Here is one relevant patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8846457.html
Here is an album of various pictures taken earlier this fall (2014), and also just a minute ago with two pieces I had around the house: http://imgur.com/a/nBB5r
The technology is several things: it is real, it is sufficiently bright to stand up to daylight conditions, and it is mass-producible. It has raised interest from various industry sectors.
Lastly, this technology is not the work of Rohinni. They bought some pieces from Nth Degree, and what their business plan is, who knows. They did not invent it, legally cannot produce it, and it is doubtful they have the the technical knowhow to do so anyway.
In short, Rohinni is taking credit for a product they did not make.
Well, these seem like some pretty definite claims that should be easy to back up with evidence?
Nth Degree's product honestly looks far more plausible, given its unusual characteristics (speckled luminance distribution, blue cast, restriction to clearly separated strips). It's considerably harder to find Rohinni's compromise-free prototype credible, with its consistent, diffuse, apparently-broad-spectrum light. But that just makes it even harder to believe an accusation that they ordered a few Nth Degree strips and went to town with them.
Neither company has a "Buy product now!" button.
The tie goes to Rohinni (even if their team photo looks kind of try-hard).
I know this is discouraging to hear, but I'm certain that you aren't the first company to ponder flat lighting on paper--moreover, your product appears to have a cool light pattern that doesn't actually match the use case of "I need a flat even diffuse lighting that doesn't look like a predator blood spray".
I think in cases like this photoshop mockups (assuming that's what they are) can do more harm than good for setting expectations that might not be realistic.
As an example, I have a big-ass LED flashlight (google trustfire tr-j20). It gets extremely hot to the touch, and it has a massive heat sink.
They can scatter light and are deceptively thin. Coupling with (maybe) some fibre cables and you've pretty much got what they're offering. I'd doubt they're actually offering a unique product that illuminates the product as advertised.
So instead, I'll offer some (probably fallacious, but likely still correct in its conclusion) logical deduction -- If this was likely to be a good photovoltaic source, the inverse would also likely be true. That is, that good photovoltaic sources would emit heaps of light when a current was applied.
In short, LEDs are semi conductors optimized to have a very specific direct energy band gap which produces photons in the visible light spectrum. This causes the semiconductor to shed excess electrons as visible light energy.
Photodiodes (used for PV arrays) are similar, but optimized for a completely different goal. They attempt to maximize the size of their depletion region. I don't know that the energy band gap is as important, though I'd imagine the narrower the better. Either way, this is done to maximize the likelihood that an incident photon will excite one of the molecules in that region of the diode, thereby freeing up an electron and causing it to flow around the circuit.
FYI solar cells would not make good light sources since the most common ones (silicon based) are indirect band gap. For LEDs (and lasers) a direct band gap material is required.
You are correct about the depletion region needing to be large for solar cells, but narrower is not necessarily better. This is because if you make the band gap super narrow (say 0.5eV) and most of your energy comes in as much higher energy photons (1eV+) you are discarding all of the energy besides that 0.5eV from those photons. The band gap is tuned to get the highest responsivity at wavelengths where the most energy is coming in if it is tuned at all.
The two big things I will mention are that LEDs are made with direct band gap semiconductors whereas efficient solar cells are made with indirect bandgap semiconductors.
The other issue is that solar cells rely on as big of a depletion region as possible to collect light whereas in LEDs the depletion region is considerably smaller.
Even if this vastly underdelivers, it might do away with the inverters needed for el-wire/panels which would be neat.
The hard part about this (beyond many, many devilish details) is the deposition of an insulator separating the top and bottom conductors, which has to be the right thickness on a micron scale, and not interfere with conductivity of the electrodes. A very big devil, indeed.
It may work, but it is not easy. Also, the LEDs have to be specifically fabricated for their technique; they cannot use feedstock from the existing industry.
I suspect that there is little information on it, either because they are not entirely solid on the information themsilves, or that they do not want to risk letting others make similar products before they have a chance to hit market, or some combination of the two.
I hope it is the latter, as that would mean it is a lot more likely this will ever come to market.
"Consumers should start to see Lightpaper in the wild around the middle of 2015. But Rohinni won't be aiming at the home hobbyist market until after it takes hold in the commercial and industrial space."
Bummer!
1: http://www.fastcolabs.com/3038890/rohinnis-lightpaper-is-inc...
Indoor lighting is usually more appealing, and more functional, from a large source, as well.
Imagine being in a dark room with only one, small light source, and trying to do some sort of fine motor work. If the room is evenly lit, from a large source, it's easy to see what you're doing. But if there's just one small source, you end up casting a shadow on what you're trying to work on, making it much more difficult.
Would be nice for working on my computer. It's really tough to light the Inside of a PC case without creating shadows everywhere. The same thing goes for working on a car engine. these applied to the underside of a hood would be very nice.
Beyond actual lighting applications, this has really cool possibilities for cheap displays on pretty much anything. Or cool logos or safety clothing.
Could do some cool stuff with a coffee cup that could generate the electricity from the thermoelectric effect[1] to light up and display the temperature of the coffee. There are better ways to do this I suppose but this is just an example.
Though Rohinni doesn't visualize it in their applications section, Lightpaper looks like it could enable diffuser-less, razor-thin LCD displays with potentially far greater luminance uniformity than current backlight solutions.
At the moment its held on with tape, and its not long lasting.
I would like to see it on clothing, particularly bicycle and motorcycle gear. Might be awesome for safety persons too (first responders)
Came across their early announcement beginning of this year (http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_6c1e49d6-8f2...) - now it seems they are getting ready to deliver / having every day use applications on the market in the next 6 months (by 3rd party industry members).
(1) Conductive - (2) Dielectric - (3) EL (Electroluminescent) - (4) Conductive layer and then you seal it off with the (5) Top layer. (Once applied save to touch)
From principle it can be applied on everything but it is depending on the under-layer trace thickness and uniformity. In case of irregularity of the surface it would require treatment for a more homogeneous surface.
DIY: http://www.litcoat.com/product/litcoat-electroluminescent-pa...
Is your claim that the Rohinni Light Paper is actually based on the technology that LitCoat is pushing?
So the price needs to drop by about 1-2 orders of magnitude before these become practical for most people.
Maybe it's derived from this technique?
