| |
G0TEZ > TECH 11.06.06 15:33l 39 Lines 1552 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 46066-GB7FCR
Read: GUEST DL1LCA
Subj: RCA v PIL v LCD.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0IDN<DB0MW<DB0ZDF<DB0LJ<DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 060611/1115Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:46066 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:46066-GB
From: G0TEZ@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : TECH@WW
I have just been watching an Open University programme about liquuid
crystals. Nothing new about them. They were discovered in the 1880s.
Almost as a throw away, the narrator mentioned the work done by the
chemists at the University of Hull, England, partly because RCA was
charging us so much for the use of their patent on the shadowmasj crt that
it was costing us "more than the development of Airbus".
This raised a couple of questions in my mind. One, was the PIL tube
covered by RCA's patent? It was, and is a shadow mask tube but doesn't use
the triads which make of the RCA version.
Two. I have only known details of the Telechrome system for about ten
years. It was kept secret for years. I'm not sure why, but the telechrome
didn't use pixels as such, either at the camera or crt.
It did not need any kind of shadow mask. The reception was either on large
screen projection TV using two guns at 45 deg or a two or three gun crt
with the Orange and Cyan at 45 deg, aimed at a graticule, one version
having a green gun in the normal position. Not only was this brighter than
a shadowmask tube, which was a problem but telechrome could easily give a
3D TV picture.
Now we finally have LCD displays as standard if we want them, we should no
longer have to pay our friends across the Atlantic for the use of their
patents. In fact we should be charging them for our LCD technology.
TFT for tat, you might say.
All the best from - Ian, G0TEZ @ GB7FCR
Message timed: 02:56 GMT on 2006-Jun-11
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
