1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to configurations and fabrication methodologies for light-emitting devices which are comprised of multiple ceramic layers constructed on a supporting substrate and which use electroluminescent phosphors as a light source.
2. Description of Related Art
The fabrication and commercial application of electroluminescent lamps (EL) is a well established art spanning more than five (5) decades. Typically, EL devices use doped zinc sulfide phosphors dispersed in a dielectric material and placed between conductive electrode surfaces. The application of a suitable AC voltage creates an electric field in the dielectric material exciting the phosphors into luminescence. A transparent electrode is used adjacent the phosphor material permitting the generated light to escape, forming a lamp.
The prior art includes multiple examples of both plastic and ceramic configurations. Ceramic devices received intense development attention over approximately a 10 year period from 1960 to 1970. However, due to the complexity of the ceramic EL devices, there was little success in developing a viable configuration and production process that was competitive. Virtually all successful commercial applications over the intervening several decades have been based on plastic materials and associated processing systems.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,482,580 by Emmett et al attempted to develop and commercialize a variant of device concepts first defined by Buck in U.S. Pat. No. 3,073,982 and Westerveld in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,201,632 and 3,200,279. The manufacturing yields of the Emmett design proved too low, and the power dissipation levels too high, to successfully compete with plastic EL devices. The Emmett design has other significant performance difficulties as will become evident in comparison with this invention.
Most recently, Winsor (U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,192) sought to improve the Emmett design by adding two (2) new layers (an insulation layer plus a base electrode layer) with the expectation of reduced dissipation levels and improved manufacturing control. The Winsor approach is a variant of device concepts first defined by Diemer (U.S. Pat. No. 3,275,870) and Rulon (U.S. Pat. No. 3,103,607). Although some performance improvement relative to Emmett would be expected, the production costs would be significantly increased due to the additional layers. Further, Winsor fails to address other performance difficulties as will become evident in comparison with this invention.
In short, the substantive prior art related to this invention dates largely to the 1960s. This body of work, now in the public domain, is for the most part conceptual, with validation limited to small area devices and a few specific performance requirements. In fact, this prior art (and subsequent noted improvements to the same) have mostly served to confirm that useful devices are possible but have failed to define integrated material systems and processes which could realize this potential in a commercially viable product. There are significant omissions in the set of required device attributes considered, and inadequate attention to the complex interactions between the material compositions in the various device layers. The special challenges of large area devices (e.g. >1 sq-ft) both in terms of production cost and performance were generally not considered in the prior art.
It is the object of this invention to describe and demonstrate an integrated set of materials and processes which achieve a dramatic improvement in both ceramic EL performance and cost relative to the prior art. This new fabrication methodology and associated materials system are applicable to large areas and enable devices which are superior to plastic EL in many important applications, including those with severe environmental exposure requirements.
A conceptual layout for a typical prior-art ceramic EL device is illustrated in
In terms of design priorities, a fundamental requirement is that the stack must bond together mechanically with minimal distortions and fracturing due to residual stresses arising from mismatched coefficients of thermal expansion which are compounded by temperature gradients during processing. The cool-down time-temperature profile is often as important as the peak temperatures reached. The metal-to-ceramic bond lines at the substrate are particularly troublesome because the coefficients of thermal expansion cannot be exactly matched and the constituents in the ceramic mix which contribute to a strong bond (generally metal oxides) have an adverse effect on the electrical properties of the insulation (dielectric) layer. Further, given device areas of several square feet and the inevitable temperature gradients induced by the high temperature oven system, there will be micro-cracking penetrating multiple levels. In practical terms, the device design must accommodate a significant level of statistically certain imperfection while minimizing the adverse performance effects. Therefore optimum device performance is not a simple summation of optimum components. The complexity of the ceramic EL system, and the difficulty in achieving viable commercialization in prior art devices, arises in no small part from these non-linear interactions, especially including a tolerance for some number of localized faults in large area devices.
An exemplary prior art method, as taught by Buck, et al. (U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,073,982 and 3,275,870) is illustrated in
The materials system taught by Buck does not provide an adequate match in thermal expansion coefficients between the substrate and the semiconducting layer. Hence in large area planar devices (e.g. panels >1 sq-ft), the panels will distort during processing, increasing the magnitude of thermal gradients induced by the oven system and contributing to micro-cracking in the various ceramic layers. Further, the mechanical adhesion between the semiconducting layer and the substrate is significantly weakened by the detailed chemistry of the interaction of the iron oxide interface (which largely provides the bond) with the substantial titanium oxide constituent in the overlying ceramic.
The substrate configuration taught by Emmett suffers from the same limitations. In fact, the residual stresses noted in commercialization attempts based on the Emmett design were such that a post-processing mechanical stress relief step involving bombardment of the substrate rear surface with small metal spheres (in a fashion similar to sandblasting) was required to regain a flat surface.
The rear surface of a low carbon steel substrate is also a major processing contaminate as a result of flaking due to oxidation at the high temperatures required for the ceramic melding. This invention achieves a substantially improved match in thermal expansion coefficients, a substantially improved level of mechanical adhesion, and a total elimination of the flaking debris problem.
The dielectric layer taught by Buck is intended to provide a barrier for further diffusion of iron beyond the semiconducting layer. The barium titanate is relatively immune because the processing temperatures are well below its melting point. However, the glass constituent of the dielectric layer will support iron diffusion introducing possible contamination of the zinc sulfide phosphor layer which is particularly sensitive to iron. The use of titanium oxide in this glass, which potentially increases the dielectric constant, to trap the iron also results in semiconducting behavior and a degraded dissipation factor for the dielectric layer. Iron diffusion effects are the most likely reason for the inferior dissipation levels realized in the Buck design. This invention uses a different doping agent for the semiconducting layer and a different barrier strategy to limit diffusion into and beyond the dielectric layer, leading to superior overall dissipation levels for the device.
The rolled glass protective layer 17 taught by Buck exhibits desirable durability properties. However, the organic bond material 16 is combustible and in direct contact with the top electrode 15. In the event of localized voltage break-downs in the device, the peak temperatures are typically sufficient to carbonize the organic coating creating a permanent, highly visible damaged area. In general, all of the prior art configurations including Buck are vulnerable to voltage break-down effects resulting from micro-cracking which penetrates multiple levels in the ceramic stack. As previously noted, panels of any significant area will almost inevitably exhibit micro-cracks, layer thickness variations, and other defects sufficient to create minor electrical breakdowns. The manufacturing yield would be reduced to unacceptable levels if all panels initially exhibiting electrical breakdown were rejected.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,048,732 by Lehmann discloses use of a “poor insulating” layer composed of an asbestos-Portland cement pressboard to limit the current associated with a voltage break-down and hence reduce the damage potential. None of the prior art provides a means to electrically isolate the fault areas without substantial residual damage to device performance. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,530,318 to Ensign includes a fuse integrated with the top electrode distribution bus which would disconnect major portions of the device. This invention provides current limiting in the semiconducting layer, a “fuse coating” as the top electrode, and a ceramic layer overlying the electrode, all of which combine to isolate localized voltage break-downs without significant residual damage to device appearance or performance.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,200,279 and 3,201,632 by Westerveld, et al. utilize stainless steel (termed chrome-iron steel by Westerveld) as a substrate in a classic device as previously illustrated in
A number of prior art patents disclose device configurations which include an insulation layer overlying the substrate with an additional conductive coating overlying the insulation layer and serving as the base electrode for the ceramic stack. These include U.S. Pat. No. 3,103,607 to Rulon and U.S. Pat. No. 3,127,534 to Diemer as well as Emmett '580 and Winsor '192. This insulation layer and “buried” electrode can serve to prevent diffusion from the substrate while providing a convenient means to electrically drive the device such that the outermost top electrode can be held at ground potential. This has the advantage that breaks in the outer protective cover would not expose high potential electrode areas creating a potential shock hazard. However, this configuration has a significant cost penalty created by the requirement for an additional conductive layer. In addition, none of the prior art considers the electrochemical consequences of leakage currents flowing through ceramic top layers overlying and protecting the top electrode. This invention recognizes the importance of inhibiting such leakage currents and implements a strategy to insulate the entire electroceramescent device (especially including the rear surface of the substrate) in such a way that the top electrode can be held at earth ground potential while the substrate serves as the high potential electrode.
Manufacturing cost considerations are a major factor in assuring a competitive ceramic EL device. For many important application areas (e.g. commercial signage), a level of customization is required which limits the amount of special tooling that is practical. As a specific example, much of the prior art uses screen printing techniques for one or more layers which do not easily accommodate low quantities of customized designs nor large device areas. However, screen printing enables a level control which is important in assuring layer uniformity, bubble structure, etc. The manufacturing methodology taught by Emmett makes extensive use of liquid spray technology. This technology is fully compatible with relatively low cost, continuous flow processing methods. However, the evaporation of the carriers in the liquid spray slurries and the melding of the glass frits into a ceramic solid introduce a bubble structure which can have major adverse consequences. Bubbles formed in one layer can migrate to another during the firing of a subsequent layers. The bubbles tend to grow in size as they migrate upward through the ceramic stack and can result in significant electrical and optical degradation, especially if they reach the phosphor layer. This was a major problem in attempts to commercialize the Emmett design. Unlike prior art, this invention includes a combination of liquid spray and electrostatic spray options which support application to large areas in a continuous manufacturing flow while assuring controlled bubble structure and layer uniformity.
The primary objective of this invention is the realization of a light-emitting ceramic device (hereafter termed an “electroceramescent” device) exhibiting dramatically improved conversion efficiency (>3:1) and environmental durability relative to the ceramic EL prior art. A second major objective is the use of fabrication methodologies applicable to large areas (multiple sq. feet) and compatible with relatively low cost continuous flow processing. A third major objective is a fault tolerant device configuration which substantially enhances manufacturing yields.
A further objective of the present invention is to set forth an electroceramescent device that is produced by a method that is effective and predictable and overcomes the limitations of the prior art set forth above.
As discussed above, the device of the present invention overcomes the disadvantages inherent in prior art methods and devices. In this respect, before explaining at least one embodiment of the invention in detail, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and to the arrangement of the components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced and carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology employed herein are for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting.
Accordingly, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the conception upon which this invention is based may readily be utilized as a basis for the design of other structures, methods, and systems for carrying out the several purposes of the present invention. It is important, therefore, that the claims be regarded as including such equivalent constructions insofar as they do not depart from the spirit of the present invention.
Furthermore, the purpose of the foregoing Abstract is to enable the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the public generally, and especially including the practitioners in the art who are not familiar with patent or legal terms or phraseology, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection, the nature and essence of the technical disclosure of the application. The Abstract is neither intended to define the invention of the application, nor is it intended to be limiting to the scope of the invention in any way.
A preferred embodiment of the present invention is illustrated in
The light-emitting region 24 is an integrated ceramic system composed of two (2) stacked structures defined as follows:
A transparent top electrode 25, termed a “fuse coat”, overlies the light-emitting region. This electrode is a thin, doped tin oxide coating applied to the top surface of the phosphor layer using a spray pyrolysis process. This conductive, transparent coating (in conjunction with the current limiting semiconducting layer) functions as a distributed fuse network which isolates and “heals”, localized electrical break-downs. The surface of the phosphor layer is specifically textured to create the appropriate roughness necessary to assure electrical continuity of the thin electrode coating is spite of the stresses associated with formation of an overlying protective, top ceramic layer 26.
This topmost, transparent ceramic layer 26 is comprised of a low melting point borosilicate glass and serves to further protect the phosphor layer 28 from moisture contamination while completing the encasement of the top electrode 25 in non-combustible glass. In contrast to organic coatings which carbonize in the event of a local electrical breakdown leaving a substantial, visible damaged area, the glass overcoat of the present invention serves to quench the breakdown and “heal” the device without significant residual damage.
Lastly, the entire device is overcoated with a transparent polyurethane layer 27 to prevent moisture intrusion into the top ceramic layer 26 and to inhibit electrical leakage currents from the underlying top electrode 25 to the ambient environment which pass through this relatively vulnerable layer. Such leakage currents can result in severe electrochemical degradation of fused borosilicate glass structures.
With continued reference to
The stainless steel is sandblasted to enhance chemical reactivity and improve mechanical adherence with the overlying ceramics. This roughened surface is pre-oxidized by high temperature exposure in an ambient air environment.
Preferably using an electrostatic spray methodology, a borosilicate glass layer having a significant titania component is formed on the oxidized steel substrate. This glass also includes a niobium component which, when combined with chromium and iron which diffuse from the substrate, creates a semiconducting layer with a bulk resistivity of approximately 10^4 ohm-cm. This resistivity level provides current limiting which acts in combination with the “fuse coat” top electrode 25 to provide protection against localized electrical breakdowns in overlying layers. The glass formulation used in this layer has a higher transition temperature than any of the other overlying ceramics thereby limiting upward diffusion in the ceramic stack of either metal ions or bubbles during subsequent firing cycles. In addition, the bubble structure is controlled by the frit size distribution and also through the selection of an optimal spray application method (electrostatic deposition preferred).
A further enhancement in break-down protection can be provided through an additional, thin, patterned layer of insulating borosilicate glass between the semiconducting layer 23 and the light-emitting region 24. The pattern of this additional layer (not illustrated in
The critical light-emitting region 24 overlies the semiconducting layer. This region is carefully engineered as a multilayer ceramic stack to provide five (5) specific features:
The insulation layer 29 is comprised of high dielectric constant, high melting point (relative to the barrier layer fusing temperature), high reflectance material encased in a borosilicate glass matrix. The preferred composition is finely ground barium titanate encased in a minimal amount of insulating borosilicate glass. The transition temperature for this glass is held to substantially lower than the underlying semiconducting layer and similar to that of the phosphor layer 28. The dielectric constant of the insulation layer 29 is greater than that of the phosphor layer 28 by a ratio of at least 10:1. By minimizing the glass content of this layer, diffusion of metal ions from the semiconducting layer is inhibited, the dielectric constant is increased, and a good dissipation factor is assured.
As illustrated in
With continued reference to
A typical example layout of a top electrode is illustrated in
In the event of a localized break-down in the active area, the current limiting feature of the semiconducting layer provides time for the tin oxide “fuse coat” to open with minimal effect on device performance or appearance. The bus geometry is typically a square or rectangular matrix providing fuse coat display space for the various information characters or objects. As previously noted, a special insulation barrier can be added as a supplemental coating to the semiconductor layer providing enhanced break-down protection for regions under the high current capacity bus areas.
Returning to
Another consequence of the glass constituents needed for a low melting point is an enhanced bulk conductivity. An electroceramescent device 45 at this stage of fabrication is illustrated in
Returning to
This application is a division application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/301,341, filed on Nov. 21, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,825,054 which in turn claims priority from U.S. Provisional application 60/332,089, filed on Nov. 21, 2001. This application relates to a light emitting ceramic device. The entire disclosure contained in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/301,341 and U.S. provisional application 60/332,089, including the attachments thereto are incorporated herein by reference.
The United States government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of contract DE-FC26-99FT40631 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2965784 | Hoffman | Dec 1960 | A |
3048732 | Lehmann et al. | Aug 1962 | A |
3073982 | Buck, Jr. et al. | Jan 1963 | A |
3103607 | Rulon | Sep 1963 | A |
3127534 | Diemer | Mar 1964 | A |
3200279 | Westerveld et al. | Aug 1965 | A |
3201632 | Joormann et al. | Aug 1965 | A |
3205393 | Mash | Sep 1965 | A |
3275870 | Buck, Jr. et al. | Sep 1966 | A |
3283194 | Rulon | Nov 1966 | A |
3865588 | Ohto et al. | Feb 1975 | A |
4086096 | McLeod | Apr 1978 | A |
4482580 | Emmett et al. | Nov 1984 | A |
4684353 | deSouza | Aug 1987 | A |
5477807 | Yamada et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5530318 | Ensign, Jr. et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5560957 | Johnson | Oct 1996 | A |
6091192 | Winsor | Jul 2000 | A |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050062411 A1 | Mar 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60332089 | Nov 2001 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10301341 | Nov 2002 | US |
Child | 10964583 | US |