Talk:Vacuum fluorescent display

message: It seems that there's a small contradiction in the usage section. The introductory paragraph states the VFD as "...being rugged, inexpensive, and easily configured...", but the section later states that VFD display failed in its use in portable video game usage because of "...high fragility...". These two points definately seem to contradict one another unless more information is provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajrajmarley (talk • contribs).
:The gamers that edit so many Wikipedia articles aren't exactly the best-informed people in the world. VFDs are rugged enough to survive an automotive environment and were popular in hand calculators until the rise of liquid-crystal displays. (Perhaps they're referring to the mechanical fragility of the glass envelope? But LCDs are no improvement.) Feel free to be bold and remove the contradiction.
:Atlant 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the hand held games that I have seen with VFD were aimed at younger users, so that may explain the preception of fragility, that and they may have used lower quality devices.  Fragility of VFD may stem from multiple filaments strung horizontaly in front of device. Shock load could snap one.  Rest of the device should be VERY rugged compaired to LCD or even CRT.  (movment of elements inside short of cousing a short circut probaly would not disable usability IMNSHO Of course I have broken the glass on one when I dropped my Commodore Calculator onto a concrete floor cmacd 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and have removed the "fragility" from the sentence previously reading "High power consumption, fragility, and high manufacturing cost contributed to the demise of the VFD as a videogame display.", based on Atlant's statement and the rest of the article. cmacd's statement to the contrary notwithstanding. -Jarsyl 05:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction removed 

message: I am not knowledgeable on this subject, but I have noticed that segments of VFDs that remain lit for an extended period (years) decrease substantially in brightness. Can anyone add a refrence and explanation of this phenomenon?
Amy 19:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of decreasing brightness throughout lifetime of display 

message: The Display technology template lists this as a video technology, but the article only gives simple number and symbol or text displays.
I was going to suggest that it should be listed under non-video instead, but I found an example of video, albeit monochrome, on the Noritake Itron site (from the External links in the article)
Graphic module
Could something about this be worked into the article?
I'd like to know why there are no RGB displays of this kind.
81.6.242.110 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: This article does a good job comparing VFD to LCD, but needs more comparison to "segment LED"s since these displays look so similar.
PS.  I tried sourcing VFD's and I was told they are expensive.  What gives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.146.246 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare to Segment LED 

message: The article contains this statement
I don't see a citation for this claim. Is this actually really accurate? AFAIK, you can use phosphors that glow for a while when struck by electrons. An example is the old MDA monitors like the IBM 5151. While persistence of vision can certainly play a role, lit phosphor on the venerable IBM monitor would glow for quite a while, giving a nicely stable picture but blurring significantly when scrolling quickly. An IBM 5151 operates at only 50 Hz. If the microcontroller is quick enough to achieve a much higher rate on the multiplex of a VFD, it seems possible to have a lit phosphor that never significantly fades. Digital Brains (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistence of vision or long glowing? 

message: * Change on 8 February 2010 mentions that the first VFD was invented in Japan 1967.
* Change on 13 August 2012 adds info about DM160 and clarifies info about japanese VFD's (but now with 1962 year and without references).
* Change on 13 December 2013 follows previous edit and changes 1967 to 1962 at the beginning of the article.
Google Books has free excerpt with page 9 from Handbook of display technology. So, the correct year is 1967, not 1962.
Another reference is Noritake Itron history page, which also proves 1967 correctness.
I'm also not sure that DM160 was created in 1959. This page talks about 1957 and this talks about 1958.
5.18.233.217 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Early VFDs with static drive did NOT use control grids. Some types of Soviet VFDs (e. g. IV-26) also do not use grids. Siealex (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD without grids 

message: The article reads "their front and rear plass panels". I'm 99% sure that "plass" is a typo for "glass", but I've not fixed it, in case it is a technical term (maybe for "plastic or glass" or "plastic on glass"). It was added by  in this edit (so it's not some subsequent vandalism). If it really is a technical term, we should explain what "plass" actually is. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: its glass Pancho507 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: i fixed it Pancho507 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plass