Talk:Phosphor

A Small Correction
A phosphor by definition does not under go fluorescent emission. A Fluorescent compounds is known as a fluorophore.
 * To add to the above, this means that optical brighteners are fluorophores, not phosphors. I will remove the erroneous entry under the heading Detergents. 142.103.207.10 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment below.

ZnS:Ag
I would like to point out that ZnS:Ag is not green as suggested in the article, but a lovely bright blue. I would also like to add, in response to the correction that phosphors do not fluorece, that is not true. Long afterglow phosphors do indeed phosphoresce, but those which do not exhibit afterglow and stop emitting immediately the radiation is turned off are fluorescing.
 * I suppose we just need to be clear on our use of the two terms. A phosphor, by definition, undergoes phosphorescence. A fluorophore undergoes fluorescence. These are two separate processes with distinct physical origins. However, you are right in that there is nothing (that I can think of at least) that prevents a material from being both a phosphor and a fluorophore. I think the person who wrote the previous comment was trying to highlight that fluorescence is not a special case of phosphorescence or vice versa: they are separate (but related) chemical/physical phenomena. 142.103.207.10 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not true. According to 'Phosphor Handbook', W.M. Yen, S. Shionoya, H. Yamamoto, CRC Press, 2007, a Phosphor is a solid which exhibits luminescence. Luminescence includes both fluorescence and phosphorescence, the latter denoting a detectable long after-glow of a few hours. Most phosphors are fluorescent, the inside of FLUORESCENT lamps and CFLs is coated with phosphors which fluoresce. This book is the main source of knowledge in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.34 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CTR Phosphor
Would an electron/beta ray phosphor be by definition a CTR phosphor, since electrons hit the phosphor in a CTR tube? Polonium 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Red phosphor slowed invention of color TV
Tried to find a source for this statement, but only found this: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/16/31652/01475432.pdf MaxEnt (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A totally useless link if you don't happen to be a member. 86.176.156.193 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Phosphorescence vs Fluorescence
I think a lot of people looking up this article will be confused about the difference between phosphorescence and fluorescence, as well as the difference between a phosphor and a fluorophore. Perhaps this should be addressed somewhere in the article? 142.103.207.10 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard phosphors
I have found an excellent source which serves for this article. Phosphor handbook By Shigeo Shionoya, Chapter Six: Phosphors for cathode ray tubes With this in hand I have been making mods to the article, and created a main table for them. Also I intend to add a few new columns to have the 4 phosphor denominations included, American, Europe, Japan and the new International denomination. Regards Alchaemist (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added information from All About CRT Phosphors. There was one particular inconsistancy that I didn't change: in this source, Scheelite is listed as a form of P5 instead of being unnamed as in the present table. Can anyone confirm that these are the same? Dodopod (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This would appear to be an enthusiast's website and as such is unacceptable as a reference for Wikipedia as it lacks the backing of a recognised authority on the subject. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (comment was edited to condense it, it was too long or detailed). The information in the phosphor document All About CRT Phosphors on the bunkerofdoom.com website was taken from several books and scanned copies of scholarly and industrial material some very old. I know because researched and put that document together.

It contains a few apparent contradictions because the several books and papers from which all of that material was taken did not agree in every case, and subsequent efforts to dig back into even older material or background did not clear anything up. Not all of the sources are listed in the PDF, but the source for the P5 phosphor is.

Keep in mind however that the data in the PDF file is, as I stated, all from volumes written by those with the authority to make those statements regarding the phosphors.

As to the P5/Scheelite, I believe you are looking for "A STUDY OF THE PERSISTENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS CATHODE RAY TUBE PHOSPHORS" W. T. DYALL (M.I.T. 1948). It's listed in the (my) PDF's references and is on the web. On page 7 it clearly gives the Scheelite information as shown in my PDF document.m I'm not sure how the commenter dismissing the entire web site missed that.

So, in response specifically to the one comment that (to paraphrase) the specific content is beneath WP quality level, I can only ask why the comment judges, to the punkt of dismissal, the host and the content of a little paper covering a very specific topic when in the same comment no objection to the content, nor challenge of its factuality, is made. That is very inconsistent. The reference is there in the document, ehich the complaint generator either did not read or did not udnerstand. Furthermore, dismissing a site that is for hobbyists displays ignorance of the fact that many such sites contain scholarly information generated by authorities in the relevant field.

Let's not be stodgy. If WP deigns to have some guy drop in and say to reject items without himself doing research to verify sources plainly listed in the linked items, then what is the point of having WP? I might as well order Britannica on DVD and throw it on a TB SSD with a BT dongle.

The rejection does not make any sense. Was it just the look of the website itself? the name? doom DOOM.. hahaha. who cares. I am an engineer by profession. I work with phosphors as an amateur, and my site is for others who have similar interest including those who prefer attributable knowledge. It's quite silly to dismiss a document because one does not approve of where it came from. Doing so rejects knowledge and relegates WP to being just another encyclopedia, when it has the potential to be the best one.

If the person making the comment against the website is some 'god of phosphors', I apologize. Otherwise It's not up to me to do research twice. Nonetheless I have now ben dragged into it for the sake of knowledge and so please see the reference mentioning Scheelite which can be downloaded here as of now:

www.bunkerofdoom.com/CRT_RLE-TR-056-04706923.pdf

and look on page 7. The file is 4MB.

Thank you for your attention to CRT phosphors and for looking into this information dismissal matter, and please consider evaluating content more thoroughly and impartially irresopective of what site it is found on,

208.190.133.205 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Patrick Jankowiak208.190.133.205 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Very confusing
This article requires, in my opinion, serious cleanup. First of all, as already mentioned by many, phosphor is commonly used to denote both fluorescent and phosphorescent materials. I work in this field so I know what I'm talking about, and many references can confirm this, such as the great Phosphor Handbook by Yen et al.. Secondly, due to this confusion, this article has become a mix-up of phosphorescent and fluorescent phosphors. For example, phosphors used in white LED design are fluorescent materials, not phosphorescent. There is no consistency throughout the text, which makes it very confusing to read. Gladi8or2 (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's confusing especially to those new to a phosphor discussion. I would prefer that the "phosphors" be separated by their application. I also agree with the above as it is critical to show what each item is, not put them all under one name and blur the facts. I don't think that is the case now, but maybe I mis-read. For example, CRT, lamp, LED, X-ray screens, etc. If a phosphor is used in more than one application, it ought to be in each list where it's used. Does that seem logical? I only use CRT-type materials, so I am not qualified to fix the article or I would spend some time on it. Thanks, 8.28.150.75 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Patrick Jankowiak8.28.150.75 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The 25 July 2010 edit clarified that phosphorous is chemiluminescent, not phosphorescent while broadening the term "phosphor" to be "most generally...a substance that exhibits the luminescence." A subsequent 1 May 2012 edit then added: "hence it [phosphorous] is not a phosphor" -- which is horribly inconsistent with the general definition. I've struck this statement to make the introduction sensible, but it might not be correct. Can someone more expert in this (Gladi8or2, perhaps?) vet my change? Dacut (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Degradation in White LEDs
The section about Degradation does not mention White LEDs. The section about White LEDs does not mention Degradation. Please add information and references about this very important topic: Degradation in White LEDs.-96.237.11.70 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While LEDs shouldn't even be in this article because the process is not phosphoresence. The materila in question converts the blue LED light into yellow light by scintillation. 86.176.156.193 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitions, chemical families
I was just reading a page which claims that "The single crystal form of YAG:Ce is actually considered a scintillator rather than a phosphor." Having read the intro to this Wikipedia page, I've been under the impression that some phosphors fluoresce and that all fluorescent materials are phosphors. I've also always seen YAG:Ce described as a phosphor. The reply in the above discussion on this page also seems to agree that this is "scintillation" as opposed to something else. Is that other page off base? If not, any thoughts what distinction they are making?

In general, I'm trying to wrap my head around fluorescence, and it seems like there are a few distinct chemical families that fluoresce: There are semiconductor minerals like YAG and ZnS (which, I gather comprise the phosphors on most CRTs), there are polycyclic hydrocharbons like rubrene, rhodamine, and coumarin, and quinine (some of which I gather are classified as organic semiconductors), and there are fluorescent proteins such as GFP. Am I missing something, or does that more or less cover the common industrial/scientific fluorescent materials? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Phosphor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sylvania.com/BusinessProducts/MaterialsandComponents/LightingComponents/Phosphor/FluorescentLamps/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cadmium sulphide
It is listed under toys, despite it’s toxicity. I’m not sure it is currently used in toys. Ææqwerty (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph order in introduction
the order of the fourth and fifth paragraph in the introduction section of this article needs to be changed or one of them rewritten, the fourth paragraph starts with "In inorganic phosphors, these inhomogeneities..." where the inhomogeneities in question are not yet established. I think the next paragraph provides the context needed but it's a bit technical so i'm not sure.