** It has come to my attention ( via the marvels of Google and Wiki ) that there is another class of small halogen bulbs - called " Halogen IR" for halogen-infrared.
Very few examples exist on the market anywhere ( apart from a special headlamp bulb used in a Toyota vehicle) but they may find a whole new market if the usual kind of halogen bulbs are banned en masse.
The lamps in the LCD screens are typically rated to about 50,000 to 60,000 hours. At 12 hours per day use, this should be about 11 to 15 years! I would think that the power supply, and other sections of the set will probably die before the lamps do!
The way that the industry is going, I would think that after about 5 to 7 years, people who bought LCD or Plasma screens will be looking for new ones just to be up to date. I am sure that the manufactures will find a way to make their screens be obsolete, and force people to change them.
--
JANA _____
I doubt it. I expect that lamps and/or inverters will need to be replaced within 5 years.
If they push this issue, then hopefully the consumer backlash will consign them to political oblivion where they belong.
- Franc Zabkar
-- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Thanks for telling me the light source is LEDs/transistors. All the time I thought there were compact fluorescent lamps (containing mercury and phosphors) behind the LCD panel.
I doubt very much they use LEDs - none of the panels I've seen inside use them - they use cold-cathode fluoros. LEDs don't have the light output nor colour purity of fluoros - yet.
Anyway, don't white LEDs use phosphors to produce their "white" light?
I've been using an LCD monitor for the last 3 or 4 years. Recently, I decided to get a new monitor. When I started shopping, I had taken it for a given that I would get another LCD. After all, they're lighter, they take up less space, consume less power, they are now ubiquitous, and you don't feel like your face has got sunburn after a few hours sitting in front of one, right?
I went into a big box store and they happened to have a cheap, no name brand CRT monitor sitting in a corner at the end of an aisle containing dozens of LCDs. That was the only CRT in the entire store. After spending about half an hour looking at monitors, making sure the graphic cards were set to match the native resolutions of the LCDs, I came to the conclusion that the image quality of a CRT (even a low-end one) is far superior to that of even the best LCDs on the market today. It's particularly noticeable when viewing photographs. CRTs have a smoothness that LCDs lack; they're not "grainy" like LCDs.
When you use an LCD day after day, you get used to it and tend not to notice, but looking at a CRT and an LCD side-by-side, I was stunned at just how poor the image quality of an LCD actually is. That must be why many graphic designers still prefer CRTs.
Another advantage of CRTs, I've been told, is that they provide a high quality display across all the resolutions they are capable of, whereas LCDs only give their best at their native resolution. That could be a factor for people who like to switch between different resolutions.
At any rate, it's a moot point, since it probably won't be possible to buy a new CRT monitor within a year or two.
-- "Those of us whose brains did not die in college are actually stunned by just how stupid academic ideas are." -- Robert W. Whitaker,
Yes, you will, just not at the scale you used to. CRTs can still do things that LCDs can't. Little things like higher resolution and better colour rendition. Little things like that, which the masses with more money than sense don't want.
That only leaves the CRT market at the higher end. Fine with me, as LCD still doesn't cut it for me.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.