Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!rdi
From: rdi@cci632.UUCP (Rick Inzero)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Blue and UltraViolet LED's
Summary: What's the big technological problem?
Message-ID: <38692@cci632.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 90 19:46:38 GMT
References: <17596.2699d803@uctvax> <1990Jul11.233848.29098@zoo.toronto.edu> <1551@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Reply-To: rdi@ccird3.UUCP (Rick Inzero)
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY
Lines: 26

In article <1551@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> bwhite@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bill White) writes:
>In article <1990Jul11.233848.29098@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>If you thought a blue LED was a long time coming, I suggest not holding
>>your breath waiting for UV LEDs.  The problems get exponentially worse,
>>so to speak, as the wavelength shortens.
>
>I also wouldn't hold my breath for UV...  

I may have missed a follow-up where my question was answered, but: 
just what's so technologically difficult here, regarding the UV LEDs?  
Sure, the currently used plastic housings won't pass shorter 
wavelengths of UV, but so what?  Wouldn't a silica glass housing work just 
fine, in fact, even passing short wavelengths of UV??  I'm not saying they'd 
be cheap, but I don't see any big hurdles that need to be leaped.
Unless there's some problem with actually generating the UV from the 
light emitting diode chip itself...  So far, all I remember is postings 
that the plastic housing was the problem.

Rick Inzero				        rochester!cci632!rdi
Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI)			uunet!ccicpg!cci632!rdi
Rochester, NY					uunet!rlgvax!cci632!rdi

"Your grandmother never, ever called me stupid.  
	She always called me 'pinhead'." -Jimmy Stewart in 1988 Campbells Soup
								commercial.