Mark: The Klean Strip Stripper consist of the following:

Ehylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
Isopropanol
less than 4% Methanol
Methylene Chloride

It also says it will loosen most finishes in 10-30 minutes. Multiple coats or stubburn finishes may require repeat application. Clean up is done with mineral spirits. Not to be used on linoleum, plastic, rubber, asphalt tile, fiberglass or other synthetics.

Now, I've decided to finish off the other half of the Kogi monitor. Sanded then applied, waiting 30 minutes. Pics to follow.

sim

Wow, this stuff is incredible. Its confirmed, after light sanding it took me only an hour and 30 minutes to finished the other half including sanding. It was very controlled and cooperative. After the first coat most of the antiglare came off with ease, I then reapplied 2 more coatings to get the stragglers. Wiped real good w/alchohol.
sim

...

...

...

Simul8r,

Nice step by step pics. Very much appreciated.

[quote=Mark,Oct 15 2005, 02:54 PM]
What you need is a section of treated polarizer, and 2 sections of untreated polarizer. Set a treated and untreated polarizer together such that as little light gets through as possible. Hold it up to a bright light. Observe how much light you figure is getting though, and what color (blue is bad).

Set two untreated peaces such that no light gets through. Hod up to a light and make the same observations. Any change?

If no change, try 2 treated polarizers together to be sure.

Mark.

[/quote]

Will do with what left over test piece I have left (few). Will have to do this sometime later (work calls).
sim

[/quote]

Mark: Here ya go, no blue light on any tests.....but I'll let you decide. Treaded means I used the Stripper on test pieces I had left and cleaned w/alcohol. Untreated is of course the norm antiglare/polar film.
sim

SIM: The ingredients in the stripper seem to be safe for use with the polar bear under "controlled conditions" according to the chemical resistance datasheet poseted above. Isoropyl Alcohol, however, is not recommended. Did you find any fine hazing of the surface after clean-up?


Mike: Acetone would NOT be my first choice with the polar bear because of the fact it breaks down PVA. On the residual panel glue you should be fine ... A safer bet for BOTH the polar bear and the panel glue would be Benzene. I can't wait to try this - unless you beat me to it

those were 2 (different conbinations, shown on pic) parallel samples or crossed samples?

edit; ok, as you were asked to do less light posible trhow them, I guess they are crossed. Now, take a chance for parrallel test please . Good work by the way.

Thanks phutton, I'm almost certain this will work with the edges too, I'm going to attempt my own pj now...cross fingers. First I need more alchy, I ran out...hehe. Tomorrow.
sim

None, but very fine scuffs from wiping w/rags and paper towells. The same scuffs you would find when you clean your panel regularly. I might suggest using a soft sponge instead....thanks for reminding me about that.
sim

hehehe ok rox, just for you and your dang lux meter

Good News: I was concerned about the effects of UV degredation on the clear polar bear and did some searching. Apparently PVA is highly UV resistant - great for those of us who will be using the conventional "reversed" orientation of the LCD in our projectors. Just FYI.

Sim: those pictures are making my mouth water. Good GAWD what a difference!

Same.

Polarizer is all scuffed up and stuff, i think its harder to clean up with certain panels.

Only real fix for me is going to be a new polarizer.

Unsplit optics is NOT an option as i must have keystoning (this isnt my garage its my living room, the dog coffin must hang!)

zzzzzzzz's time fellas, post laters, enjoy.
sim

thanks.

well acetone didn't do anything for the residual glue on the panel ...using stripper ... then alcohol seems to do it...

It's Polyvinyl Alcohol. Not school glue . I don't believe it is water soluble, but as shown in Sonic's charts, it will break down with a solvent.

I even have a hypothesis as to why the anti-glare TAC separated before the mounting/protective TAC. I forgot that TAC has been found to be permeable by Elken. That means that the clearly thinner AG side will have been permeated much sooner than the other side. The other side may have not been permeated at all in the 36+- hour period.

I hope you don't feel that I have fallen off the track with this one. The concept is one of the ways I can come up with to explain what I have seen. I'm staying open to the possibility that the only reason these strippers and other solvents are working is because they are breaking down a small top cross section of the PVA such that it releases from the TAC. This would not be ideal. I am more confident in the possibility that there is in fact a separate adhesive there that will break down while the PVA remains intact, given the proper solvent. A perfectly reasonable case, considering they often do not show these adhesives in the exploded diagrams. I just want to make sure people understand there is still an x factor here.

That said, I've looked at SIMUL8TORS transmittance photographs (Thanks SIM ), and they look promising. There is not a significant difference in color/brightness to assume the PVA has been thinned. People need to bear in mind when looking at those comparisons that the brightness will increase from untreated to treated based on the very principle of removing the anti-glare. It would be a concern had the crossed photo come out more purple or even blue, but the colors seem to have remained intact. SIM: would it be possible to soak some exposed PVA in that stuff?

SIMUL8TOR: is the surface pitted at all?
I completely understand what you are saying. But it seems my calculations are not taking into account 3 polarizer then, it is taking into account 4 polarizers. 2 represent the known crossed transmittance, and 2 represent the known parallel transmittance. Just 3 would be missing out on the inherent 85+-% transmittance of the missing (4th) crossed polarizer. Hopefully you see what I mean. I made the assumption (it seemed to work) that as long as I keep those values relative (2 polarizers for 2 polarizers), that the equation would work out as if I actually knew the measured transmittance of one polarizer with parallel and crossed polarized light.

Mark.

Yes, upon further research... you were correct. I was thrown off by a link referring to polyvinyl acetate film that was iodine doped. Seemed to be what we were dealing with. My mistake. I have seen information that polyvinyl alcohol is water soluable. However there is possibly a protective layer of cellulose.

I think this stripper method works better when your lcd is unstripped. With a stripped panel I think its dangerous.

I actually think that scares me more then peeling off my antiglare would.

I'd rather peel off the antiglare and then try to remove/strip it. Possible?

Mik: are you actually reading this thread and keeping up with the progress? Your questions seems to indicate that you are not. Please take the weekend (almost over ) to read the entire thread. Then your answers will be self-evident.

At least it is water permeable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_alcohol

The entry also says water acts as a plasticizer for PVA which increases it tear and elongation resistance. Water decreases tensile strength, though. Perhaps soaking in water first should be recommended.

I can't wait to see results with Mineral Spirits (paint thinner?) or Benzene (Benzol). It could set the record straight on wether there is an adhesive there, or if PVA is the adhesive.

I will take a guess and say PVA is the adhesive that bonds the bottom TAC to the PVA, and their is a separate adhesive used to bond the PVA to the top Anti-glare TAC. This would make the most sense to me in terms of a manufacturing process. They would stretch the PVA across the bottom TAC then let it dry before gluing the anti-glare TAC in place, so as to not disrupt the polymer polarization pattern (squish it). Here's hoping the PVA is perfectly glossy smooth when not messed with.

Mark.

actually, 4 polarizers wouldn´t have this trasmitance either. The 0.27 is only working when no polarized light feeds two parallel polarizers, and 0.01 works when no polarized light feeds two crosed polarizers. this is never the case in more than 2 polarizer systems.

Anyway, the efficiency you were assuming was not correct. I posted the correct equation on that post.

I think what is being said is that working these chemicals near the panel is causing some concern. It would seem safer to remove the laminate first from the substrate, then take the necessary steps to peel the anti-glare.

I had to read it a couple times to realize you were talking about the laminate, not just the anti-glare.

We may be able to nail down a solvent that will make the anti-glare as easy to peel as I have seen with Ammonia, while not damaging the PVA, and not weakening the Substrate to laminate bond and not effect the panel, should some spill over the edge. Let's also hope Mineral Spirits work (easy to get, non carcinogenic).

Mark.

Just before I take off do work for customers,,,

another method for A/G removal would be to start the split,, on a corner of A/G,, only thing is to ident it..
and then start a seperate peel,, and paint it lightly with stripper at glue seam and work it off this way

if no one is in a position to do this, I still have half a my 17" benq to test on,,

It worries me a little to have prolonged exposure of these Polars, to any chemical's

might change the molecular structure, in a way we cant see,, ergo change that way it works,, if they go brittle or soggy,, there must be a change, the polarizer itself and the molecule chains, might vary ???
or even degrade over time??

could be a way of minimal disturbance,,,

not to be an alarmist but check out this site on benzine...health risk
http://www.benzene-aml-leukemia.com/

"I think what is being said is that working these chemicals near the panel is causing some concern."

bingo! Thats exactly what I mean. But I'm not sure what the differance between the laminate and the antiglare is.

Sonicwonder I am doing my best to keep up with this thread but I don't always have time to read everything. Its been difficult to try to keep up and know exactly whats going on.

I think removing the antiglare and replacing the polarizer sounds, to me, like the least stressfull method so far. (except for polish which I doubt is as effective).

Meyer. from which company did you get your polarizer? I thought they were only sold in bulk?

I'm giving the 3dlens one a go, they sell them individually.

Works well?

I'm sharing the costs with someone else, have not arrived yet.

I thought you already had a polarizer in your projector, up and running. Was that the one that originally came with the lcd?

Everything above the glass substrate of the panel, all the way to the anti-glare in this case. I only used the word to show that you meant more than one layer, and thus must have meant remove the whole polarizer unit from the panel substrate up (The peeling job).By replacing I hope you mean re-mounting. Otherwise this is a very confusing sentence . So here is what I think you mean to say:I wouldn't be so sure. No matter how we get the surface mirror smooth, basically the same benefits will come.

Mark.

Yes its the original polariser but pit marks appeared down the sides when stripping ant-glare but its useable.

IF the only extra loss we get with polishing the antiglare, as upposed to removing it is only in the extra light filtering the same way we get when we add a layer of glass in the light path, then thats nothing to loose sleep over. But is there not still some diffusion if the polish does not have the exact same refractive index?

No, Mark, it sounds like what you thought I said was removing the whole back layer of the lcd, (antiglare, polarizer, and all) then peeling off the antiglare and putting the polarizer back.) I'd be willing to do that but it sounds complicated.

I meant peeling it off (antiglare, polarizer and all) tossing it aside and buying a new polarizer, like meyer is doing. If that IS in fact, what he is doing.

Rox: did you derive this equation?

efficiency = sqrt [(P - C) / (P + C)] * 100

Where P and C are 2 sheets given depolarized incident light.

I just looked into it, and it seems you have added a square root to accomodate the fact that we are given the transmittance of 2 sheets with depolarized light. Do you think a square root is really going to do the job?

The formula I just found at the bottom of this page:

efficiency = (Psingle sheet - Csingle sheet) / (Psingle sheet+ Csingle sheet)

Where (as noted) P and C are 1 sheet given polarized light.

Mark.

Yes, that is what we are doing.

3Dlens polarisers ordered. POA1 & POAT We're going to try each one. Hopefully they'll be here Friday so we can play on the weekend!

This is why we are choosing polishes that remove material, and do not add new material or alter the composition of existing matierial (contain no solvents). The problem with polishing right now is that we cannot completely remove the anti-glare. I remain confident that we have just not found the right polish/technique. There are a lot of brass polishes we have not tried.I am not suggesting you do that. I just thought that was what you were saying. We need to bear in mind that the polarizers from LG are apparently a fair bit better than the ones from any of the sources I have posted. You are taking a risk at loosing more than you gain by damaging your stock polarizer. Still no confirmation on wether we can match or exceed the quality of the stock polarizers.

Mark.

oz how many sheets did you get?

any spares?

Geez nothing is simple. So these polishes are like solvants and actually melt the rough surface smooth? Does that mothers polish do that?

I was not suggesting that you were suggesting doing that. I just thought thats what you thought I was doing. LOL!

I got a poa4, ordered last thursday i believe. should make it here i would hope, anyone have experience with 3dlens shipping?

I think your confusion might be stemming from the fact that this is a work in progress and you are looking for a solution right now. There isn't a fail-safe, sure-fire one as yet.

Different people on this thread are trying different approaches. Some are just trying to defeat anti-glare, some are going for total stripping of the LCD glass substrate and replacement with new polarizers, still others are trying to recycle their stripped polarizers and use them. Some are interested in reverse engineering the laminate structure of the film layers sandwiching the glass LCD substrate in hopes of further improvements. This should be viewed as an exploratory thread because it ain't ready for prime-time yet; too much is still unknown.

Here is what we are absolutely sure of: Anti-glare is terrible for projection purposes. The diffusion added by this film kills brightness, contrast, and color saturation on axis. There are a number of ways to defeat this:

1) Encapsulate the antiglare layer so that it is smooth. Elken found that cellophane packing tape can be used to good effect, BUT, it is difficult to apply blemish free. Other options like window films are experimental possibilities.

OR

2) Mechanically strip (actually flatten) the anti-glare using polish. Polishes don't coat, they micro-abrade the surface to get a flatter surface. This is the safest alternative and the closest thing to a "do it now!" solution. Mother's car polish worked for Simul8r almost as well as tape encapsulation. My bets are on Macguire's car polish.

OR

3) Chemically strip the anti-glare off the polarizer. Simul8r has had good results with paint stripper. I would err on the side of caution with this unless you are comfortable buying a new panel. Long-term, it may work, it may fail. Most probably, there is another solvent that will work with less trouble.

OR

4) Strip the glass substrate clean, and replace the polarizers with new ones. Most who are going this route are trying to retrieve their polarizers from the stripped laminate sandwich to use for the interim period. Many of them are experimenting with different solvents to see if they can decipher the laminate structure and find a way to separate the elements without destroying the polarizer. This is the Cadillac solution and *MIGHT* prove to be overkill; no one has tested it yet.

So if you ave a junk panel to spare, join the experimentation. If you don't and want something to improve the projection right now - go out and by some Mother's polish - buff away, and be happy. The difference is NOT minimal according to Simul8r's screenshots. Or, just sit tight, watch a few movies, and wait for a final solution.

PS: For those new to the thread, experiments are being theoretically guided with the help of Mark's mega-brain . If you want a great encapsulation of this thread, go to the beginning and read all his posts.

3-6 weeks is what I've heard from fresnel orders. They ship from China.

The threat is with prolonged exposure. But, definately wear gloves and eye protection, and work in a well ventilated environment!

SonicWonder2000, that was a beautiful summary. Good work mate.

I've ordered 1 of each (large) sheet. Meyer and I are going to split at least one sheet, maybe both. I would like to use the adhesive one and put it back on the LCD, however it will be easier to experiment with the 'loose' polarbear sheet.

I've got to redesign my LCD sled a bit to accomodate the now totally bare LCD/control board.

Lenses orderd on a Sunday, arrived Thursday.

Edit: Pay for the most expensive shipping!!

I emailed the owner at :
http://www.polarization.com/shop/catalog/index.html

Yeah i didnt opt for the most expensive shipping, might take awhile!



found this for you triplet monkeys!

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/m1582.html

If you aren't using keystoning, or have the panel facing the lamp, I would consider sticking it to your fresnel. Same number of reflections (adhesive) but much better cooling by:

1. Relocating the heat generated by the polarizer.

2. Allowing airflow straight over the substrate.

Of course, we still don't know for sure if the expansion and contraction of the panel will cause the panel to bend with just one polarizer removed.oztang65: I like your choices. It will be nice to see how acceptable the 1.4% crossed will be given the quite high 44% single transmittance with the POAT. I'm glad you purchased model's large enough to place at the panel.

mikelish: I guess you have chosen to accept the possible loss of quality with triplet mounting?

Mark.

intersting as

I don't know if any of the other polariser sheets we're looking at has this.