[HN Gopher] CRT Manufacturing
___________________________________________________________________
CRT Manufacturing
Author : grunthos
Score : 111 points
Date : 2022-04-25 12:23 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (vintagetek.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (vintagetek.org)
| fallat wrote:
| There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right?
|
| Is OLED manufacturing easier?
|
| What is the easiest display to actually make?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Manufacturing OLEDs is _vastly_ more complex than CRTs, which
| is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and glasblowing.
|
| I'm pretty sure one person can make basic CRTs in their shed
| because that's pretty much how early CRTs were made.
|
| Of course really good or very fast CRTs are a tad different,
| but the fundamentals (i.e. electron optics) are still used in
| various places, so it's not like we've collectively forgotten
| how to shape an electron beam. Tektronix also published tons of
| literature about stuff like this.
|
| > What is the easiest display to actually make?
|
| Discounting electro-mechanical displays, I'd say VFDs.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Complex, yes. But, don't forget that if we still made CRTs
| we'd desire them at extremely high quality. Much higher than
| they were when they were still manufactured. I don't think
| there'd be much difference in complexity.
|
| Also, the much higher amount of materials, the bulk etc would
| make them unviable now.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Manufacturing OLEDs is vastly more complex than CRTs,
| which is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and
| glasblowing.
|
| I recall an article from ~20 years ago where some researchers
| made an OLED display using an inkjet printer. I'm sure the
| consistency and reliability were not what you get out of
| modern manufacturing, but still...
|
| I've been waiting for inkjet based printing of simple
| circuits and lighting but it's just not happening. Imagine
| printing light-up signs. c'mon Y-combinator we need this tech
| everywhere.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| Fun fact: OLEDs have radically shorter lifespans "in the
| field" than LED or LCD.
|
| According to a paper from Samsung at IEEE IRPS three years
| ago, the best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600
| hours) best case continuous use but that is extended by
| "screen savers" and estimates of only 25%-50% customer use
| in a 24 hour period to about 5 years (extend by not using)
|
| https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529
|
| Part of the reason for this: low energy manufacturing
| materials/processes, by definition (physics), will have low
| energy failure mechanisms (which always means they will
| fail more quickly). This is about chemico-physical reaction
| activation energy. Anything ink-jet created or organic is a
| low energy process/material.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| >>best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours)
| best case continuous use
|
| I don't have access to paper, but rough estimate is that
| there are ~17k hours in 2 years.
|
| If screen has actually 2 years 24x7 continuous use (and I
| assume they use a semi-arbitrary brightness threshold or
| something?), I imagine for TVs that'll be an easy decade
| of real-world use, depending on usage patterns. For some
| phones maybe less. I'd be curious what the specs for LCD
| & LED are then.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> low energy manufacturing materials/processes, by
| definition (physics), will have low energy failure
| mechanisms
|
| That is one of the most obvious-in-hindsight things I've
| learned lately. Thanks!
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Surely it's not that low? The lamp in my projector (BenQ
| W1070) is rated for 5,000 hours, and that's low enough
| that the manufacturer includes a lamp timer in the menu
| and sells user-swappable replacements. I'm on my third
| lamp.
|
| If the whole display was expected to die in anything like
| this amount of time, I would anticipate widespread
| consumer outrage.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| Actually CRTs and vacuum tubes in general are the "far more
| complex" manufacturing process compared to semiconductor.
| It's sounds wrong but just watch the following video about
| Mullard vacuum tube (valve) manufacturing in the early 1960s.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDvF89Bh27Y
|
| The transistor would start to displace tubes during the 1960s
| (when I got into electronics in the early 1970s, you still
| would learn or use or have as option the user of vacuum tubes
| but by the end of the 1970s, that was 100% gone for
| professionals and hobbyists though in 1980s as a freshman EE
| student we had the last gasp of vacuum tube education
| corresponding to having to use FORTRAN and punch cards that
| one last semester for programming as well). At the same time,
| discrete transistors were arising as the de facto choice in
| commercial (the adoption "Chasm" for them occurred in the
| late 1950s). ICs were still "early adopter" in the 1960 and
| crossed the chasm in the late 1960s, early 1970s which is why
| the 1970s were the boom decade for Silicon Valley and IC
| manufacturing.
|
| As I watch tube manufacturing with 40 years of experience in
| semiconductor, I just cringe at the non-reproducibility and
| labor involved - it's insane. By contrast, semiconductor (and
| by commonality of process, OLED) is far simpler. The reason:
| the planar photolithographic cycle is repeated over and over
| again in semiconductors which in contrast to the "different
| at every single step" of tube manufacturing is radially
| simpler.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It depends on how we define define "manufacturing
| complexity" right? Perhaps (I'm not in manufacturing,
| so...) it is right to say that a CRT is more complex to
| build than an LCD or OLED, in the same sense that a suit of
| plate armor is more complex to build than an M16. The
| former can be created with lower technology and more manual
| labor by an expert, the latter can be basically stamped
| out, some assembly required.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Depends what you mean by "easier". The biggest issue with OLED
| is yield. Most OLED require some sort of plasma deposition
| which is hard to get high throughout, good uniformity and low
| scraps for something that's so large (hence why I guess phones
| OLED are so much more abundant)
| beecafe wrote:
| https://youtu.be/qg8pMUd-tSk You can make the OLED part at
| home, but patterning it into a screen with an active matrix of
| see-thru transistors is hard.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| CRTs also have pretty high drawbacks... High energy use
| (remember the high energy use of plasma displays which were
| basically flattened CRTs). Flashing, bulk, high material cost.
| Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-
| radiation emitter).
|
| So no. I don't think it will be back. Modern displays are much
| easier to make also, more high-tech but use less energy and
| materials.
| perardi wrote:
| They also require somewhat obscure rare-earth elements, which
| are not getting cheaper.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor
|
| You'd also have to scale strontium mining and refining back
| up.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-
| radiation emitter).
|
| This is completely wrong while technically correct. Sure,
| electron guns throw electrons around. So you are looking at a
| beta-emitter. But those electrons can't leave the tube. Even
| if they could - CRTs have, depending on size and application,
| an acceleration voltage of somewhere between 10 and 30 kV -
| this translates to a range of a few centimeters in air at
| best.
|
| CRTs _do produce_ radiation, namely X-rays by way of
| bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed at
| the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are heavy
| (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded glass is
| heavy.
|
| > Flashing
|
| Visible flicker is obviously undesirable, but low duty cycle
| displays are preferable for moving images.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > CRTs do produce radiation, namely X-rays by way of
| bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed
| at the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are
| heavy (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded
| glass is heavy.
|
| True, I didn't want to get into that level of complexity.
| The electrons are also quite easy to capture with
| conductive glass. But the bremsstrahlung can be
| significant.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| OLED's are certainly cheaper to ship, you could probably stack
| 8 20" OLED displays in the space that my old Sun 20" monitor
| used to take up.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right?
|
| Not really. CRTs are more bulky, more fragile, require lead for
| the front glass (which means issues with environmental
| protection laws), complex power supplies and they have a
| significant quality loss in the analog conversion. Why should
| anyone buy a CRT these days, unless for authentic replacement
| of historic appliances?
|
| > Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to
| actually make?
|
| That depends on your definition of "easy" - these days I'd
| assume TN LC displays are the easiest to manufacture at scale,
| the technology is decades old (and thus, no patents in play)
| and there are lots of manufacturers. OLEDs may be easier to
| manufacture (JOLED aka Sony/Panasonic have shown that one can
| print a display using an inkjet printer), but that stuff is
| heavily under patents for the next two decades so it's not
| accessible enough to meet the "easy" definition IMO.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOLED
| lazyier wrote:
| > There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right?
|
| Probably not.
|
| > Is OLED manufacturing easier?
|
| Define "Easier".
|
| Is it easier to manufacture a transistor or is it easier to
| manufacture a vacuum tube?
|
| If you were stuck out in the wilderness with nothing but rocks,
| sticks, and a pile of sand and a team of engineers you would
| probably have a much easier time building a primitive CRT
| display than a OLED one.
|
| But if you have a goal of having to manufacture a reliable
| display at minimal cost then OLED wins hands-down.
|
| Depending on your constraints one is 'easier' then the other.
|
| ------------
|
| Old CRT displays were nice (inherent advantages in terms of
| resolution, refresh rates, color depth, view angles, and color
| accuracy), but they were fragile and required significant
| amount of labor to construct. It is unusual for CRT-based
| televisions to last decades without requiring repairing and
| tuning.
|
| Where as modern modern flatscreen displays are much cheaper to
| produce, are much more efficient in terms of resource usage,
| and are much more reliable. People tend to replace flat screens
| because they become obsolete. However they replaced tended to
| CRTs because they stopped working.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Not unless someone finds a product that people want that needs
| a CRT. I expect that in 20 or so years, CRTs will be so rare
| that they could be a nerdy conversation piece. So someone could
| go back into business making a simplified, no-frills CRT and
| selling it at enthusiast prices ($1000+).
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| A decade ago it was generally assumed that vinyl recordings
| were over with. And vacuum-tube amplification should be
| obsolete. But retro-fashion persists.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| CRT manufacturing is, at a minimum, an order of magnitude
| more complex.
|
| In all likelihood the ability/knowledge to manufacture high
| quality CRTs has been irrevocably lost and won't be regained
| unless somebody wants to sink large amounts of cash (hundreds
| of millions?) into reviving it. In contrast, vinyl never
| actually went away. retro-fashion
|
| CRTs still have some technical advantages (essentially zero
| lag) and notable differences compared to modern flat panel
| displays.
|
| The appeal to many of these outdated technologies extends
| beyond "fashion."
| louhike wrote:
| Yes, old technologies (video games consoles before HDMI
| use, VHS) were made to be displayed on CRT and the quality
| is far worse when seen on recent TV. I recommend the
| twitter of CRT Pixels if you want examples.
| speeder wrote:
| I was using CRT until recently, sadly it broke in a way
| nobody could fix :(
|
| Reasons why I preferred it over flat panel:
|
| 1. Zero lag (lag annoys me a lot when I am gaming)
|
| 2. Arbitrary resolutions (for example I was running several
| recent games using a medium-range video card, with graphic
| options on ULTRA or above, because the games would look
| gorgeous on CRT with low resolution)
|
| 3. Arbitrary resolutions (want to use content for other
| format than widescreen? It is covered! Content designed for
| pixels that are not square? It works too!)
|
| 4. Stupid high refresh rate if desired (while lowering
| resolution of course)
|
| 5. Stupid high resolution if desired (while lowering
| refresh rate).
|
| 6. Better contrast (one of the reasons I got CRT back was
| that I got annoyed with flat panel when I tried to play
| SuperHOT and watch Game of Thrones on the same day, if I
| avoided SuperHOT becoming a white blob, Game of Thrones
| became black blob, if I avoided Game of Thrones becoming
| black blob, superhot became white blob)
|
| The last one sadly is only "theoretical" for me because I
| never had the right equipment and software, but CRT could
| do HDR images, for example Silicon Graphics for a time was
| shipping computers for digital art that had a fancy video
| card that could output 48 bits of colour, that computer
| came with a ginormous widescreen CRT too... I believe that
| CRT is the one John Carmack is using in a famous photo.
|
| Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot of
| DRM-related restrictions on video and sound drivers, you
| could do a lot of fancy shenanigans with CRTs, seemly
| intended for engineers and architects, but I never got too
| much details about it, I never seen it in person and nobody
| ever described it to me, I only saw people bemoaning it was
| removed.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot
| of DRM-related restrictions on video and sound
| drivers, you could do a lot of fancy shenanigans
| with CRTs, seemly intended for engineers and
| architects
|
| Huh, that's interesting. I'd love to know more about this
| if you manage to jog your memory. I'm not sure what
| you're referring to so that's why I'm interested.
| speeder wrote:
| I remembered the name, it was "Overlay" seemly it allowed
| you do things like control the RAMDAC directly and skip
| the CPU, send arbitrary information to the CRT, and other
| shenanigans.
|
| From what I understood the non-official reason for its
| removal was to prevent people from using it to circunvent
| HDMI restrictions in a way that would allow them to
| duplicate movies without using DRM.
|
| The official reason was that it caused driver
| instabilities and thus Microsoft was against its
| inclusion in the new driver model for Vista.
|
| Why it was popular with CAD, I have no idea.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Oh wow, that's super interesting. Thanks for following
| up!
| TillE wrote:
| Zero lag is the really important bit. If you're a top-level
| speedrunner of a retro game, there's just no good
| alternative yet. When existing CRTs deteriorate beyond
| repair, that's a big problem.
|
| We can replace aging consoles with highly accurate FPGA
| clones, but we can't replace the displays. The best modern
| displays still effectively lag behind a CRT by about a
| frame (~15ms), which really does matter.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| If you're a top-level speedrunner of a retro game,
| there's just no good alternative yet.
|
| I think even the most casual of gamers _feel_ the
| difference when input /display lag is reduced, even if
| they don't know why their enjoyment is greater.
|
| Similar to how most folks, in a blind test, would prefer
| a fresh-baked pastry from a skilled baker that uses
| quality ingredients vs. some kind of shelf-stable
| junkfood pasty. They would likely not know or care about
| the fact that one uses high quality grassfed butter and
| the other uses partially hydrogenated oils and that one
| uses cane sugar and the other uses corn syrup. But they
| would enjoy one more than the other, even if they weren't
| able to articulate why.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| CRTs also scaled images very nicely. LCDs et al have had to
| rely on higher pixel densities to achieve the same results.
| This is then requires more powerful graphics processors
| too. So for games, some gamers have turned back to CRTs
| which means they can run their games at lower screen
| resolutions but have all the rendering effects enabled.
| Resulting in a better looking game than they would have
| gotten from the same computer hardware powering an LCD
| display.
|
| There might have even been a discussion on here about this
| actually.
| SilasX wrote:
| Yes! They're also better for rhythm games, like Dance
| Dance Revolution, because you avoid the lag from
| upscaling.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Agreed on all counts!
|
| Digital Foundry has done some excellent videos on CRTs
| for retro and _modern_ gaming. High end CRTs are actually
| fantastic for modern games, too, especially at 120hz.
| (Although, good luck finding /affording one...)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foun
| dry...
|
| While purely subjective, many would agree that low-rez
| pixel art looks much better on a CRT:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/9xg8w
| 3/t... There might have even been a
| discussion on here about this actually.
|
| There have been a few. Of course, any time an older
| technology is mentioned on HN, a bunch of uninformed tech
| bros dismiss it as "fashion" or "hipster" or "nostalgia."
|
| In reality, sometimes these old technologies have unique
| qualities. I have to laugh at the idea of CRTs being
| "retro-fashion." I've got a half-dozen CRTs in my home
| and basement and let me tell you, nobody thinks it's cool
| ha ha ha ha.
| Zardoz84 wrote:
| A CRT it's only a special vacuum tube. And now, there is a
| small manufacturing of vacuum tubes in China.
| willis936 wrote:
| A vacuum tube with 3 balanced heaters, specific and large
| blown dimensions, a delicate mask inserted, coated with
| lead, and wrapped in copper coils.
|
| You could make one in your garage for sure. /s
| JohnBooty wrote:
| That's only part of it. There's also the phosphor masks,
| etc.
|
| It's not that we literally don't know how to make CRTs
| any more. But the manufacturing ecosystem is gone: the
| machines, the tooling, etc. That was the product of 80
| years and many billions of dollars of R&D. Making high-
| quality CRTs requires some pretty specialized propietary
| gear.
|
| We could probably manufacture a 1950s-style black and
| white TV without too much effort. But it would be a
| tremendous leap from there to creating e.g. a high-end
| Triniton monitor capable of doing 1080p@120hz.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| With current supply chains and infrastructure, yes, flat panels
| in general are easier. OLED are still somewhat specialized so
| most come from JP or KR companies (with factories in JP, KR or
| CN).
|
| My current employer (based in Taiwan) makes an "LCD Flat Panel
| Manufacturing Plant" product.
|
| You literally just need a building shell (the plans for which
| we can provide to qualified sales prospects). Then you place
| your order and a few months later dozens of shipping containers
| arrive and you put the contents into the shell like a child's
| construction toy or Ikea furniture. All the cables are snapped
| together and you start feeding it the inputs, and out pops flat
| panels. It's 100% turn-key.
|
| This product is part of the reason why flat panel TVs are so
| cheap now - and Chinese customers LOVE how it's so simple for
| them and requires zero actual knowledge of making flat panels -
| sort of the ideal manufacturing for them (we also sell a
| support contract service to run them).
|
| Also one of the very last CRT manufacturers on the planet
| (which now manufactures flat panel screens as well with CRT
| production ending in the mid 2000s) was in Taoyuan TW (their
| logo still has a CRT in it last time I drove by their plant).
|
| Taoyuan and Hsinchu have been glass centers for TW for the last
| 200-300 years due to natural reserves of highly pure silica and
| natural gas in the area. Before semiconductors, these places
| made scientific glass products (chemical/medical glassware,
| lenses, etc.) which is why this former CRT plant was located
| there. Note that the supplier of lenses for iPhones is located
| in this same area. The common supply chain of silica is why
| Hsinchu is the semiconductor center that it is. Old fashion
| geography still applies to why the world is the way it is.
|
| If you were to start a CRT manufacturing plant in the US, the
| only best place would be in NY or PA near Corning NY because
| Corning Glass is still there and doing leading edge work in
| glass still. There's no company nor area better for glass or
| glass dependent products in the USA at this point in history.
| missedthecue wrote:
| What's the ballpark figure for the amount of money it takes
| to buy one of these factories in a box?
| kurthr wrote:
| I don't know the business that the original poster is
| talking about. However, I would guess that this is a ~Gen4
| LCD glass plant. That would make the sheets ~1m^2 and the
| factories are typically over 300m in length. You can get
| the mother glass delivered by truck (even get poly silicon
| pre-deposited), if you don't have those facilities on-
| site... however that would make the product more expensive
| and sensitive to supply chain disruption. Most productive
| factories are almost sand in to panels out.
|
| If I had to guess on pricing of a single line capable of
| generating ~1-3000m^2 a day, it would be in the 10s of
| $million excluding the factory building or land itself.
| Arrath wrote:
| Time to crowd-fund a startup that makes truly dumb panel
| tvs, wow.
| wmf wrote:
| Nah, just buy existing panels. The firmware is the "hard"
| part.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| They already make "dumb" monitor controller boards for
| almost every panel in existence. The difficult parts
| would be:
|
| 1. Designing a shell that is unique enough but simple
| enough to pass muster for the average person. Aesthetics
| matter, after all.
|
| 2. Incorporating a remote that had the features you want
| without directly copying another design, and making it
| fully functional with the TV brains
|
| 3. Finding a microcontroller that can be purchased at the
| appropriate quantity that is able to handle the latest
| features that you want without requiring internet
| connectivity. (HDR, Post Processing,
| Dolby/Atmos/Surround, etc)
|
| 4. Getting the appropriate inputs to handle all of the
| expected inputs for at least 90% of your target
| audience's expectations
|
| 5. Getting the finished product UL Listed and fully
| evaluated by the appropriate licensing bureaus.
|
| 6. Doing all of the above without causing the TV's price
| point to explode well past the point where your average
| target purchaser can or would choose to afford it when
| less expensive brands exist that have reliable warranties
| or customer service or a name to live up to.
|
| Should you pass those bars and have a modicum of success,
| then you will have to fight off all of the competitors
| who will leap at the target audience you've uncovered,
| releasing dumb tvs at price points you may not be able to
| match with the goal of driving you out of business even
| if it costs them money so that when the next cycle comes
| around customers will have no choice but to purchase
| their products again.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Just crowdfund the development of alternative firmware
| for a handful of popular models and then pay to maintain
| for future models. Much cheaper.
| usrn wrote:
| People have built homebrew monochrome CRTs. The process looks
| surprisingly easy.
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| link please.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This video is mostly about a diffusion pump, but he uses it
| to pull a vacuum in a homemade CRT made out of an
| Erlenmeyer flask and the filament from an incandescent
| light bulb.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNVLCHrJtY
| camtarn wrote:
| The article on ceramic CRTs was fascinating! I had no idea that
| CRTs could be made out of ceramic - I always assumed they were
| all glass.
|
| A short excerpt:
|
| "Scope faceplates used to be round, simply because glass CRT
| bottles were round, and the faceplate was part of the bottle.
| Today, most faceplates are rectangular, to provide maximum
| display area; thus they require tubes that are rectangular in
| cross-section. In ceramic tubes, the glass faceplate is fused (or
| 'fritted') onto the ceramic envelope. That is, glass bottles
| _are_ truly 'bottles'; ceramic envelopes are more like sleeves,
| or funnels, open at both ends. Such a rectangular envelope
| requires great structural strength; to make one of glass would
| mean very thick walls, thus a much heavier tube. (TV cathode-ray
| tubes, for example, are not rectangular, but bowed on all four
| sides to achieve the necessary strength. That's why your screen
| is the shape it is.) ... A glass bottle is spun, or blown, inside
| a cavity; a ceramic one is formed outside of a mold. This gives
| us control over the internal geometry of the tube - particularly
| important in post-accelerator (helix-type) CRTs. ... the large-
| screen CRTs required for our display units and computer terminals
| rely on ceramic envelopes for the necessary strength, fidelity of
| image, close-tolerance geometry and reasonable cost."
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| If you've never used or seen a CRT display, you don't know what
| you're missing. A modern ultra-high resolution CRT monitor would
| absolutely sell today.
| giobox wrote:
| While I love the CRTs I have on some old hobby builds, I'm
| extremely doubtful a "new" CRT could be manufactured at a price
| people would want to pay.
|
| It would sell to a niche if it was affordable; I just don't
| think the manufacturing infrastructure exists anymore to make
| this at a price people would pay.
|
| Let's not forget the weight either - a modern CRT running
| something approaching a size and resolution we expect in 2022
| is going to easily exceed 20kgs. Apple's last 21 inch CRT
| before the switch to an all LCD line was 35 kgs.
| danamit wrote:
| nah they were SO BAD dollar for dollar compared to LCD.
|
| I am not nostalgic for the days when 3 hours of using your PC
| felt like frying your eyes with lasers.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I grew up with crt both as tv and computer monitor.
|
| The last crt I regularly used was the shared tv in my dorm,
| which I moved out of in 2008.
|
| I absolutely have no memory of them being superior.
| twiddling wrote:
| I remember the weight and desktop real estate they consume.
| Slaminerag wrote:
| We had 21" CRTs back in the 90s for full page displays. I
| remember someone at a client injuring their back moving
| one. One of my former coworkers broke a desk by putting a
| CRT on it. I had a 27" TV that I could barely lift. Now I
| can easily move 55" TVs. I haven't gotten stronger in the
| past 30 years.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Digital Foundry did a write-up on it:
|
| https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2019-modern-
| games-l...
| ladyattis wrote:
| It's neat to see this, but I'll say I do not miss having a CRT TV
| or monitor. They were just so heavy even if you had a small one
| around 20 or so inches in size. I'm glad we moved on to LCD and
| OLED. The only thing CRT had down was decent blacks but that's
| obvious by the fact that it only would excite the phosphor dots
| it needed to make the image. Beyond that, good riddance to them.
| :)
| Beltalowda wrote:
| I miss the controls. These stupid on-screen menus are often so
| difficult to use compared to just turning a little POD meter to
| control the brightness, contrast, etc. If you're lucky your
| screen has a quick-ish way to adjust the brightness, but the
| rest are almost always a pain to adjust.
| ladyattis wrote:
| Oh yeah, the modern controls stink on monitors. I got one
| with the joystick button which it's okay. It's much better
| than what I've dealt with from other monitors but sometimes
| the button isn't that reliable as to striking the on button.
| I guess it's just a 40 year old boomer thing for me. None the
| less, I prefer more tactile controls.
| mjcohen wrote:
| This is no longer allowed in Florida.
| rendall wrote:
| bandyaboot wrote:
| "CRT Manufacturing"
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/christopher-r...
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| That's honestly the direction I thought this was going to go
| as well.
| [deleted]
| rendall wrote:
| Me too, but the observation got downvoted and flagged.
| Weird.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Getting Aperture Science vibes from this. I can't help but
| imagine that everyone in the pictures died a few years later from
| weird and oddly specific cancers.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Yes, just like every 9-5 office worker from the 90s was
| sprinkled with tumors due to the color CRT radiation.
| phkahler wrote:
| Don't forget all those people in China dying from the all the
| lead in the ground where these were dumped after use.
|
| https://sometimes-interesting.com/electronic-waste-dump-
| of-t...
| madengr wrote:
| I'm sure the same can be said of semiconductor manufacturing.
| My wife's first day on the job in the clean room, she noticed
| the plastic ribbons on the vent above the photo resist station
| were not flapping. When maintenance looked into it, the vent
| was blocked-off; had been since it was installed. It's this
| kind of shit.
|
| She got the hell out of microelectronics and is now a data
| scientist. The former is a dead end job in the USA and the
| latter pays better.
| usrn wrote:
| Electronics manufacturing is way more nasty than most people
| are willing to admit. The idea that solar panels are "good for
| the environment" always makes me cringe a little.
| Epiphany21 wrote:
| Solar panels are less bad for the environment in regions
| where they'll operate efficiently for all or most of their
| projected lifespan. The manufacturing process is worse up
| front, but the idea is that this will be offset over time as
| the device harvests energy from the sun without creating any
| additional major pollution.
|
| The trouble is that solar panels in lots of areas are
| vulnerable to weathering, accidents, theft and sometimes
| vandalism. The ones I've seen are just not very durable. I
| drive by a field full of them frequently and a couple times a
| year I see workers replacing a panel or two. I've been told
| they're supposed to last for a minimum of 15 years.
| thedeadfish wrote:
| paskozdilar wrote:
| Oh.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| This isn't Reddit.
| thedeadfish wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-26 23:02 UTC)