Jimmyjames
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2022
- Posts
- 1,094
Now I’m wondering if they are technology! I suppose it’s not either/or, unless...
Mac New Game Porting Toolkit is Wine
- Thread starter dada_dave
- Start date
So strange, I do wonder about NBC's tests here and how good they are.
Why not? The nomenclature seems reasonable—as I understand it, the colors are determined by electron confinement, and can be predicting using 3D particle-in-a-box-type calculations. That is a quantum mechanical effect. And the "dot" term refers to the electrons being confined in all three spatial dimensions, and thus having zero degrees of freedom.
FWIW, Here's a screenshot of the paper in which the term was introduced (see lower left) [1]:
[1] Reed, M.A., Bate, R.T., Bradshaw, K., Duncan, W.M., Frensley, W.R., Lee, J.W. and Shih, H.D., 1986. Spatial quantization in GaAs-AlGaAs multiple quantum dots. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 4(1), pp.358-360.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 6,330
- Main Camera
- Sony
yes, this paper refers to a theoretical construct, which would be a quantum dot. But TV’s have something more akin to “recombination centers.”. (BTW, GaAs/AlGaAs is my one true semiconductor love.)
I actually defended an LED case where the plaintiff argued there were quantum dots in the accused products, and I was able to get them to go away by demanding them to prove that the quantum dots were there.
When you get a chance, could you explain the difference between a QD and a recombination center (RC)—including how RC's don't make use of QM effects like confinement and thus 'aren't quantum'?*
I wasn't able to find any reference to RC's in displays—just to the use of RC's to enhance the performance of QD-based solar cells. So there it wasn't a matter of those using RC's instead of QD's, but rather using RC's to enhance the conversion efficiency of QD-based devices. [ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nn800471c?casa_token=U3WsIYFQKQsAAAAA:hA8ujrTtlAJiIl_I15hULh_5L5G4w51T-Gxr8Cn9nA0JP8rQAL2bMKAxrkI-UMr46_uI1BQ8-U4zD7E ]
And is the case that:
1) Actual commerical QD implementations do exist, but you won't find them in the Mac's new display.
OR:
2) All commercial displays that are labelled as QD instead use RC's.
*Sure, everything uses QM -- for instance, the colors of every display technology, and indeed every object, are due to QM effects. But you know what I mean.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 6,330
- Main Camera
- Sony
In my opinion, (2). There are some academics that agree with me, but the majority opinion is the opposite. But, to them I say: “prove it.”
As for the difference… that’s a long complicated discussion involving electronics and quantum physics. And some people refer to “recombination centers” to mean something different (that other definition would be a bad thing), so it is further complicated. (LED people think of things differently than transistor people). In any event, the difference comes down to whether you are putting a kink in the conduction and valence bands to encourage electron flow while retarding hole flow (which is what some of us think is going on), or whether you are truly confining charge carriers in a little box. I had a long day today (court hearing - I won!) and I have a call with germany and korea in 2 hours, so I’ll try and revisit later.
Sure, take your time. But I think I understand what you're saying—you're not saying that, while QD's exist, those in displays aren't QD's. Instead, your postion is that QD's don't operate the way most in the research community think they do—they aren't charge carriers confined in a box—and thus shouldn't be called QD's.
Congrats on winning your case!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Posts
- 6,330
- Main Camera
- Sony
yes, that’s my position. Again, i acknowledge it is the minority position. But there were plenty of university professors from several countries who agreed with me, back when it was an issue in my case.