My OLED TV experience: I'm sorry to disappoint you!

"What is the future of television?"

There are currently two paths to choose from: one is an OLED and the other is a quantum dot. This scenario is very similar to that of plasma and the plasma hegemony ten years ago.

Thus, people will inevitably ask the second question: "So, who are the OLEDs and QDs who are more likely to become the future of color TV?"

In general terms, OLED and Quantum Dot are evenly matched by two camps: OLED camps have many companies, but they lack the color TV overlord support like Samsung. Although quantum dot camps have color TV overlords, they have fewer participants. Both have their own advantages.

Looking at the current situation, OLED and Quantum Dots will continue to struggle in the next three years. It is difficult for the two camps to think that “the east wind overwhelms the west wind”. In other words, when LCD and plasma were not your death, I was alive, and it was very unlikely that it would happen to OLEDs and quantum dots.

But in terms of personal experience, I tend to have more OLEDs. My logic is very simple: At this stage, QD TV is based on LCD technology. From the perspective of imaging technology itself, it is not very significant; OLED is different, it is a new, revolutionary display technology. From the perspective of technological advancement and social development, OLED is more significant.

There may be electroluminescent QLED TVs (ie, "real quantum dot TVs") in the next 2-3 years, but this is a future type.

In fact, the emergence of OLED display technology, its significance is not how high the contrast - although the OLED contrast can be achieved infinitely large; nor is it that the screen performance is so good - although the OLED screen performance is indeed better than the LCD . One undeniable fact is that the QD TV screen performance at this stage is also very good.

I believe that many media reporters have such experiences and questions: When they participated in the OLED conference, they found that the OLED TV screen was better than the quantum dots. When participating in the quantum dot conference, they found that the quantum dot TV screen was better than the OLED. Why is that?

This illustrates a problem. In terms of screen performance, OLEDs and QDs are actually equal, and there is no overwhelming advantage for one party to the other.

So, what is the advantage of OLED over quantum dots at this stage?

The answer is: OLED unique flexible display properties.

The so-called "flexible display" has two layers of meaning: First, the OLED can display dynamic images on non-planar materials, and the display curvature can be made large; second, the OLED display has a variable property that can be curled or even folded .

Both of the above two product properties are not available with liquid crystals, and quantum dots at this stage cannot be achieved. Perhaps the future of electroluminescent quantum dot TVs can be flexible, but at least not at present.

I often say that the greatest significance of OLED is flexible display, because only this attribute can support the arrival of the era of "display everywhere".

In fact, the product attributes of OLED flexible displays have already begun to appear. Many people find that after entering the OLED era, TV products have become significantly more numerous. Wallpaper Wallpaper TV, S-curve TV, TV watching on both sides, transparent TV, and screen sound field TV... Have appeared one after another, believe that in the future there will be more appearances of TV products, which is brought about by the OLED flexible display attributes.

It is expected that OLED TVs that can be rolled up or folded away will appear soon.

Ordinary consumers are actually feeling the advanced nature of OLED technology. Many people see OLED TVs at the first sight and immediately produce two big surprises: “Wow, so thin!” “Wow, the picture is so shocking!” I believe, This is the physiological reaction of OLEDs and liquid crystals in their brains.

"Natural quality is hard to give up," and OLED TVs are famous all over the world. I found out that the erotic news about OLEDs was mainly focused on two aspects: First, "ghost image" (some people call it "burn screen"); the other is "short life." Although OLED camp companies have repeatedly explained and clarified this matter, there are still many doubts among consumers.

What is the truth?

In the past decade or so, I wrote some articles about OLED, which can be traced back to around 2004. At that time, OLED technology still stayed at the laboratory stage. Although I have written a lot of articles about OLEDs, most of them are based on industry trends, corporate strategies, and technical characteristics, and I rarely write about the products themselves.

In fact, I am an actual user of OLED TVs.

What needs to be explained is: I am not the first person to buy OLED TVs. My first OLED was purchased in October 2016 and it has been more than a year since.

I particularly mention this point because at the beginning I was as big as most consumers: I am worried that the OLED TV product will not be mature enough and I may regret it after I bought it. After all, the price of OLED TVs is still higher than that of LCD TVs. A lot.

I am a rational and conservative consumer. I didn't buy OLED TVs until 2016, because it seems to me that OLED TVs have reached a mature stage from technology to products, and they are at ease when they buy.

Surprisingly, my judgment even coincided with Sony! Sony officially entered the OLED field at the beginning of 2017 and launched the screen sound field television A1. At this time, OLED TV products are introduced precisely because Sony believes that OLED technology is mature and must be entered (strictly speaking, it should be called “return”, and Sony is one of the very few companies that have earlier developed OLED TVs).

Having said so much, there must be someone eager to know how the actual use experience of my OLED TV is.

I have not talked about the use of the experience, because this OLED TV, in addition to appearance and picture performance both excellent, it really did not bring me more accidents, such as "ghosting."

My family has two televisions. One is a domestically produced brand of 55-inch 4K HDR OLED TVs, and the other is a foreign-branded 60-inch 4K HDR LCD TV. This LCD TV is a high-profile product that is just compared to OLED TVs. Two televisions, one in my living room and one in my bedroom, are used roughly at the same frequency.

But I don’t watch TV on a large number of occasions and time. I usually read news, documentary, animal worlds, and the like. Occasionally I’ll look at “Most Powerful Brain” and “Talk Show Conference.”

I spend more time watching TV before and after lunch and before going to bed at night.

In fairness, my experience of using these two televisions in my home is good. They use 4K and HDR technologies together. I think that in terms of screen performance, I think it is enough.

I don't need to introduce more about that LCD TV, everyone is more familiar with the LCD.

Just say that OLED TV.

As I said earlier, I am a rational and conservative consumer. Therefore, before buying OLED TVs, I was as concerned about “ghost images” and “short life span” as most people. Although I am a senior member of the home appliance industry, I have stayed at the industry and corporate level. I am not very good at products and technologies.

I remember that in 2015, I had discussed the issue of OLED TV "product maturity" with a person in charge of a famous OLED TV company in China. My opinion at that time was: OLED companies must explain to the public, and whether OLED TVs have matured into today's products? Is it safe to buy? Consumers' concerns are not resolved, and no matter how popular it is, no one wants to go home with a problem product and then complain about it in the process of use.

At the exact same time, the anti-OLED camp had similar expressions, but their expression was called, "Do not use consumers as mice."

So, does OLED TV have any residual image? It is a problem that I have always been concerned about, and even every time I use OLED TVs, I will be particularly careful on the screen to find where the "afterimage" is.

I even had my OLED TV show the same static screen 24 hours a day. The purpose was to watch the static display for so long, whether it would form a so-called "ghost image" or "burn screen."

However, every time I was disappointed, I never found the appearance of "ghost image", and even there was no trace of it. Today, my understanding of the "ghost image" still remains at the level of imagination - because I really have never seen the "ghost image" in the end.

My understanding of the “ghost image” is as follows: It is not ruled out that early OLED TVs did have a “ghost image” phenomenon. However, today, the problem of afterimages has long been resolved and no longer exists. Someone who always seizes the small image of the afterimage is like holding a gentleman's clothes and shouting: "Your grandfather used to be a rogue."

Let's talk about the "short life" of OLED TVs.

In view of the fact that my OLED TV is only used for one year, of course, it is not easy to draw the conclusion that life is "long" and "short" from the perspective of the experiencer. I think if we don’t have strong evidence that OLED TVs are really long or short lived, why don’t we respect the conclusions of companies and professional organizations?

At present, the common view of mainstream OLED TV companies is that they can ensure the normal use of 50,000 hours.

What is the concept of 50000 hours? That is to say, even if you watch 10 hours a day (in this era, there may not be many people who watch 10 hours of TV every day), you can also use 5000 days normally - about 13.7 years.

do you know? The state's requirement for the normal service life of a TV is 8 years. If you look at it clearly, it is 8 years!

Therefore, OLED TVs have a normal life of 13.7 years. I think it is not too short, but it is too long. It should be noted that in order to achieve a longer product life, we must pay more R&D costs and higher production costs. Artificially prolonging the product lifespan may prevent the emergence of newer, more advanced technologies, which may not be a good thing.

I guess the rumors of the so-called "short life span of OLED TVs" may be related to OLED TVs being called "organic TV." When one says "organic," many people immediately think of eggs: If you don't eat for a month, you won't be fresh. If you don't eat for two months, you may break. And as an inorganic stone, it will never rot.

Life needs wisdom. Some things do not have to be tasted by oneself to know the result. For example, there is a tree on the side of the road with many fruits that are both beautiful and mature. I promise not to taste the fruit of this tree. why? The reason is simple. If the roadside fruit can eat, will it grow to maturity? Therefore, with regard to the various legends of OLED, the brains will know where it is and where it is.

Logically speaking, every doubt of the consumer about the product, the manufacturer has thought for you in advance, and has found the solution, still need you to question it? Of course, I say this does not mean that all products are 100% perfect.

For example, the entry of small brands into the OLED field is not enough to prove that OLED technology is mature. Then, Sony's entry is the most powerful "endorsement" for OLED. It is important to note that Sony is known as the world's top consumer electronics brand. Its high product standards can be described as "harsh". It chose to enter the OLED TV field. What could be more illustrative of this problem than this?

Maybe you will say: Does OLED have no shortcomings? Of course, but not the product level, but the industry chain level. I think that the biggest problem in the current OLED TV industry is the serious shortage of upstream panel supply and long-term dependence on a single company. This situation is not conducive to the development of the OLED TV industry, and even to some extent hinders the decline in the price of OLED TVs. This situation must change as soon as possible.

Pump Crankshaft

Since the modern mud (or slush) pump was built approximately 60 years ago, the industry has widely accepted the three cylinder or triplex style pump. Triplex mud pumps are manufactured worldwide, and many companies have emulated the original design and developed an improved form of the triplex pump in the past decade.
As in all single acting pumps, the piston exerts a load on the crankshaft. The load is then transmitted to the crankshaft main bearings, which are set in their retainers in the pump frame or housing.

Pump Crankshaft,Piston And Crankshaft,Counter Rotating Crankshaft,Camshaft And Crankshaft

Shenyang Zhicheng Heavy Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. , https://www.zhichengmachinery.com