4 ms·

> I don't agree that energy efficiencies is what have lead to larger displays That wasn’t my point, and was why I originally said that you and Sharlin seemed t

by tolien 8y ago

> I don't agree that energy efficiencies is what have lead to larger displays That wasn’t my point, and was why I originally said that you and Sharlin seemed to be talking past each other. LCDs took off because of their physical advantages (weight/thickness/heat, although the heat it produces has to be correlated with energy input) despite their shortcomings (fixed resolution, limited brightness and contrast ratio, response time) and plasma screens were an attempt to deal with those shortcomings but are now mostly dead. As you say, improved efficiency was correlative but not entirely causative. A naive view would have been that as LCDs took off, their efficiency would lead to a drop in power consumption over CRTs. The Jevins paradox shows that not necessarily to be the case - bourne out by the proliferation of displays where previously there were none and in displays getting larger.

laumars 8y ago
> A naive view would have been that as LCDs took off, their efficiency would lead to a drop in power consumption over CRTs. The Jevins paradox shows that not necessarily to be the case - bourne out by the proliferation of displays where previously there were none and in displays getting larger. I think we'd need to run the maths before making any claims there tbh. We're getting dangerously into the realm of using assumptions as statistics. Points we'd need to consider: * how much more efficient are LCDs compared to plasma and CRTs per square inch. * how much did the trend to bigger screens proliferate with plasma vs LCD * how has the cost of LCD and plasma screens changed over the last 20 years (this should be broken down by TVs with features such as smart TVs, 3D, HD, 4k, curved screens, etc) * what about the uptake of said features on TVs? * and lastly are those features only available on TVs of screen sizes > n? * any other variables I've not considered? (I've only quickly thrown some thoughts together so there's bound to be some metrics I've missed) I think the point you're making is a pretty hard conclusion to argue (or for me to refute) without any meaningful statistics to back it up. However it does still make for an interesting discussion so while the conclusion may remain unproven I have enjoyed the debate :)
- tolien 8y ago
  Agreed - my point has a lot of hand waving, and have a +1 for it staying civil too :) I would probably argue that integrating more (oxymoronically) “smart” stuff into TVs might have made them less efficient too but it probably helped because of increased integration, fewer <100% efficient power supplies etc.

by tolien 8y ago

laumars 8y ago

> A naive view would have been that as LCDs took off, their efficiency would lead to a drop in power consumption over CRTs. The Jevins paradox shows that not necessarily to be the case - bourne out by the proliferation of displays where previously there were none and in displays getting larger. I think we'd need to run the maths before making any claims there tbh. We're getting dangerously into the realm of using assumptions as statistics. Points we'd need to consider: * how much more efficient are LCDs compared to plasma and CRTs per square inch. * how much did the trend to bigger screens proliferate with plasma vs LCD * how has the cost of LCD and plasma screens changed over the last 20 years (this should be broken down by TVs with features such as smart TVs, 3D, HD, 4k, curved screens, etc) * what about the uptake of said features on TVs? * and lastly are those features only available on TVs of screen sizes > n? * any other variables I've not considered? (I've only quickly thrown some thoughts together so there's bound to be some metrics I've missed) I think the point you're making is a pretty hard conclusion to argue (or for me to refute) without any meaningful statistics to back it up. However it does still make for an interesting discussion so while the conclusion may remain unproven I have enjoyed the debate :)

tolien 8y ago
Agreed - my point has a lot of hand waving, and have a +1 for it staying civil too :) I would probably argue that integrating more (oxymoronically) “smart” stuff into TVs might have made them less efficient too but it probably helped because of increased integration, fewer <100% efficient power supplies etc.