/sci/ - Science & Math

No. Maybe in a couple decades.

>>1247176
But scientists say in a few years we will have this

>>1247180

a few years for science is about 50 years.

>>1247180
Source?

>>1247171

Some parts of that cell phone are already flexible. OLED displays for example are bendable and rollable. Probably not the whole thing.

>>1247186
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQu5zRmqa_E&playnext_from=TL&videos=Jpg8sdWwnTw
Microsoft's vision for 2019. \


Heres the e-plastic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6bkmPjVF-k

oled+flexible graphene circuitry

It's possible already. It probably won't be put into consumers' hands for quite some time, though.

>>1247229
Any ballpark year?

>>1247207
That Microsoft Future thingo was beautiful.
Too bad only rich people can use it in 2019.

>Perhaps you were looking for "Pip-Boy"?

>>1247328
Wrong. Those flexible newspapers will cost 1 dollar. Plus if those phones costed 300 in 2015 it will cost 150 in 2017. Because of moores law. As it affects price,power, and size

>>1247336
Perhaps....

>>1247348
>Those flexible newspapers will cost 1 dollar.
Not for another 30 years.
However, if there is some resource-based economy shit going on....

>>1247376
Not really, Michio kaku predicts the same as ray kurzwell. That we are in exponetial growth. A example, in 2007 the iphone costed 400 dollars. Now 3 years later the iphone costs 150. Maybe less

>>1247400
>Michio Kaku and Kurzweil said it, it must be true
>implying there will be any flexible high resolution screen for less than $5 in the next 10 years

>>1247435
They are both a part of mensa.

>>1247435
Plus, in 10 years computers will be 500 million time more powerful then today. In 2030 they will be 1 billion times stronger then today. All you have to do is add 1+1+1.... Plus in 2029 Manhattan beach project will be complete. The elites will have access to it. But life expectancy will be boosted a massive amount. Long enough for others to be able to get access to it

>>1247435

>Some faggots I don't like said something so I'm going to dismiss them out of hand
>implying there will be 3D displays in the next 5 years

>>1247470
LOL 3D Displays... Maybe in 2040

>>1247459

>>1247459
>>1247441
Samefag
Also 3D displays are totally going to 1 dollar by 2020 yeah wololol

>in 10 years computers will be 500 million time more powerful then today.
The fuck you smokin' boy

Heres some fucking future newspaper sauce

http://www.wan-press.org/article15384.html

>>1247171
Maybe, so there's this shit out there called graphene, it's sheets of carbon stacked on top of each other. It can be made see through and conductive, which is fucking important actually. WHY? Because there's this other shit out there called indium tin oxide, it's also see through and conductive and the only reason we make it is for this reason. Indium tin oxide is expensive, graphene is cheaper, mainly because carbon is a lot more fucking abundant than indium or tin. Graphene's also flexible.


But don't get your hopes up OP, there's still one major hurdle to jump, while we can make flexible PCBs, we can't make flexible microchips. So a cellphone with a 'scroll-up' screen is much more likely and practical than a cellphone that wraps around your arm.

I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.

everyone in this thread thinks they know something about conductive organic polymers.


the truth is that this thread is full of utter bullshit

1) conductive organic polymers (nobel prize in 2001 or 2000, heeger is at my school) are still very much at their fundamental research stage.

2) it was only in 2009 that the ABSOLUTE FIRST industrial method for fabrication of OLED screens was demonstrated (all other examples of the technology were produced at tremendous cost and typically used only for demonstrations of technology at CES and similar events)

3) a casual glance at Journal of Materials Chemistr, Macromolecules, or JACS ASAP pages will show you that literally hundreds of papers regarding synthesis of new systems, assembly of new structures, and examples of new devices are still being generated RIGHT NOW.


regardless of whether or not a large company eventually develops a TRULY cost effective fabrication methodology....

the chemicals themselves are incredibly expensive.


100% of the organic monomers used in the synthesis of oligomeric, monomeric, or polymeric conductors or semiconductors are made using PLATINUM, PALADIUM, RHENIUM, RHODIUM, etc catalysts


now, it is ok to use 1 mol% loading of an organopalladium catalyst for industrial synthesis of 1 kilogram of HIV medication that will then be sold for $10,000/gram.

it is a completely different story when you need to make 10,000 kilograms.
graphene is a conductor, not a SEMICONDUCTOR.


if semiconductors were not intrinsically special, then they would make CPUs out of copper or gold, not silicon, germanium, arsenic, indium, etc.


graphene's main allure is its relativistic effects.

the effective mass of electrons in graphene is zero (eg they are subject to relativistic effects)


graphene as portrayed in common general public science news does not exist

>>1247585


InSnO is a semiconductor that performs hole injections you fuck.

graphene is a metallic conductor in 2 dimensions.


graphene CAN NOT be used to replace InSnO as it is.

the only way to do so would be to somehow dope it.


to dope graphene in REAL LIFE (never been done) is unlikely, as it will completely destroy the lattice and change everything about its electronic structure

>>1247634
ahem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_LED#Sony_applications

They use platinum catalysts to make silicone, even silicone pressure sensitive adhesive used in post it notes uses it:
http://www.platinum.matthey.com/applications/industrial-applications/silicones/
(though to be fair the concentration's probably very low)

Also electronics are high value-mass ratio products, and one probably isn't using grams of organic semiconductor in cellphone screen.


Graphene can be made into a semiconductor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Graphene_transistors

Graphene's good enough as a conductor too, if you can make large sheets of conductive graphene, there's some flat-screen TV and solar cell manufacturers that would like to have a word with you...

>>1247643
THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25633/?a=f

>>1247824
>Graphene transistor

idontthinksotim.jpg

>>1247824
>In February 2010, researchers at IBM reported that they have been able to create graphene transistors with an on and off rate of 100 gigahertz

HMMMMMMM graphene LED anodes:
http://apl.aip.org/applab/v96/i13/p133301_s1?view=fulltext&bypassSSO=1