Various prices & pro/con
Somebody mention the various prices over the years.
Any chance someone in the know could add a pros and cons section like over at the DLP page?
This article is not NPOV --Tykell 00:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is that a joke? What's POV about this article? --Cholling 20:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I gotta lol. If there's one thing that Wikipedia is reluctant to remove, no matter how ridiculous, it's an NPOV notice. --70.24.219.247 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've added a link that talks about pros and cons of both, as well as comparing them. Will give a short summary in the near future if time permits. The link is: www.plasma-vs-lcd.com Plasma vs. LCD - Comparison of Plasma TVs and LCD TVs
Inaccurate
That page is not very accurate. For example it mentions phosphor and electron beams for plasma, when there is no such thing used in plasma displays. --Xerces8 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, phosphor is the lining of every cell in a plasma display. The light photons react with the phosphor to create color. You'd be right about the electron beams as far as I know, but the phosphor stays :) 71.193.160.181 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Article needs a pro con section or something similar
I don't think this article is detailed enough. It is neither as detailed as the artclies about LCD nor DLP screen technology. There is only one con section there, which talks about burn in. What about the stuff where sunlight hits the tv making the gas messed up or something similar that I heard of.
I would like to be able to compare the technologies better; however, this article is lacking for a comparison. Sp0 (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible Dangers
I found this link while doing a research project: Any ideas on how it happened? Is it a consumer risk? Or just a rare occurence? However since this story has no proof behind in (no news references), it may just be spam. Still, I would like to know if anybody has any idea on whether or not it is an issue to be concerned about. Thanks much. 71.193.160.181 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You are kidding me right?
A random post, on some unverifiable forum made by god knows who, describing something literally physically impossible (Plasma gases are all inert and in far too small quantities to "explode") and your attempting to take it seriously as a citation to include within an encyclopaedia? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Pressure
Is partial vacuum necessary to create these noble gas plasmas? -- Beland 08:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a very late response but it is an important point. Initially plasma displays operated at a low pressure, it is relatively easy to induce a stable discharge at a low pressure (20mbar?) but low pressure equates with low brightness. Efforts to increase brightness included higher pressure. High pressure brings the problem of stable discharge (no sparks!). This was tackled with different techniques to initialise the plasma by preliminary discharges designed to produce higher levels of residual ionisation, facilitating stable discharge during the display period. I am not sure of the actual working pressure of a modern display is, it must surely depend on the temperature and thus the power due to brightness, but if you are thinking of 1 atmosphere you would not be far out.--Damorbel (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Urban Legend
There seems to be an urban legend going around that plasma TVs have a working live of not much longer than 4 or 5 years... any information on this? it sounds incorrect to me... perhaps this myth could be debunked (or if it is true (unlikely)) confirmed. Hydroksyde 10:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC
The earliest consumer models did suffer from an unacceptably high rate of premature panel failure, particularly when their price was taken into account. Sony stopped supplying Plasma panels in 2005 after being bombarded with complaints from early adopters. Five years was a pretty good lifespan for some early panels. It only takes one faulty transistor out of the thousands on a typical panel to make the panel unusable.LCD screens run at much lower voltages and so are not nearly as prone to panel failure. Modern Plasma panels are much more reliable than they used to be, but I think 27 years is pretty unrealistic. In any case, it's far more likley some other more mundane component will fail before then, making the panel just as uneconomic to repair. Essentially a 27 year lifespan is not really appropriate for something that will probably get replaced for other reasons long before then.
Ultramince (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Early plasma displays suffered from degradation because the the display discharge between crossed electrode configuration resulted in excessive phosphor bombardment by ions. The main display period emision is now done between parallel electrodes on one surface, ultraviolet light strikes the phosphor on the opposite surface where it is safely out of the way of ion bombardment. An address discharge still has to take place between crossing electrodes on opposite surfaces to initate the individual cells, this does produce some phosphor degradation, about 10% of the older design, this probably has something to do with the 27 year claim. Ion bombardment was largely responsible for the "image burn" that displays used to suffer from. --Damorbel (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)SPAM ALERT =
The last external link (Plasma TV) goes to govinda.nu/electronics/tv/plasma-tv/index.htm where you can 'buy' Plasma TV at 'e-bay'
Another one: I removed the link to www.lcdplasmatvguide.com PDP TV Buying Guide, which has three blocks of ads on every page and barely any text. It's useless. -- Skierpage 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed "plasma drawbacks"
I removed the sentance:
The biggest drawbacks of plasma technology are the high cost, often lower resolution, and relatively short lifespan.as these statements are basically refuted elsewhere in the article. While the resolution isn't specificially mentioned in the article (it should be), Plasma sets are now available in 1080p, the highest consumer resolution available. Additionall, the article states "in 2004 the cost has come down to US$1900 or less" and "So if you use it at an average of 2-1/2 hours a day, the PDP will last approximately 65 years."
86.132.205.207 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I know the man whose main business is in removal of scrap and waste material. I was talking to him about the largescrapping of CRT based TVs at the present. He told me that he scraps far more worn out plasma TVs than CRTs,and they are rarely more than 3 or 4 years old. And the number of scrapped worn out plasmas is increasing,not decreasing as would be the case if the current breed of the technology was really lasting longer.I B Wright 17:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Added sentence on IBM
I added sentence on IBM plasma displays in the early 1980's. As a young EE graduate in 1984, I was impressed by their orange on black plasma panels that IBM produced in their Kingston NY plant. I joined the company because I wanted to work on this technology (but got hired to do other work). I remember the display was divided into four quadrants which were used to display four separate mainframe 'virtual machine' (VM) sessions. Quite interesting for the time.
Illustration
I think it would be great if this article had excellent illustrations, like the CRT article, but I wouldn't know where to find a good one that wasn't copyrighted. Any help? Nicholasink 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
History
The history section reads like an advertisement for Larry Weber's personality cult. I'm sure he is an impressive man who has had a lot to do with the development of plasma technology, but some of the material belongs in an article about him instead of the article about plasma technology. (E.g., the comment that as of 2008 he is back at work, and if he is successful plasmas might regain market share vs. LCDs. The point isn't if he is successful — it's that if anyone is successful. In any event, this whole sentence feels out of place in an encyclopedia article, whose purpose is not to predict future developments of the plasma/LCD battle for market-share.)Dsspiegel (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The history section says nothing about the work done by the group at SAI Technology (part of then Science Applications, Inc.) and Roger Johnson. This group delivered the first plasma display terminals for military application in 1975. Military sales of plama display products for the next 25 years kept the technology active and viable during the time when LCD technolgy nearly completely took over the flat panel market. You may not like the military marketplace but it not only kept plasma alive it greatly helped in its birth in the first place.
And BTW, Roger Johnson (originally from UI) was doing plasma color work on a 19 inch panel at SAIT in 1977.
Pixel orbiting
I'm not familiar enough with the subject to write about it, but I believe pixel orbiting should at least briefly be discussed in the article. If not discussed, then maybe just mentioned here and addressed in another relevant artic