I wonder if something like this could be found at a auto parts store.

http://www.caswellplating.com/buffs/glass.htm

For those interested in the reflective polarizer light recycler, I just played around with some cellophane (chocolate box wrapping) and it's effect as a wave plate is very good. You just need to stack as many layers of the stuff as necessary to achieve the phase shift you are looking for. Beats paying a ton for a little glass element that's to small to be practical, and you get to keep/eat whatever it was wrapping .

When passing polarized light (looking at a computer display) I got elliptical polarization out of 1 layer, circular polarization out of 2 layers (quarter wave plate), and a very effective half wave plate (90 degree axis rotation) with 4 layers (not surprisingly). Sweet . Now all I need is a reflective polarizer. DOH!

Mark.

Awsome find mikelish, cheap enough to experiment or go triplet way. Nicely done
sim

Just as a reminder to you all, prior to stripping the Kogi the first time, half of the panel was polished with Mothers. After stripping I did a side to side comparison up close to the monitor. Although the projection pics here: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=1142 show that the brightness compared to having the 'tape' on the antiglare the monitor still showed evidence of a tint of gray compared to the stripped side. Might be because I was viewing it normally with the backlight as the medium but it showed a little more brighter white on the stripped side. It might be different by projection. I honestly beleive trying the polish is the first step in all this then moving on to other extreme measures. The problem is that once you decide whether to strip or rip there's no turning back. Just food for thought.
sim

Are you saying the polish gave it a grayish tint?

Sure Mark, ahem...guess who feels like an employee now. Just a point of opinion here. The consistance of acetone is very thin. I'm beginning to think that the pitting might be caused by the acetone finding every crack, nich, or opening to sip in. If the PVA structure is compromised by the ripping method then I beleive the acetone seeks these areas and damages the adhesives connecting it to the plastic protector. Thats where I beleive the pitting is coming from, the acetone reacting to the adhesive in between PVA and protective plastic. The stripper however is thick like, not thin where it will run to every nick, crack..etc.. The only way it will damage the protective plastic is if we actually allow it to. Since this method of stripping is another option it would be better off maintaining the antiglare/polar on the panel while applying and importantly protecting fcc ribbons and circuit boards. Otherwise protect the plastic protector at all times if antiglare/polar was ripped away from the panel.



No pits, Mark. But there are some corrosive marks to one of the test pieces to plastic protector side, only because residue of the stripper was scattered around my area and some got to it by accident.
sim

Mark, does the transmittancy test pass in your opinion with regards to stripping? If so, I will remove the edit I posted earlier on the method.
sim

No, no, no...the antiglare will always have a grayish or dull appearance...look at your panel while lit..now, polishing will smooth out the diffusing rough top to a flat gleamed surface allowing the light to go through and not scattered. The issue is that even though you flattened the antiglare down you can still make out that the layer is still there by its tint like color. The mothers does not leave any residue color especially after cleaning the antiglare w/alchohol or whatever.
sim

Thanks. Sorry, english is not my best language. Unfortunatly its the only language I know.

I've been reading some other forums where they are trying to take on the anti glare and have seen some inteeresting things... for example...

I tried ammonia, benzine, alcohol and acetone with no success. Then I used a solution from Brazil to remove rust spots on cloths called Semorin. It's composition is: oxalic acid and water.
This product made the removal of the coating very easy. After a few drops on the monitor surface (obvious in plain position) with a small piece of cotton to rub, I could easily remove all the coating with no damage to the glass.

The entire coating? Did you mean the entire antiglare/polar right down to the substrate glass? Or did you mean just the antiglare exposing the PVA/polar?
sim

If you have a truly mirror finish, one that has zero inconsistency at all, and no pitting, or blemishes of any kind (without polishing), and you notice zero increase in diffused transmittance, or color change when crossed. Then I would say it is okay (not highly advised, but okay) to remove the warning at this point. I still feel that this is premature, as nobody has tried Mineral Spirits or any of the other Green E's.

As I mentioned earlier, the pictures look great. The increase in brightness seems to be only as much as would be expected after removing the anti-glare, and I can't make out any color change either. The problem here is long term. I would almost recommend we come up with a neutralization procedure. Chemistry labs always have a bottle of neutralizer on hand. It neutralizes both acids and bases. It is sometimes made by mixing the correct amount of baking soda with vinegar . We should consider a treatment with something like that.While this polarizer does have an optical ant-reflective coating (something you could expect from higher quality optics) I would be cautious here. We don't know if these are neutral gray, or if they have even half descent specs. And of course there already are presumed quality problems with triplet mounting.

Mark.

.

And to answer your question mark, i was proposing it for others. I watched HDTV backwards horizontal for 2 days with my roomies. When we flipped it normal again we had a hard time reading, we had learned the alphabet sideways and read things right to left

I was just proposing it for others, i got 2 in the mail for experimentation. And will post quality/color when they arrive .

I wish I could answer that. That was a quote from another forum. He never expained further. But I thought the acid mentioned was interesting.

Others in the forum have used razor blades to scrape away antiglare(I wouldn't even try this)with great success.

Some have used Comet. But it was a gel form that came in a tube. They claim great success. I was just surprised to see others working on this. I will continue researching these forums. But I think this is a very new idea. These forums have nothing to do with projection.... they just want to ride themselves of antiglare or have scratched or stained the antiglare.

Also armor all was mentioned several times(It is supposed to melt the antiglare)

I realize this is all yet to be proven. The only reason I mention it is I know some of you understand chemistry very well and just maybe some easily obtained products could do a fine job. I could be wrong.

I also tried to get some MicroMesh... they were sold out.... it is on order.... my old monitor already has part of it's surface dedicated to the MicroMesh test when I get it.

And a good find, by the way. Very cheap, and optically coated which is always a nice option. It is also possible that as long as they are bonded away from the panel, such that they are out of focus (like on the fresnel) you could puzzle together a bunch of them edge to edge and pretend you have a full sheet.

No question, I just want people to know that at this point, we know nothing about them.

Mark.

That's the goal. I won't feel we have suceeded until we have found a readily available simple solvent with a foolproof, relatively non agressive procedure. Any links to those forums?Wicked.

Mark.

I just wanted to add (and I'm sure about it this time) that "Mineral spirits paint thinner" and Mineral spirits are different. Both should be at the local hardware but the paint thinner contains other solvents such as Tolulene which are not rated "green and E".

Good catch, hope it isnt brown ! Hopefully it will be a big enough rectangle for me to watch tv on until we decide what the best of the best are .

Nitrocellulose is the solid ingredient of most nail polishes. Nitrocellulose is made from cellulose. Acetone is the primary ingredient of nail polish remover.

TAC, (Triacetyl Cellulose) is the most common polarizer protective film material, and the material most commony used for anti-glare. I assume it too is also made of cellulose.

Just a funny irony that acetone was the first solvent we tried. We now know it can be harmful to PVA, but I just thought it was funny .

Mark.

Hmmm I dont get it,,, Acetone was very sucessfull on on the the panels I did,,

including the final 17" the real one,,,

oh PS the pitting could be caused in part by small particles trap[ped under the polar whilst being stripped by whichever method.. very messy operation thats why I chose glass as cleaning base,, totally flat,,,whichever way you look at it..
and contamination of little bits getting under,,, reason I state this, is that I had that occur on one test sheet.. tiny pinhole parts of polariser,, but saw bits on reverse side still there,, bit like decapitation..

clive

"oxalic acid and water" is used as "rust remover" sold at jan supply houses exerywhere. Just happen to have some. To bad I threw out that old laptop last week!

Duration. You got the job done quick enough. Acetone is in the red. I don't feel we can recommend any solvent that is at all harmful to the very thing we are trying to preserve (PVA). Especially given all the options Sonic has presented with those charts.

A rough idea of how a PVA polarizer is made:

First PVA is heated and mixed with boric acid, iodine (blueish die) and other dies. When you stretch PVA it takes on a grain crystaline structure. So they stretch the stuff in the direction of the axis they wish, and the dies fall into the grains.

When subject to a reactive solvent for too long, I believe this grain is becoming exposed. The long grooves, and exact direction are a dead giveaway.

Mark.

yes your equation is fine if the corrrect parameters are used, P[i] and C[i] single sheet parameters are unknown for us. They are the trasmitances of parallel and crosed single polarizers to already polarized light beam. I don´t see any manufacturer stating those specs on their ploarizers. All we have is P and C trasmitances to a no polarized entering light. So the square root equation is the correct one.

ed munds FAQ

check the maths.

Also the ratio P/C (note it is not extintion rate) is something like the max contrast rate we could expect with those polarizers asuming a perfect work on the liquid cristal and assuming the only limitation would be the polarizers:

3Dlens; P=30% and C=0.005%

ideal max contrast rate=30/0.005 ==> 6000:1

3Dlens (with glue); P=38% and C=1.4%

ideal max contrast rate=38/1.4 ==> 27:1

ed mund; P=27% and C=0.02%

ideal max contrast rate=27/0.02 ==> 1350:1

in any case it is not the contrast we will have on the projected image, but I belive we want the polarizer "ideal max contrast rate" to be as high as posible.

I read that forum also.

The problem is that they were doing this on old CRT Monitors with the antiglare on the glass. That makes it a lot easier to get off.

Having the antiglare on a polar bear presents a much greater challenge.

Oxalic Acid is safe for everything EXCEPT PVA: Nitrile, Neoprene, Vinyl, and Rubber are okay...

Being that this was used in a CRT application rather than an LCD, I think Benzine may still be worth a shot. BTW, Benzene is the same as Benzol and is sometimes sold under the street name of Petrolleum Benzene. It is water soluble so it'll clean up with water.

Also, Comet is sometimes used as a polish for Nitrocellulose Lacquer finishes. It has a grit which is in between Pumice, and Rottenstone. I think pumice and rottenstone may also be good bets for polishes to flatten the A/G surface.

Mark is dead on about the application time of the acetone being the critical factor in Elken's success. He used a towel application to loosen the glue on his polar bear, and then mechanically scraped it off. The process was time consuming, and labor intensive by his own account. Acetone evaporates quickly and thus Elken had a fair amount of success. And thank God he did, cause otherwise, we wouldn't be here now!

However, acetone is still not the optimal solvent solution. Simul8r's use of paint stripper, however, was trully ballsy. It looks like he has found the winning solvent for the time being, and here's to hoping that his polar bears continue to shine in all their glory

I just ordered some ...and I will try that ....I now have a totally naked panel(frontal and backal nude ;-) .... both polars were dull ... not shiny! are your rear polars shiny?

my backlight side was not dull. good luck with that, treading on unknown ground!

well the lcd only cost me 40$ so we'll see .... yeah, I started polishing the "front" of the monitor then ended up stripping the polar off instead and when i got that side cleaned up tested it and was way better(looking thru piece of original polar then flipped it over and started really looking at it....after getting the original polar all nice and shiney was surprised to see the rear polar was a matte ..not as bad as the AG side(and yes, before anyone comments , I did strip the correct side to start with ;-) just didn't pay much attention to the rear polars shinyness... both my polars were ...brittler? than the psone lcd I was playing with(both are Sharp panels underneath the skin)
So you rear polar was really shiny? I mean mirror like? no matte finish of any depth?

OH MY GAWD!!!!!!!!!....check out the before shot in nighttime, pitch black compared to daytime that is now!!!

Can someone give me the post #(s) that specifically explaines how to remove the antiglare? Sifting through 74 pages causes way too much confusion... or is this still a work-in-progress and not recomended for the average diy'er as of yet?

where was the bulb in the after shots? in line with screen or ?

This is certainly a "work in progress".... try reading the last 20 or so pages... there are several "summaries" along the way which will allow you to get the basic highlights... or course to be fully versed, just take your time and read everything... this won't be "finished" for a while as there are still many unanswered questions...

do you have just the one side stripped of its polar or both?

Agreed. Thanks for posting the contrast ratio to efficiency relationships.

I just finished part 2 of my ammonia experiment. The purpose of this experiment is to figure out what the maximum duration of soaking with a chemical in the red is, and to see what the effects of one of these chemicals is. I also want to confirm wether the anti-glare TAC is independently glued in place. The ultimate goal is to adapt a peeling technique that does not involve a scraper. And to have the anti-glare come up in one continuous sheet.

So this time, instead of soaking for 36 hours, I soaked for 23 hours. The edges of the PVA were not dissolved nearly as much this time, and nowhere had the edges completely dissolved (at 36 hours about 2mm of the edge of the polarizer no longer had any PVA, and the new edge of PVA was feathered in thickness). The edge of the PVA is still feathered in thickness.

The anti-glare did not peel off nearly as easily this time, but it still peeled off just like a piece of tape. Very cool, and satisfying. It even makes the sound that a good tape would make.

Pitting? Yes. but not nearly as much. The surface of the PVA was not nearly as thinned this time. You can actually see that this stuff could be mirror smooth if I can get the duration right. It appears a bit more clearly now that the pitting is on both sides (not surprisingly) of the PVA. There are just more grains than can be accounted for by the upper surface.

Crossed/parallel transmittance appears to be largely unaffected this time.

I am going to try some shorter durations.

Mark.

Mirror like yes, and it doesnt matter how many times you say it elken or mark will ask to confirm (i love you guys but really )


Professor from the optics division of our physics program has not responded to my request for an appointment to discuss/learn optics that we use. I suppose an electrical engineer about to graduate building pj's is not high on his priority list.

Graduating engineers are a dime a dozen at the universities. Ask his office hours and stop by. Chances are you will not get much additional information. Better to talk to someone in the polarization of lcd industry. They would have much more specific knowledge.

I hope i didnt make it sound like i thought i should be important to him lol. I doubt i have access to a polarization master beyond this guy. To be honest, once i get a decent replacement, i couldnt care less what the effects of triplet mounting are, but it has been debated and tested by less then experts in this thread so I figured it would be nice to hear the physics from someone who has a passion for optical engineering.

I may not be the Professor from the optics division of your physics program, but I did stay at a Holiday Express Inn last night . Okay maybe I didn't even do that.

Mark.

Only one side at this point in time (normal 'front' of LCD). I'll see how the replacements look using the original 'back' polar before I decide whether it also needs to come off or not.

Sorry guys for that last outburst of excitement. After stripping the antiglare off my actual pj panel I put 'her' in for a test drive and I was just blown away.

The operation took roughly over 2 hours from sanding to applying, light scraping, wiping then repeating 3 times more. I masked taped the fcc cable and circuit boards. Layed out the panel on some paper towels atop a flat table and went to work. Although, I did have some issues with the stripper eating a little of the polar at one edge on the other side the remaining panel is totally mirror like from front and back. Oh, and that scratch that started this whole thing is nowwhere to be seen. I have to caution here however, that although, I was successful removing the antiglare it is imperative that the other side of the panel be protected somehow from the stripper 'rolling' over and getting underneath the panel itself. I didnt do that which caused that small bit of the rear polar to be eaten, but I'm glad the edge that was affected is in an area further away from what I project using Powerstrip.

And yes, as Elken described it's super crisp and distinct.

sim

A couple of pics from experimentation. First off, this is with the LCD diffusion sheets, not a polar bear, but the surfaces are similar from what I understand.

First: laser through the diffusive sheet

Click to view attachment

As you can see, very little light actually gets through, and what does is scattered omnidirectionally.

Second: with a layer of packing tape.

Click to view attachment

The light gets through with almost no diffusion of the beam!

Third: Here is a picture of the sheet in front of my hand against the window. As you can see, the tape makes the previously opaque surface transparent. The gunk is due to the fact I didn't apply the tape without bubbles, etc.

Click to view attachment

Mark: My IBM panel is stripped and ready for experimentation. I would like to reserve at least part of the panel for A/G polish experiments. Any other suggestions on how I should tackle the experimentation? PS: my new solvent of choice is Xylene as it is not carcinogenic.

I just saved alot of money on my car insurance

I just finished part 3 of my ammonia experiment. It seems soaking a 2cm x 2cm test square for 2 hours is not enough. 5 hours makes anti-glare peeling quite easy. Why did I not try at 3 and 4 hours? Because I got carried away with work and forgot . I would say the piece looks less wavy than the 23 hour piece. But not by a lot. It makes me wonder if the PVA is naturally wavy? That would be a good thing because it would indicate there must be a glue to fill the waves.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if those who have separated the anti-glare just missed these waves that I am talking about. They are very tiny, and ultimately may not present enough diffusion/internal reflection to be a concern. The overall effect of the polarizer at a distance is definitely smooth and shiny.

The concern is still the back side of the PVA and the now perceivable separation between the PVA grain. I can only see the grain with diffused off axis light, collimated light the makes normal incidence seems to be unaffected.

I am going to see about picking up some mineral spirits. Not sure what grade to go with. I'll just see what's there.

One thing that I should add is that, at least after treating with ammonia, the PVA crystal structure becomes very brittle. Bending the polarizer makes the long crystal strands snap apart, as predicted. The action is accompanied by thousands of audible snap noises as each strand snaps apart from its neighbor. This enhances the streaking I have been noticing in treated polarizers, but does not seem to effect the transmittance. Again, the grain does not snap if you bend with the grain.You have a laser pointer . Man, I wish I had a laser pointer for all this. Not just to test diffusion and incidence, but also to point at stuff and make things red.

Other than keeping a distinct grid, I have no additional suggestions. For sure when a solvent is tested or used right on the surface of the panel that area should be taped off and skirted around the edges.

Would it be possible to try that laser with the diffuser having it's shiny side facing the laser, and then the other way? I want to see how big a factor total internal reflection is. Should be done in a dark room. The idea is that having shiny side towards the laser will have less light intensity than the other, but equal diffusion.

Mark.

Holy crap Markman - I got some interesting data for you. My camera just ran out of batteries so I will post pictures as soon as I can. I was using a laser pointer as a collimated light source and playing around with my IBM panel shining patterns against the wall. Now, interestingly enough, due to the microstructure of the LCD mask and pixel electronics, a diffraction pattern is visible in the laser pattern. The pattern is a + and the width of the '+' should be indicative of the brightness of the transmitted light.

Without cellophane:

1. Laser -> Analyzer -> Polarizer -> Wall:
A hazy spot

2. Laser -> Polarizer -> Analyzer -> Wall:
A hazy spot somewhat brighter than in 1. This is in line with what elken hypothesized as the "correct" route of travel for light (the color masks being last in the chain).

Now for the interesting part:
With Cellophane:

3. Laser -> Polarizer -> Analyzer -> Cellophane -> Wall
Bright spot with a pronounced diffraction pattern. Nothing new here, the cellophane is defeating the anti-glare.

4. Laser -> Cellophane -> Analyzer -> Polarizer -> Wall
VERY bright spot with a pronounced diffraction pattern. Now it looks as if the scenario is reversed from what it is without cellophane. The standard "LL Reversed" orientation of the LCD is proving to have more transmission! The ramification of this is that it implies that for those seeking the encapsulation route, the standard reversed orientation of the LCD should yield a brighter projection.

Now as to why this is occuring on a theoretical level, I have no idea. It must have something to do with the fact that the reflectance at the air/cellophane boundry is reduced? Mark?

EDIT: upon trying the experiment several times, the difference between 3 and 4 is not all that great. So what can be said is that if a/g is defeated, the orientation of teh LCD is of little significance to brightness.

EDIT: #4 corrected

Xylene, excellent...you saved me $7. I was about to purchase this and test but I pretty much ran out of tests pieces. Glad you decided to help out Sonic.
sim

Pictures from test outlined above. Note that the laser was rotated to get the maximum intensity in all test runs:

1) Reverse with anti-glare

Click to view attachment

2) Forward with anti-glare

Click to view attachment

3) Forward with cellophane:

Click to view attachment

4) Reverse with cellphane:

Click to view attachment

The pictures don't show it that good, but the width of the diffraction pattern is slightly longer in 4 (more transmission).

EDIT: Now that I look at the photos, the difference doesn't seem to be that great. Some of the difference might be attributable to the rotation of the laser. Since the laser is coherent, the rotation of the pen makes a difference in how much gets throught the polarizer. So - the upshot of all this is that the back/forward orientation of the LCD has minimal impact on the brightness if the a/g is defeated.

That's good to hear, I almost went crazy the other night trying to watch my projection backwards

So do you feel that an additional layer of cellophane before the first polaris..err polarbear will help with the projected brightness, or just increase the clarity?

If it is included, do you think it can be hard up against the polar or does it have to be before it, perhaps attached to the collimating fesnel?

Keep up the good work!

Got a response from polarzation.com, going to ask if he can offer a 12x9 version for us 15"r's


Hello
We haven´t seen the plans, but our film should work. I have to tell you
though, that the claims on the quality of the display seem difficult to
believe.
We sell a sample of the polarizer with adhesive that is 10 x 6 inches for
$15 (in larger sheets the cost per square inch is much lower). It is made in
Japan specifically for LCD displays, so it is of great quality.
Regards,
George
sales@polarization.com

Are you using triplet mount method? How did it work for you?