Universal Display Corp (OLED)

[FreeGrass]

The chart says this is going down or will be hovering between 25 and 30 for a while.

[Marvy]

Trending down since financials are coming up? But soon should be back.
Unless the financials are better than expected.

[plfminthemiddle]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/18/the-next-rocket-stock-is-right-in-front-of-you.aspx

[FreeGrass]

Shorts are having a blast. Get ready for the drop!

[Marvy]

We had some solid AH trading Friday.

[Marvy]

This is true

[FreeGrass]

For every buyer, there is a seller as well!

[Marvy]

Another big buy EOD 34k + more

[Marvy]

Huge buy at EOD 54k

[Marvy]

Must be insiders buying up again

[Marvy]

Possibly more insider buys today

[FreeGrass]

Where will this drop end? Looks like it could go under $20 this time...

[Marvy]

Nice movement at the end!

[Marvy]

What a big insider buy 36 mins ago!

[Marvy]

Up?

[Marvy]

What do we make of the insider buy at $28

[Da Ghost]

PANL


loved you back

[FreeGrass]

CES 2013: Winners and losers

Spencer Kelly visits the CES technology show in Las Vegas to see the latest TVs, smartphones, tablets and computers and asks who the winners will be for 2013.

[Marvy]

Selling by insiders

[FreeGrass]

You can find it in this article, and on other websites if you search OLED burn-in.

Is Quantum Dot Lifetime Good Enough for TV?

[gdollasign]

Odd I havent seen any main stream press on burn in

[FreeGrass]

What are they planning to do about the OLED burn-in problem?

[gdollasign]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100283791

[FreeGrass]

For that, PANL is one of the better ones...

[Da Ghost]

PANL

Please explain!

No thanks ,I am simply making a trade ... not an investment ,,

[FreeGrass]

Almost all off PANLs revenue depends on phosphorescent emitters they supply to only 1 customer. Besides that; OLED emitters are surpassed by Quantum Dot emitters. So why would anyone be positive on this company? Please explain!

Phosphorescent emitter sales were 83% of our total material sales

We cannot accurately predict how long our phosphorescent emitter material sales or host material sales to particular customers will continue, as our customers frequently update and alter their product offerings in response to market demands. Continued sales of our OLED materials to these customers will depend on several factors, including pricing, availability, continued technical improvement and competitive product offerings.

It's Game Over For OLED!!!

OLEDs use organometalic compounds to emit light. They typically have a central metal atom surrounded by organic ligands. The decay issues are the same as with typical organic fluorophores. In the excited state these molecules are very reactive to H2O and O2, as well as other small molecules that may be around. Once they react they become a different molecule and they will no longer fluoresce or phosphoresce and give off light. The more blue the light emission, the higher the energy of the excited state, and the more reactive the excited molecule will be. So your blue organic phosphores will have a much shorter lifetime than will red phosphores. The burn-in problem seen in OLED displays, that can be seen after just several weeks of operation with static content, is a manifestation of early blue degradation compared to green and red.

Conventional phosphores like YAG are doped materials. YAG used in white LEDs is actually cerium doped YAG. The cerium atom emits the yellow light and is surrounded by a vast amount of YAG. Quantum dots are similar in that a central core crystalline semiconductor material is used to confine the holes and electrons of the exciton (analogous to the cerium in YAG), and in our material this is surrounded by a thick shell of a different, lattice-matched semiconductor material (analogous to the YAG.) We call this a core-shell Quantum Dot structure. If the lifetime of our materials is less than that of conventional phosphors, it is typically because we have not made a perfectly lattice-matched shell, which may distort the core and cause defects at the core/shell interface that reduces the quantum yield.

The big difference here is that a perfectly made core-shell quantum dot does not have an intrinsic lifetime failure mechanism, whereas the organometallic compounds are intrinsically reactive to their environment, which makes them prone to shorter lifetimes especially at higher energies such as blue.

So, even if core-shell quantum dots have no intrinsic limitation on lifetime, what is the measured lifetime of QDEF? That answer was actually delivered by Jian Chen of Nanosys in a presentation by Chen and colleagues from Nanosys at SID 2012 in Boston. The graph shows 30,000 hours of QDEF efficiency under “rapidly accelerated” life testing. Taking the initial efficiency as 100%, the efficiency rises over the first 3000 equivalent hours to 105%, peaks at slightly above that at 13,000 equivalent hours, and is at 103% at 30,000 equivalent hours. So, Chen concludes, the “equivalent operation lifetime in displays is greater than 30,000 hours.” (Note: This graph appeared in Chen’s presentation but not in the version of his paper that appeared in the SID 2012 digest.)

Based on this input, we can conclude that yes, QDEF lifetime is good enough for consumer television. When are we likely to see it? Perhaps in 2013. Why are we likely to see it? In a frighteningly competitive environment for LCD-TV panels, modules and complete sets, QDEF is a cost-neutral way of giving consumers a change in front-of-screen performance they can readily see, while also providing a modest increase in energy efficiency.

[Da Ghost]

PANL

Steve ,as the CEO of PANL I thought you should know I hold shares of your company . Much to my surprise you do not post here on ihub .. ,I wonder why ...?? hmmm Anyways.. I think they got it all wrong ..


Northbound !!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks !

Key Executives
Pay Exercised
Mr. Steven V. Abramson , 60
Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Director 571.00K 887.00K
Mr. Sidney D. Rosenblatt , 64
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Exec. VP, Sec., Treasurer and Director 577.00K 2.29M
Dr. Julia J. Brown Ph.D., 51
Sr. VP, Chief Technology Officer and Member of Scientific Advisory Board 391.00K 2.03M
Ms. Janice K. Mahon , 54
VP of Technology Commercialization and Gen. Mang. of Material Supply Bus. 276.00K 2.11M
Dr. Michael G. Hack Ph.D., 55
VP of Strategic Product Devel., Gen. Mang. of Oled Lighting & Custom Displays Bus. and Member of Scientific Advisory Board 269.00K 1.21M
Amounts are as of Dec 30, 2011 and compensation values are for the last fiscal year ending on that date. Pay is salary, bonuses, etc.Exercised is the value of options exercised during the fiscal year.
Currency in USD.

[Da Ghost]

PANL

Thanks PANL , I think I love you

[FreeGrass]

Burn-in problems with OLED

Is Quantum Dot Lifetime Good Enough for TV?

In mid-September, I delivered a presentation on OLED manufacturing and markets at the Crystal Valley Conference and Exhibition (CVCE) in Cheonam, Korea. I mentioned quantum dots and Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) as technologies that might slow the market penetration of OLEDs. During the Q&A, Franky So (Prof. of Materials Science and Engineering at the Univ. of Florida) asked a question I couldn’t answer, and it’s an obvious one: What is quantum dot lifetime in general, and the lifetime of QDEF in particular? Professor So also speculated that the material system involved might give QDs an inherent lifetime disadvantage compared to OLEDs.

I quickly fired off queries to Nanosys, the company that has led in development of quantum dots (QDs) for display applications, and 3M, which has incorporated Nanonsys QDs into QDEF, a component that can deliver the benefits of QDs while directly replacing the rear diffuser film in LCD backlights.

At the behest of Nanosys Product Manager Jeff Yurek, the technology team at Nanosys quickly put together this response concerning the inherent differences between OLED and QD materials:

OLEDs use organometalic compounds to emit light. They typically have a central metal atom surrounded by organic ligands. The decay issues are the same as with typical organic fluorophores. In the excited state these molecules are very reactive to H2O and O2, as well as other small molecules that may be around. Once they react they become a different molecule and they will no longer fluoresce or phosphoresce and give off light. The more blue the light emission, the higher the energy of the excited state, and the more reactive the excited molecule will be. So your blue organic phosphores will have a much shorter lifetime than will red phosphores. The burn-in problem seen in OLED displays, that can be seen after just several weeks of operation with static content, is a manifestation of early blue degradation compared to green and red.

Conventional phosphores like YAG are doped materials. YAG used in white LEDs is actually cerium doped YAG. The cerium atom emits the yellow light and is surrounded by a vast amount of YAG. Quantum dots are similar in that a central core crystalline semiconductor material is used to confine the holes and electrons of the exciton (analogous to the cerium in YAG), and in our material this is surrounded by a thick shell of a different, lattice-matched semiconductor material (analogous to the YAG.) We call this a core-shell Quantum Dot structure. If the lifetime of our materials is less than that of conventional phosphors, it is typically because we have not made a perfectly lattice-matched shell, which may distort the core and cause defects at the core/shell interface that reduces the quantum yield.

The big difference here is that a perfectly made core-shell quantum dot does not have an intrinsic lifetime failure mechanism, whereas the organometallic compounds are intrinsically reactive to their environment, which makes them prone to shorter lifetimes especially at higher energies such as blue.

So, even if core-shell quantum dots have no intrinsic limitation on lifetime, what is the measured lifetime of QDEF? That answer was actually delivered by Jian Chen of Nanosys in a presentation by Chen and colleagues from Nanosys at SID 2012 in Boston. The graph shows 30,000 hours of QDEF efficiency under “rapidly accelerated” life testing. Taking the initial efficiency as 100%, the efficiency rises over the first 3000 equivalent hours to 105%, peaks at slightly above that at 13,000 equivalent hours, and is at 103% at 30,000 equivalent hours. So, Chen concludes, the “equivalent operation lifetime in displays is greater than 30,000 hours.” (Note: This graph appeared in Chen’s presentation but not in the version of his paper that appeared in the SID 2012 digest.)

Based on this input, we can conclude that yes, QDEF lifetime is good enough for consumer television. When are we likely to see it? Perhaps in 2013. Why are we likely to see it? In a frighteningly competitive environment for LCD-TV panels, modules and complete sets, QDEF is a cost-neutral way of giving consumers a change in front-of-screen performance they can readily see, while also providing a modest increase in energy efficiency.

[FreeGrass]

This is pretty effective...

[chasem]

Day 4

[dms1]

Where did she go??

[FreeGrass]

Here she goes...

[chasem]

Day 3

[chasem]

3 Things to Watch With Universal Display
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/08/28/3-things-to-watch-with-universal-display.aspx

[chasem]

Day 2 of liquidation sale. How many days till we break the $30 resistance. Anyone.

[FreeGrass]

Needs to close the gap first...

[chasem]

Day 1

[FreeGrass]

Molecular capsules: Glowing with promise

The zinc capsule emitted strong blue fluorescence with a high quantum yield (80%)

[gdollasign]

I imagine you have a list of things that will actually happen to drive the stock to $22?

LOLLLLOLLLOLOLLLLOLOLOLOLOL.............gimme just one....just one.

[chasem]

I am shorting this first thing monday. I am confident we will see a new low of $22.

[FreeGrass]

Be careful! Next 10Q there will be no revenue from Samsung. OLED is also outdated before it ever takes off. QDLED is the future, NOT OLED!

[Marvy]

I'm liking this stock more and more

[FreeGrass]

Universal Display's Management Presents at Deutsche Bank Clean Tech, Utilities and Power Conference

Transcript

[FreeGrass]

According to a research report published this morning, Piper Jaffray has decreased Universal Display's PT from $36 to $30.

May 08, 2012

In the report, Piper Jaffray said, "PANL reports its 1Q12 results after market close on 5/9/12. We remain UW on PANL and have lowered our PT to $30 (previously $36). Our bearish stance stems from the fact that a) improving performance of Retina display and the evolution of high performance LCDs are pushing out broad based OLED adoption with the exception of Samsung who has been the key torchbearer of this technology b) lack of OLED process maturity particularly in large area displays implies that there is still a long learning curve before these can become meaningful revenue drivers for PANL and finally c) other OLED applications such as lighting, etc. remain dormant and are unlikely to have an impact on PANL revenues until past 2013. Given this backdrop, we are lowering our revenue estimates for CY12 and CY13. Our revised PT of $30 is based on 17x CY13 EPS of $1.75."

[FreeGrass]

A PANL Carol…

Intellectual Property Analysis of Universal Display Corp

[FreeGrass]

QD Vision is probably the best company to look at first.
QLED Technology

Then there's also Nanosys who developed QDEF, which I believe will be in the iPhone 5.
How does QDEF work?

This is an interesting interview with Jason about QDEF in the iPad.

But look at my message history to see which company I believe in to have the best Quantum dots and future. We'll be happy to educate you about Quantum Dots on our wonderful board!

Hope this helped...

[gdollasign]

That is interesting. I will look into it and get back to you.

Who is using QDLED in their electronics today?

[FreeGrass]

The future is QDLED, not OLED...

[gdollasign]

Entire market saturation.....EVERY screen in existence within 5 years. Your lack of vision in OLED (and related) is actually pretty interesting...care to elaborate?