Can fluorescent light emitters be small enough for a monitor/screen?

I should add that in this type of display, unlike LCDs*, not only does each R, G, and B of each pixel have it's own emit it's own fluorescent light but also, the intensity of the emission depend on the how many watts of of electricity enter the given R, G, or B of the given pixel.

If an R, G, or B, of a given pixel is hit with more watts, then the R, G, or B [whichever one is "hit"] will emit a high-intensity light than if it is supplied with less watts.

In addition, this hypothetical monitor/screen is digital.

You can only make them with T.R.O.L.L. procedures.

There is an existing display technology where each pixel is a fluorescent emitter excited by its own individual glow discharge lamp. I am guessing that these glow lamps use a neon-xenon mixture or the like to avoid the temperature dependence of mercury vapor. I also know that neon-xenon has been used in fluorescent glow lamps.

Back to this technology: The large number of glow lamps and associated phosphor dots are deployed in a common envelope, so there are not millions of individual bulbs.

This is what is used in plasma TV sets.

The choice of phosphors is limited to ones that will not degrade at an unacceptable rate from the likely very short excitation wavelength (147 nm for xenon's main "resonance line" IIRC). In practicality, the choice is further limited to having the primary colors sufficiently similar to those in other display technologies (such as CRT) to maintain compatibility of color gamut.

=A0I

ated

Quote from

"Plasma panels use pulse-width modulation to control brightness"

This is different from the hypothetical display I was discussing in which the intensity of light emitted from a subpixel is determined by the wattage of electricity applied to that subpixel.

ty

So, then you are talking about desire for an analog plasma monitor. A plasma monitor will work whether output from each subpixel is varied by varying the glow current or the duty cycle.

For that matter, varying duty cycle does vary the wattage.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

=A0A

What is "glow current"? I did a google search but didn't see any clear definition.

Maybe I could have said it better as the amount of current sent through the glow discharge in the subpixel.

. =A0A

gh

Does this mean a stronger current will cause the subpixel to emit a more-intense light than a weaker current?

Yes, that is true. That is true even in the case of the so-far-practiced "single bulb enlosed array units" used in plasma TV sets.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

tor. =A0A

d by

rough

cticed

What happens if one attempts to force a subpixel to emit an intensity of light far greater what the subpixel is capable of?

I would guess the same thing as with a neon glow lamp. The result is an excessiverate of sputtering of the cathode material. Sputtering is dislodgement of cathode material atoms by positive ions. The result resembles evaporation. It gets much worse when "abnormal glow" occurs. "Abnormal glow" is glow discharge with above-normal voltage drop in the cathode layers of the glow due to current density exceeding a natural current density of the cathode layers of the glow discharge.

It appears to me that sputtered cathode material would darken the subpixel and possibly darken adjacent subpixels.

LOL!!! That's the best load of bollocks I've read in a long time.

Cheers, Pete.

Care to offer a better explanation?

"It's bollocks" doesn't count...

FBt

Don't tell Scott. He would be quite upset. ;-)

is an

=A0

What if the subpixel is electrodeless lit via electrodeless flourescence?

Here is more info on electrodeless flourescent lamps:

Keep in mind that the subpixel is extremely small, and also that there are a few "economies of scale" that disfavor efficiency as size of the light-emitting-unit is reduced.

In addition, I have a dislike to adding a million or two primary windings and the same number of maybe-necessary ferrite cores of a size, likely-also-shape, yet to be manufactured...

For that matter, I doubt even "4C4" ferrite or "powdered iron" improves much over no magnetic core at all at the likely-UHF-range frequencies that would be necessary even in the unlikely event that "4C4" ferrite or most-finely-powdered favorable iron alloy has little more loss in watts-per-(volts/turn) terms at 500 MHz as at 30 MHz.