravitational source. Who knows what will happen to the moon.

On second thought, that might be *more* expensive.

Oh whew, economics surely put a stop to this crazy plan to destroy the solar system for some giant diamond. Also, such a diamond would surely be expensive, and such an influx of wealth can surely destroy the global economy anyway.

Re:Cheap Diamonds - locked why? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110060)

Earth's rotational period will be locked into this orbital period

Just what causes this rotational lock? I mean I realize the Moon is locked to its rotation around the Earth, yet the Earth is not locked the Sun, which it clearly orbits and has done so for quite a while.

Diamond dust? Sure. But what can they do with ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109742)

Diamond Dogs [allmusic.com] ?

Riddle me that, Ziggy.

SCREECH?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109762)

Am I the only one that read "Nanothech Brigns Cheap Flat TVs From Dustin Diamond"?

Re:SCREECH?! (1)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109926)

You didn't know? He and Zach played this great trick on Principle Belding and now Screech is a nano scientist.

field emitters been in development for a long time (1)

hqm (49964) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109771)

I remember seeing a lecture on field emitter display technology in a class at MIT in 1980. That's 25 years ago. Sure has been a slow technology to mature...

Grandpa (4, Funny)

ValuJet (587148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109779)

Make a tv out of Grandpa [lifegem.com]

Nanothech? (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109782)

I know a company named NanoTech but who is this NanoThech referred to in the title?

Read the fine print (1)

lateralus_1024 (583730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109814)

Be weary of the Apex "Angel Dust" knock offs that will surely hit the Walmart shelves by next holiday season.

I giggle like schoolgirl when I hear diamond dust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11109845)

Or titmouse. It goes back to a Cheech and Chong movie. I forget which because of the weed. But in the totally-reenginnered PC TV version, they changed all the coke or pot references to 'diamond dust.' There's plenty of staccato scenes with huge chunks missing and lots of quotes like 'Yo, pass the DIAMOND DUST.' 'This is some excellent DIAMOND DUST!' 'Let's snort up some of this DIAMOND DUST.' And diamond dust is voiced in a totally different monotone white guy's voice. I will never feel the same about DIAMOND DUST ever again.

In other breaking news! (2, Funny)

CreatureComfort (741652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109883)


CreatureComfort writes "Aerotech scientists are going to develop new flying cars made from chicken feathers. It opens up the possibility of cheaper and more power efficient public transportation, for use in wide area commuting and many other applications. Toyota recently announced plans to launch a vehicle based on a new flat-panel driving technology called SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Drive) in 2005. Ford and others have been working for several years on another technology called FED (Field Emission Drive) but that too has yet to reach commercialization."

*Yawn**Cough**Cough**Cough* I think I'm allergic to all this vapor.

Re:In other breaking news! (2, Insightful)

hobbesx (259250) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110350)

I think I'm allergic to all this vapor


Note to self: Check sig before posting smart-ass comments in the future.

--

Pet peeve: Responses to sig with no responses to post. Morons.


DAMN!

New Definition of "Nanotech" (4, Interesting)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109913)

Since we have now redefined nanotech to include anything that deals in nanometer scale structures, rather than artificially constructed mechanisms with molecules as components, how far back in time can we claim "nanotech" to have been practiced? The first crystal growth? Perhaps to the first time a crystal was cleaved along certain atomic planes?

Perhaps we could do something similar with "space settlement" and just sort of forget that 1973 was the year that western civilization turned away from its destiny in space and began threatning the planet with globalist growth.

That should make everyone feel better too.

Well, one lucky thing for Mitsubishi... (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109938)

They already have the trademark DiamondTron. :)

Cheap, huh? Reminds me of an SNL quip... (3, Funny)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11109942)

I believe it was Jimmie Falon - at a time when natural gas had spiked in price and alternative fuels were all the rage:
Hey! I've got an idea? How 'bout we make a car that runs on macadamia nuts and bald eagle heads!

Re:Cheap, huh? Reminds me of an SNL quip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11110295)

Macadamia nuts are cheap too.. the trouble is getting them out of their shells without crushing them. Most of the nuts get broken in the de-shelling machine, and as a result, macadamia nut chunks for use in baking sell for a lot less than the same mass of whole nuts. There's a small fortune waiting for someone who commercializes an industrial-scale nutcracker that really works on macadamias.

The operative words (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110003)

Nanotech scientists are going to develop

...going to develop...those are the operative words.

My operative words are: It doesn't exist now. It may never exist. If it does exist someday it may not be cheap, or good, or available in quantity.

Nothing to get excited about yet.

Two women talking (2, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110252)

<A> My is a professional football player. He bought me a diamond ring. *Shows off a huge hunk of crystaline carbon*

<B> My boyfriend is a professional geek. He bought me a diamond flatscreen....

Ob: Family Guy Quote (0, Redundant)

Dufftron 9000 (762001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11110308)

Diamonds, she'll pretty much have to.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?