• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Anyone recognize this VFD?

nitroengine

New Member
I've got a friend wondering if anyone can identify what this display may be from. It's a long shot, buy hey, maybe someone out there knows or has an idea.

attach12.jpg


Thanks.
 
Register to hide this ad
That's not real, is it? More like a Winamp skin or some such ...
 
Isn't that one of those car stereo faceplates that you would remove to keep peeps from stealing your stereo?
 
No, it's an actual fluorescent display element - also called VFD for short. You can see the grids inside that are part of the segment illumination scheme.

John
 
Ha, I always thought these were VFD's....

"A Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) is a type of motor controller that drives an electric motor by varying the frequency and voltage supplied to the electric motor. Other names for a VFD are variable speed drive, adjustable speed drive, adjustable frequency drive, AC drive, microdrive, and inverter."

Bob
 
I really should not be surprised at people's ignorance of these devices. And I do not mean that as an insult, it means the lack of knowledge of...- whatever it is.

The device is a Vacuum Flourescent Display and I got and a co-worker got into and argument about who knew better how they worked and we were both ASC grads.

It is actually a tube, somewhat like a CRT in that it uses phosphors. however, unlike a CRT it does not use a deflection yoke or plates, instead, there is an array of grids, cathodes and anodes. The thing is actually a triode ! Just happens to have a hundred grids or whatever.

Typically, the cathode is embedded into the front glass in the form of skinny little wires which form the cathode. Generally they were fed by a floating source at like a few volts, it wasn't very much but the whole thing was usually at negative 30 volts.

All the multiple pins were anodes and grids. Remember the cathode is in the front. It scanned the display, and persistence of vision made it look fine. Just like television. when the high speed shutter video cameras came out you could see them scan. (and a few other things)

The chip that drove the display would put out 12 volts to the anodes selectively, and it was all a matter of timing.

The VFD tube typically had a getter as well as the typical evacuation port, sealed of course. The getter was positioned to be out of the field of view, but you can see it usually when the eschucheon(sp) is removed. It should look like metal, like in a tube, and if it is white and flakey, the VFD is aired, just like a tube.

I went on Usenet with those %&%*# engineers and asked why they did not go with VFD technology for flat screen TVs rather than plasma, which is embarrasingly inefficient and they explained that it would actually be worse. I still disagree. A plasma TV makes an arc, and the duration of the arc versus your persistence of vision determines your perceived brightness level of any given cell. This is ridiculous.

So they could not access that many pixels with about 40 volts but they can with about 400.

OK.

Anyway, that is a tube, literally, and the cathode is right on front. If you look close you can see the filaments. When screwing with them, keep in mind they only get a couple of volts on the filament. I had a power supply fault in a VCR and I saw them light up yellow, like a tube ! Like OH ****, UNPLUG THIS NOW. Unlike the filament in regular tubes, these filaments do not put out visible light. that is a function of the fact that the cathode is so close to the plate(s). The thing is flat so therefore it needs less voltage and actually less thermionic emission.

Even though I do not remember all of it, it was explained why too many things were too hard to deal with and why this expensive as hell plasma TV technology prevailed. Having linearity in the brightness and all that. These things were more suited to display the setting of your stereo. You either turn on an element or off.

And that's their job, and that is probably twenty times as much as you wanted. So I stop now.
 
Oh, and sorry I didn't really respond to the OP.

Don't take this to the bank but that one looks like a Sony. It just has that look. Certain years.
 
... those %&%*# engineers and asked why they did not go with VFD technology for flat screen TVs rather than plasma ...
VFD technology does not scale well to small element (e.g., pixel) sizes and large displays, and they are not efficient. Current consumption for a VFD equivalent to a plasma panel would almost certainly be an order of magnitude higher.

By the way, what do you think "those %&%*# engineers" call you? o_O
 
They don't call me late for dinner.

Actually, there are a couple with real attitudes. Would get kicked off here in a matter of days. One is in Australia, another does some kind of government contract work. The rest actually have private sector businesses.

Not sure why I put that #$&%* in there. Just felt like it. Maybe because they're always putting each other down. Most of them are old, I mean in their 70s old, and cantankerous. Yeah, I would have to say that they got attitudes. They do some things that just about nobody else can do and get money thrown at them at an alarming rate. Retire ? They apparently don't know the meaning of the word.

Maybe they have a right to their attitude.
 
"Current consumption for a VFD equivalent to a plasma panel would almost certainly be an order of magnitude higher."

That would be alot. The EU at one time actually considered banning plasma TVs because of their power consumption. They really are not all that efficient.
 
"Current consumption for a VFD equivalent to a plasma panel would almost certainly be an order of magnitude higher."

That would be alot.
Yup. I imagine a 40" VFD panel would need bracing against implosion like an equivalent-sized CRT, an inch-thick faceplate, and a pretty scary matrix of grid and anode wiring. The filaments could probably heat a small house all on their own without even turning the anodes on.

On the other hand, if you could elongate the enclosure into some sort of bell shape so it's mostly self-bracing, and put all the electron-emitting gubbins in the small end and just shoot a narrow beam instead of a wide sheet, and get rid of the pixel matrix in favour of some sort of directional electron beam mechanism (I'm thinking electromagnets) and paint or photo-etch the big end with phosphor, then you'd have a...

Yeah.
 
I really should not be surprised at people's ignorance of these devices. And I do not mean that as an insult, it means the lack of knowledge of...- whatever it is.

The device is a Vacuum Flourescent Display and I got and a co-worker got into and argument about who knew better how they worked and we were both ASC grads.

It is actually a tube, somewhat like a CRT in that it uses phosphors. however, unlike a CRT it does not use a deflection yoke or plates, instead, there is an array of grids, cathodes and anodes. The thing is actually a triode ! Just happens to have a hundred grids or whatever.

Typically, the cathode is embedded into the front glass in the form of skinny little wires which form the cathode. Generally they were fed by a floating source at like a few volts, it wasn't very much but the whole thing was usually at negative 30 volts.

All the multiple pins were anodes and grids. Remember the cathode is in the front. It scanned the display, and persistence of vision made it look fine. Just like television. when the high speed shutter video cameras came out you could see them scan. (and a few other things)

The chip that drove the display would put out 12 volts to the anodes selectively, and it was all a matter of timing.

The VFD tube typically had a getter as well as the typical evacuation port, sealed of course. The getter was positioned to be out of the field of view, but you can see it usually when the eschucheon(sp) is removed. It should look like metal, like in a tube, and if it is white and flakey, the VFD is aired, just like a tube.

I went on Usenet with those %&%*# engineers and asked why they did not go with VFD technology for flat screen TVs rather than plasma, which is embarrasingly inefficient and they explained that it would actually be worse. I still disagree. A plasma TV makes an arc, and the duration of the arc versus your persistence of vision determines your perceived brightness level of any given cell. This is ridiculous.

So they could not access that many pixels with about 40 volts but they can with about 400.

OK.

Anyway, that is a tube, literally, and the cathode is right on front. If you look close you can see the filaments. When screwing with them, keep in mind they only get a couple of volts on the filament. I had a power supply fault in a VCR and I saw them light up yellow, like a tube ! Like OH ****, UNPLUG THIS NOW. Unlike the filament in regular tubes, these filaments do not put out visible light. that is a function of the fact that the cathode is so close to the plate(s). The thing is flat so therefore it needs less voltage and actually less thermionic emission.

Even though I do not remember all of it, it was explained why too many things were too hard to deal with and why this expensive as hell plasma TV technology prevailed. Having linearity in the brightness and all that. These things were more suited to display the setting of your stereo. You either turn on an element or off.

And that's their job, and that is probably twenty times as much as you wanted. So I stop now.
I enjoyed reading that, thanks for the effort at dissemination and making me less ignorant. :)
 
Yup. I imagine a 40" VFD panel would need bracing against implosion like an equivalent-sized CRT, an inch-thick faceplate, and a pretty scary matrix of grid and anode wiring. The filaments could probably heat a small house all on their own without even turning the anodes on.

On the other hand, if you could elongate the enclosure into some sort of bell shape so it's mostly self-bracing, and put all the electron-emitting gubbins in the small end and just shoot a narrow beam instead of a wide sheet, and get rid of the pixel matrix in favour of some sort of directional electron beam mechanism (I'm thinking electromagnets) and paint or photo-etch the big end with phosphor, then you'd have a...

Yeah.

Yup. Pretty much back where we started.

But then, plasma TVs did nothing for efficiency. All they did was make it flat. The last of the rear projection TVs were quite efficient and had seriously good pictures. In fact, even better viewing angles than some LCD sets.

And still, some people cannot stand the picture on an LCD. I do not know what they're seeing that the rest of us don't, but it must be something. And it is not the viewing angle because the modern ones have that beat.

Thing is with a plasma you are looking at phosphors.

One thing that gets me is how an LCD can be efficient. I know I know, but the thing produces maximum light all the time and blocks it out to produce a picture, rather than produce the light like a CRT or plasma. Mainly, in a CRT this is because of the power use overhead of the deflection circuits. In a plasma it is because of the slewing rate of the required waveforms applied to the panel. Capacitance is not their friend to say the least.

Actually the light produced by an LCD TV is by phosphor. Even an LED type because the LEDs they use actually have a phosphor in them. Whether CCFL or LED lit, you got pretty much the same thing.

The reach for flatscreens began long ago and it was bound to happen even if it pulled twice the power. Once people saw Star Trek, 1984, a few other things, they knew the demand would be there. Before the technology was developed people used to hang projection TVs on their ceiling, and paid dearly for it. I had a couple or Barco units with an MSRP over $15,000. Now just think that instead of hiring a contractor to put up a mount, buying a screen and having to darken the room for best performance, you just get a TV that is flat. Of course it would sell. I will admit that some LCD sets don't have all that great a picture, but a plasma is phosphor, and has an infinite (180 degree) viewing angle. Even the cheap 720p beat the hell out of a 480i.

The flatness sold. Today people would say "That TV is two feet deep ? Forget it, I don't even want it in the house". They give away $4,000 RPTVs on Craigslist, and have trouble getting rid of them ! Even poor people who cannot afford a new TV won't take them !

There is a good reason I wondered why the VD technology hadn't taken off. I have worked on plasma TVs and know the theory of operation and all that. It is really not all that different in practice. They would have to scan the grids and the... that is the same thing. I can see possible problems with such a big cathode built into the front of the screen though.
 
Back
Top Bottom