That’s what I get for bending the elbow, several inaccuracies. First is Nanoco and Dow are pushing CFQD not Nanosys and 3M. Second, thanks to Big E the overall weight of the device is not to be used. Their definition for a homogeneous device would be the screen only as the QD's are an integral part. I have been unable to determine just the weight of the screen, so there is a flaw in my analysis. I cry UNCLE. You got to know when you’re in over your head.
Third,I also estimated for the full use of the screen and not using “on EDGE” technology as is all of QD Visions applications. A Full screen “On Surface” application of QD’s will use significantly more than “on edge” and on edge uses more than the “on chip”. That is why QD Vision pushed the edge technology because they couldn’t produce enough QD’s for full screen and the on chip runs at such a high temperature QD life is too short. You get a much better picture with a full screen application of QD’s than with edge or “on chip”.
The bottom line is the quantity of GTQD’s will be significantly less to achieve the comparable output of standard QD’s. The reasons: aggregation, 10 to 100 fold brighter, 80-100% non blinking, higher yield, not to mention narrower full width half maximum (FWHM) which boils down to a “purer color”. If they did want to go to the least amount of GQTD’s then the “on chip” is now a possibility as GQTD’s are less susceptible to thermal degradation.
It’s a win win in all areas for the future, if QMC is below the threshold they win the jackpot, if the exception goes through, they win and if not, they have the Cadmium Free Giant Tetrapod Quantum Dot (CFGTQD), it’s just not as efficient. Still bothered I don’t have hard numbers to back up not needing an exemption for GTQD’s but I’ll get over it by sunrise.
Bill
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
