[Ted.com]Invention: New plastic film replaces fossil fuels and the grid etc.

[PELHAM 10]

@ DMarkwick

You are making many incorrect assumptions there. If IR from a point source illuminates the whole sheet of film it will all react if the image is not focused somehow. Think about it!

If someone shines a torch at your car you see the point source because the lens in your eye refracts the light.

"Do you worry about focus mechanisms on a normal window?"

No because my eyes can see visible light and the lens in my eye focuses the visible light coming through the window on my retina. That does not happen in the case of IR does it because you can't see it, can you?

So tgatts concern about how the image is produced still stands and is perfectly logical and valid.

Edited November 17, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to PELHAM

@ DMarkwick

You are making many assumptions there - does it really react to IR in the same way a normal window would - what about ghosting and reaction / fade times?

The fade time is zero no ghosting it is instant it is LED based technology if you follow the link in my last post you will see this. For the IR version it requires a low voltage boost. As the night time IR is not enough to power the LEDs on its own. I would be more worried about flare and overloading but that is simple cutout fix.

@ "Do you worry about focus mechanisms on a normal window?"

As to focus.

As it is LED technology and therefor is using pin hole technology diffraction involved I am guessing. You remember how you got enough light to see the image on the tracing paper from the box camera you made when you were about 11 years old. You remember there were no lenses involved?

No because my eyes can see visible light and the lens in my eye focuses the visible light coming through the window on my retina.

At the observer you wil be focusing on the the screen which you should think of as a giant LED screen, composed of thousands of pinhole cameras per inch, projecting through each micro LED. What you will loose I think is depth perception as essentially the screen is a giant LED screen. And probably the definition will be better than a Modern HD ready screen pumping out an IR Camer view as the action is taking place at a finer resolution and at a much larger screen scale. Compared to an old fashioned IR camera it will be orders of magnitude better.

That does not happen in the case of IR does it because you can't see it, can you?

So tgatts concern about how the image is produced still stands and is perfectly logical and valid,

PELHAM :eek: :eek: :eek:

Put brain in gear before letting clutch out on keyboard!

It converts to optical wavelengths that is the whole point you silly...

Shakes Head Walker

Edited November 17, 2011 by walker

[dmarkwick 261]

@ DMarkwick

You are making many incorrect assumptions there. If IR from a point source illuminates the whole sheet of film it will all react if the image is not focused somehow. Think about it!

What I think about is if there were a normal visible light point light, and how I would be able to see that.

If someone shines a torch at your car you see the point source because the lens in your eye refracts the light.

Same with IR, only you don't have the receptors for registering it.

"Do you worry about focus mechanisms on a normal window?"

No because my eyes can see visible light and the lens in my eye focuses the visible light coming through the window on my retina.

...and if the IR light was shifted into the visible spectrum, the same would apply.

That does not happen in the case of IR does it because you can't see it, can you?

It does happen with IR light, you just don't have the receptors for registering it. But it's there.

So tgatts concern about how the image is produced still stands and is perfectly logical and valid.

If we were talking about a camera yes.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Have any of you thought about this technologies significance to TV screens and monitors?

Since esentialy it is a giant Graphene LED screen. What would be needed is an imput source. Multiplexed in optical fibre?

OOer Missus Head Spin.

Kind Regards walker

[PELHAM 10]

I suggest you guys refer back to the diagram most of us saw in middle school text books about how an image is created. All your talk of pinholes is nothing but pin headedness.

Light from the IR source is not magically converted to visible light, that is not possible. Have you actually READ the articles you link to? The journalist says that because he is trying to simplify the science for pinheads like you. The scientist says the film is capable of converting an IR image to a visible image. You see the difference? Image to image. So how does this actually work? What you say happens - the IR light goes through the film and changes to visible light - isn't possible and that is not what the scientist says.

"Seven separate layers of OLEDs detect IR light as it enters, generating a tiny electrical charge. A tiny amount of electricity – just three to five volts – amplifies the signal as it passes through the additional layers. "

The IR enters the film and an electrical charge is generated that makes a series of LEDs glow in the visible spectrum. How is that glow converted into an image?

[dmarkwick 261]

I see your pinhead and call you a poopypants.

[walker 0]

Hi PELHAM

I suspect imput is based on narrow axis light only as per the pin hole camera description from there it is the same as if we convert light on a Charge-coupled device or a complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor CMOS sensor chip into an image they imput the image just the same. Except in this case each reciever is direct line to output. So skiping the need for the complexity you refer to; so esentialy they have cut out the electronic middleman.

I keep to my suggestion that it is a mass of electronic Pinhole cameras.

More info here:

http://oemdlab.mse.ufl.edu/

Paper describing the tech here:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl200704h

Kind Regards walker

Edited November 17, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

:D Nice try - post another topic.

edit:

I see no pinholes - it's a sheet of film composed of layers - IR in, PbSe layer excited, electrons released, organic layer emits green light just as I described on the previous page. People are wondering just how you get a sharp image out of that without a lens across an area the size of a windscreen - If you want to pay the $35 Dollars for 48hrs access to his pdf - (I imagine many have parted with the money after all the publicity) - let me know if he has anything conclusive on that. I would say the IR image has to be focused on the film with a lens for a green visible image to be created?

Edited November 17, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi PELHAM

No little lenses on my led TV nor on computer monitor.

Kind Regards walker

[PELHAM 10]

FPDR

Your LED TV is actually an LCD TV with an LED backlight. The image was captured using a camera with a lens and is processed and recreated electronically in the colour LCD subpixels.

The backlight looks like this, corner of the LCD screen peeled back:

Same LEDs as you find in an LED torch, not the Organic LED found in the layered IR sensitive film. It's completely different.

The authors of the various news items and you have claimed that you can get an image on a car windscreen simply by the IR light hitting it - no lenses, processing etc. Let me know how that's done please, I'm very interested in exactly how that is achieved.

Edited November 18, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to PELHAM:

I spent the last week reading up on the subject. I can confirm the technology uses no lenses and is not based on conventional optics or image processing. It raises the energy level of input photons to visible light.

The system is pixel-less IR to visible light upconversion. It is pixel-less because the nano devices are too small for either conventional electrical pixel image processing and representation or optics and are grown or stripped from source and the process being nano scale and quantum in nature and so an exersize in statatistcal probability rather than the "exactness" of pre nano production, the graphene is selected from those nano devices in the substrate that work and are vertical to the plane. This selection process is one of the key technologies.

I put exactness in quotes because that is merely our old fashioned mechanic engineering view of what we were manufacturing in the past, what we saw as fine engineering and perfection was realy just a reflection of the depth we were willing to observe and work at.

IR Upconversion involves raising the energy of the photon(s) to the level of visible light. There are various methods that can be used but this uses a single photon detector to light emiting diode device. No image is processed. It just converts photon energy. It inputs ~2 IR photons for 1 visible light photon output. So it is very efficient.

This paper describes it far better than I am doing :( :

http://cmsoep.physics.sjtu.edu.cn/doc/2011/PQT%20Review%202011.pdf

Note this is only the IR system, the energy system is phenomenaly more important.

Kind regards walker

Edited December 4, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

So after a week you still have no idea how it works? Light must be refracted to form an image, ye cannae change the laws o' physics, Walker.

Thank you for that pdf, it was an interesting read and confirms everything I have already said. Can I refer you to figure 2 on page 80 which depicts a schematic of

infrared up-conversion imaging system?

It uses no less than 2 sets of imaging optics (COMMONLY KNOWN AS LENSES!) 1 in front of the IR converter to focus the IR light then 1 after the converter to focus the visible light from the OLED.

Your statement that "It raises the energy level of input photons to visible light." is false and is not possible. Read it again please. It converts by:

1)Absorbing IR light

2)Creating electrons from the energy of the absorbed IR photons

3)The OLED, powered by those electrons, emits visible light

IT DOES NOT CONVERT IR PHOTONS DIRECTLY INTO VISIBLE PHOTONS! Sorry for the capitals but you repeatedly fail to grasp this simple fact. It's an indirect process.

You have misunderstood the part referring to energy levels -

"To meet energy conversation law, infrared photons need to gain extra energy to convert to higher frequencies. For up-conversion devices those are biased,

the extra energy is provided by the applied electric field. For passive up-converters, the general approach is to convert two or several infrared photons to one photon."

(There is a typo in there - 'energy conversation law' should be 'energy conservation law' :D)

What that means is the existing IR photons do not have the required energy for 1-1 conversion to excite the absorption layer into producing electrons that in turn produce visible photon emissions in the OLED. Again I say it - the IR photons do not magically become visible, you cannot convert photons directly and you need lenses to create images. Look up the law of energy conservation and you will gain a greater insight into exactly what they are talking about RE the energy to produce the visible light emissions. That paper also describes several different systems - your OP was about the passive system. If it works it's a breakthrough because the layers he has developed do not require additional energy to produce the electrons for the OLED. One thing to be aware of is that the device we are discussing does not work with the full IR spectrum, just the near infra-red (NIR)

Edited December 4, 2011 by PELHAM

[anguis 4]

Very interesting - thanks for posting.

[MF_Washburn 1]

Time will tell if this innovation hits the market and the factories.