Please do post pics. "Picture are worth a 1000 words" or maybe that should be changed to "Pictures are worth a 1000 threads"

Mineral Spirits (a Green E) work. They take a significant amount of time, but they work. After 23 hours of soaking the anti-glare peeled off like tape. Transmittance seems the same. The waves are still there. Same with the grooves in between the rear TAC and the PVA. So I can draw some preliminary conclusions:

a. If we can be confident that mineral spirits really are harmless to the PVA, iodine, and other dies, then surely there must be a separate adhesive used to bond the anti-glare TAC and the rear structural/protective TAC in place (as opposed to using the adhesive properties of the PVA itself).

b. The surface of the PVA is naturally wavy. That is, it has long linear waves across the polarization axis. Very tiny, very smooth.

c. Normally the adhesive fills these waves.

d. The bright lines I am seeing when held perpendicular to light are internal reflections off the waves up against the rear TAC. The glue is now gone, and the mineral spirits that has displaced the glue does not have as similar a refractive index.

e. If one could only allow the mineral spirits to soak through the top of the polarizer, and thus not effect the rear TAC bond (as Elken and SIMUL8TOR have) then the rear wave gap problem could be avoided. I have yet to see if mineral spirits will permeate the anti-glare TAC, or if it enters at the edges. I am fairly confident it is permeating.


I tried metal polish. Awesome results. Very easy to use. The problem remains that the cut is just not quite fine enough to achieve a true mirror finish, and there is a natural waviness to the finish (however, not unlike the waviness of the exposed PVA). The finish is a mirror, but color and detail and brightness are all compromised. I am extremely confident we can refine this technique to a near mirror finish. We should try the wax idea as well. I can't wait to hear how 12000 Micro-mesh goes. I will see about getting some motorbike windscreen compound form Lordco. This method simply cannot go ignored.I would argue that they jumped to that conclusion based on the seeing the polarizer stuck to something, and not stuck to something. They probably forgot that you said you would be sticking it to something.

edit I would think we should not go with adhesive polarizers, due to alignment issues, and the fact that you only get one shot at no bubbles. We'll just have to take the reflection hit.

Mark.

I should add that I am not using scrapers (SHUDDER) for my peeling tests. You can literally get a corner to come up, and then peel the anti-glare off in one big sheet. The residue (not even visible) cleans up with water.

Mark.

yes, i wouldn´t go for adhesive polarizers either, but because of its worse performances more than any other thing. About the polarizers back to back but no glued to anithing... or the polarizers glued to 2 glasses but facing outside... don´t know. I would say independently if the polarizer is glued or not, just because of the fact that the glue is facing outside, it should work better. I would say 3Dlens understood right my question. The picture i posted was sent to them as well showing the two glasses and the gap...

This is very interesting. I hope what you mean to write this: (or a lot of the theory is shot):

4. Laser -> Cellophane -> Polarizer -> Analyzer -> Cellophane -> Wall

What I am asking is, were you ever able to get a better or equal result by not having cellophane on the anti-glare? If so, do you have a shiny rear polarizer? Or have you chosen to call the monitor-analyzer the projection-polarizer because it is the first in the light path?

Mark.

3M makes some really good automotive polishes. That is what we used when polishing cars. Some of the ones we used to get a mirror finish we buffed with a foam pad that was wet. This way it wouldn't leave any marks. We would do this in stages.

Color sand using very fine grit.
Buff using 3M rubbing compound. Very gritty
Buff using 3M finesseit. This got rid of the compound swirls.
Then buffed using the foam pad with another 3M prouduct. Can't remember name of it though.

why bother buffing when you can just remove it with stripper? or just pull the entire polarizer off and replace it?

I dont see as how pressing down on thin glass sheets (while buffing) with silicone edge sealent is any less of a risk to be honest.

You might be able to buff it by hand. I don't know for sure. I was just offering up another avenue of products because mark was talking about polishes. But I agree with you about buffing with any type of machine.

...Because there is no question the stripping technique is far more invasive. First off, it involves a solvent. Second off, for now it requires scrapping the PVA (ahhh). People have had good luck with the scrapers so far, but someone is going to have a screw up along the line. When you scratch the PVA, you don't just get a bit of diffusion, you get full on 85%+- lamp brightness at the scratch. And in the end, you have not only removed the anti-glare but also the TAC that was meant to protect the PVA from damage. The other thing is that while the surface of the TAC can be theoretically shaped in any way desired. The surface of the PVA cannot. It is a naturally wavy surface.You need to buy a polarizer. Let's assume you have an LG panel. If everyones polarizer specs are to be trusted, then we have yet to find a polarizer supplier that matches LG's in house polarizers. Achieving factory equivalent alignment is doable, but just another step. Any dust that gets between the panel and the polarizer will glow. And framing another layer may not be in everyones interest. You also need to replace with the right oriented polarizer.I buffed by hand. Very little pressure. No more than I would have applied with a scraper. At no point did I feel my test panel was in any danger. I didn't even set it on a flat surface. Just worked on it while it sat on a pillow. Removing the polarizer altogether applies a lot more pressure, and it is doable.

Lastly, all the panels we have seen so far have the anti-glare glued to the PVA. This may not always be the case.

Someone could finish the polishing job very quickly, and will have put their PVA at zero risk of damage. It gives them options. In the future they could remove the anti-glare. It is just ridiculously easy compared to these solvents I have been working with. And now that the surface is polished down, the solvents will act quicker.

edit: and I forgot the big one right now: your PVA will always be impregnated with your solvent of choice. We don't know what the long term effects of this will be.

Mark.

It's that last product that I think would do the trick. Brass polish is probably more abrasive than a finishing compound. Although, is it possible that the last product you used was a filler type polish? Like a wax? The problem is that others have tried plastic polish with the same end result as I am seeing here. I am out of baking soda, but have heard it is a very fine abrasive on it's own. I found a huge industrial polisher on google (lost the link) that uses baking soda as its compound .

I like the sponge idea. I am using fleece right now. I've heard that soft flannel is the best.

Mark.

Let me try and find the product and I will post. It worked well. It made the paint look like glass.

Sweet .

Mark.

Here is the thing. The polish I just used actually looks the same (even a bit better) than the stripped side of this panel:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=95339

The difference between my polished section and a piece of tape is unnoticeable, and I don't think the difference between it and one of my peeled anti-glare samples would even photograph.

It just doesn't quite look like a piece of glass (I am a perfectionist). That is how close I am with this polishing.

Mark.

Please do tell more.

The color sanding using very fine grit doesn't work.

I used 2000 grit and the antiglare layer is just to thin. I sanded VERY lightly and still went through to the polar bear and once it's scratched as Mark said it's ruined.

Please project an image and test.


If people screwing up a fairly solid and proven method (stripping/removal) strengthens an arguement in which abrasives are used, consider me in disagreement.

Here is a similar pad that we used. The description says the pad is used with the Finesseit product. You could try using the Finesseit which cuts a little bit then use the hand glaze to finish it off.


3M Polishing Pads

Here is a similar hand glaze that we used. You can apply it by hand. We would actually use a buffer with the foam pad wet and buff at low speeds.

3M Finesse It

3M hand glaze

Mark have you been following any of the reflector, stuff by luckyme,,

it would seem he has solved the dark zone issue,, and he put up some test shoot, std setup and then new reflector,,, with different cam settings,,. looks like quite a bit of light gain..

be interesting to combine that with an enhanced LCD,,

Wasn't for sure how thick it was. 3M makes some small polishing pads that work with hand held power tools. You might be able to use that to polish with at low speeds so that it doesn't heat up too much.

2000 grit is too course. The anti-glare is about as thick as a sheet of paper. Even a bit thinner. Hand polishing works good enough. It's better to take the hit on consistency, then to risk polishing right through if you ask me.

Elken: it'll be neat to see how all these ideas stack together .Again Mike, no argument. I don't often post opinion. I post pros and I post cons. I am attempting to lay out the full picture. I feel it is fairly inarguable that using a polish on the PVA protective TAC cover is less risky than applying a scraper and paint stripper to the PVA itself. The reasons are inherent. I wouldn't say that either method is well established. I have said earlier that it is my goal to establish the effectiveness of every method. Danger to the PVA is not the only con I presented. If you think that the danger of damaging the PVA is not a good con against the strip method, fair enough. But consider me in disagreement . Polishing was a gong show.

If I had a projector or a digital camera my contributions here would be a lot different. You just have to take my word for it. I have a very shiny surface here. Just not shiny enough to satisfy me. I'm liking the looks of that Finesse-it. Thanks brianabs.

Mark.

That was a big typo! Thank you for catching it

Should say

4. Laser -> Cellophane -> ANALYZER -> polarizer -> wall

I will edit the original post.

PS: My IBM monitor is the same as most regular LCD's; shiny polarizer, rough analyzer.

I agree with the current state of thought which is that it is better to polish the surface rather than remove the A/G with a chemical strip. I read an interesting paper which can be found here:

http://www.nitto.com/rd/technical/2002_1/p...tagawae.qxd.pdf

An interesting excerpt regarding the structure of the A/G layer is attached:

Click to view attachment

Note that I suspect that these "balls" are 3um glass (SiO2) spheres. This should give us some indictation as to what "grit" polishes we should be using. We will have about 3um of undulation. I was doing some research of cerium oxide. It is used as a polishing agent for glass; if my hunch about the A/G being silicon micro-spheres suspended in a film, this might be a good polish to try.

Being slightly off topic,, but direstly connected to issues..

I have found that the smarts chips in my BENQ, is the same chip used to drive 1280 x 1024 BENQ PJ,s

now,, I am off on a new course,,

Further enhancements,,, hehehehehhe

to get spec sheet on this chip (BQ6100 senseye). if anyone else can find this info,, twould be good,, i have sent a request to BENQ, but heheheh doubt they will come up with goodies.. but we will see.

reason they often have a hardware image reversal feature.. can often be one pin,, turn it on or off,, logic wise,, high or low state,,

I have found it with some others, when repairing LCD monitors,,

Clive......

this also often the case for most brands,, one chip covers all,, just not all signals used..

List the number found on top of the chip, i will help you in searching. Unless all you can find is BQ6100 Senseye

Does anyone with a digital camera and a test panel have any brass/metal polish? It would be really cool if you could give that a try on a small area, and if it turns out the way I am saying take a picture.

The way to polish is apparently like so:

Use some soft flannel as your cloth, or one of the polishing sponges mentioned by brianabs. I used fleece, but I don't think it is the best. You start with fairly firm pressure side to side. Then flip to 90 degrees. Flip like this until you have removed most of the anti-glare texture.

Then firm pressure in circles for a bit. This is to remove the remaining anti-glare texture and the cut lines from going back and forth.

I repeated this step a few times with a new section of fleece.

Now go over for a while in circular motions with medium pressure and then for longer with light pressure. This is supposed to feather out most of the circular cuts.

Now, apparently if you let what is left of the compound to dry on the surface, and then buff that with firm side to side motions, you can get a finished sheen. Personally, I am thinking it would be better that we just find a finer compound.

You will be left with a surface having some waves. These are the same waves you can see on the surface of the packing tape if you stick it down really good. I believe they are caused by the adhesives being uneven.

It will be a highly reflective surface. I can read this text off my screen in the reflection from across the room. The only hard part is the text is mirrored. But I think you will agree, that metal polish does not have quite a fine enough cut to give you the luster of the other side of the panel. The anti-glare texture seems to be gone. What we need is something that will give us that luster.

I am using PEEK. Again, I don't recommend this polish on a real panel yet, as it has a solvent.

Mark.

I tried Brasso and it didn't work very well at all. Didn't polish up nearly as good as Mothers Mag. It looked about as good as regular car polish. In other words not good at all.

I was only offering an alternative explanation you could very well be correct

DJ

Mark: Cerium Oxide has 3um spheres. This is EXACTLY the size we need with NO solvents whatsoever. It is actually used to polish glass. I am going to see if I can get some at a local craft store and give it a go. Another thought is perhaps a coat of carnuba wax with a light buffing will bring even more sheen to the surface ... I have a camera so I will oblige with pics of the test panel when I get results.

Today I tried Bon Ami (feldspar particles) and toothpase. Bon ami did somewhat level the A/G but left deep streaks due to the non-uniform particles. Toothpaste (pepsodent) in my case did squat. I tested those two on the diffuser sheet, not the actual panel. Whatever I use, I'm going to see if it passes on the diffuser sheet first, then give the panel a go.

I think that polishing is going to be the non-invasive method of choice here if we can find an appropriate polish. It looks like mineral spirits were successful for you in delamination so I am going to hold off on testing Xylene. I am guessing that
most solvent based methods will probably strip the TAC from the polarizer anyhow and this is less than optimal.

Mark

Astronomy suppliers carry allsorts of grades of oxides

for grinding parabolic mirrors,, best place for that....

forgot about that , should have remembered from my days of making mirrors,,, DOH !!!!!

I have a bottle 3M Finesse-it 2 laying around. If I wanted to try it out I could just try it on the frosted side of the lcd diffuser sheet?

Sorry to interrogate, but would you say that it removed the anti-glare texture, and the problem is the cut lines? Or is it just not very effective at cutting?

Same questions for Mother's. In the end, could you make out any anti-glare texture (I used a magnifying glass to be sure but I can make the texture out with my eyes). Was mothers just too slow at cutting so it really just shined the texture? Or did it leave too large of cuts but did remove the texture?

I guess I'm just asking for an elaboration. The improvement with PEEK is nearly immediate, and very satisfying.

Mark.

That's the stuff I'm talking about - Cerium Oxide - used to polish parabolic telescope mirrors ...

With the Brasso it didn't polish the antiglare in fact it looked more like it was eating through it slightly. It left it very hazy and streaked.

With the Mothers Mag Polish it didn't look like it was cutting it much but it was polishing and shining it VERY quickly. But yes it di leave a lot of texture it didn't remove the texture.

I hate to say it, but it's night here now, and I can see what I am dealing with much better. It turns out the reason this surface does not appear as shiny as the other side is still because the PEEK is not cutting enough. There is still a slight rippling to the surface. Similar to the threshold I mentioned with toothpaste, but the threshold has moved to be much smoother than before. The fact that the so called threshold has moved would indicate to me we can take it even further. I think what is happening is the valleys are being worn down as well as the peaks, so flatness would not be achieved with this thin a material. I think the solution, as Sonic has said, is to match the first abrasive to the size of the peaks.

It is my bet that again, PEEK is just too weak an abrasive, and I need something that will take out the anti glare to flat, and then use something that will give a smooth finish. Bear in mind, the finish I have here is smooth enough to fool me throughout the day.Nice lead. I'm also thinking the optometrist may have something.Awesome. I checked at my craft store Micheals for glass polish, but they didn't have any.It is just a theory right now that the results will be similar. Nothing will beat an actual test panel (but not your real one).

Hopefully I haven't lost you guys with this discovery. I still think the finish I have here would surprise you, and is very promising (if not good enough).

I wish you guys could see what it is that I am trying to improve upon.

Mark.

Did PEEK work better than Mothers Mag Polish?

And where did you get it from ?

Click to view attachmentfound this at walmart its a laminating machine refill 9" wide 20' long same as packing tape $13 only problem is getting it on and getting out the air bubbles.
for anyone that wants to give it a try

I tried the paint stripper tonight on my 7" junk lcd panel I used the thiner stuff.The kind that can be sprayed on, its actualy not that thin. I sanded the panel lightly then I taped around the edges with aluminum tape.I then poured enough on to cover the whole panel let it sit for 45 min and I was able to wipe most of the anti glare off with a rubber squeegee.
I have a 14" panel from a laptop I may practice on tomorrow before I do my 8" hami projector.
the thiner stuff seems to work quicker I let it sit 45 min but it may have been ready sooner...
Peter

Count me in as a stripper proponent. After reading these threads it seems like both methods work to varying degrees, however there is no question that the stripper method will completely remove the a/g. Until there is evidence that it adversely affects the polarizer underneath (not counting ammonia or acetone) I think that it is a good solution. I think there was even some evidence that mineral spirits were effective (by Mark, if I'm not mistaken).

By the way, what all this says to me is simply that the a/g is a paint or inklike substance that is painted (or dipped) onto the panel. Makes sense that a paint remover would work.

I liked being able to use the rubber squeegee the plastic scraper seemed a little harsh

After reading this: http://www.sisweb.com/ms/sis-serv/micromes.htm

I can't wait to try micro mesh on my old monitor. I will need to figure out which sheet to start with.

http://pages.restorersupplies.com/5943/Inv.../1316051/1.html

On this page you can purchase anti static cream to avoid static build up while polishing. They also explain micromesh very well. And you can purchase individual sheets from some sites for around $2.50 a sheet.

The anti static cream also repels dust.... which would be helpful.

I have never tried Mother's, but I know SIMUL8TOR gave it a good shot in this post (second photo down). And like I say, the finish I have looks the same as the stripped side. I really was surprised to see there was still a bit of rippling left. But it does explain why the reflection is not as strong as the other side of the panel.

http://www.peekpolish.com/

It's a Canadian company. I think I got PEEK at Canadian Tire . But here is the distributer contact:

http://www.peekpolish.com/index-distib.html

The disclaimer here is that they do not list their ingredients.

The point is that if the first product I find under my sink can make this big of an impact, then buffing is worth investigating. Like I say, I am a perfectionist. I am not going to develop a shotty technique with shotty results. Not likely even one with slightly compromised results. I'm thinking at the very most micro mesh will do it. I had already hung up my buffing hat, and this product has me excited about it again.

I am simultaneously trying to figure out how to adapt SIMUL8TOR and Elken's technique to Mineral spirits.

I just soaked an exposed section of PVA on it's TAC backing (15 hours). It seems the PVA is now separating from the rear TAC. The polarizer efficiency seems to be unaffected still. I would say this is descent (not absolute) confirmation that a separate glue is used for both sides of the PVA, and the PVA itself is not simply breaking down at the surface. This is very good. Would indicate a bit more definitively that as long as a PVA safe chemical can be allowed to permeate only through the front TAC that the overall polarizer structure will be unaffected by a removal of the anti-glare. But I maintain that a peeling VS scraping duration needs to be figured.

QUESTION: Does the anti-glare TAC turn into some kind of goopy mess with stripper? I am just a bit confused as to why the scraper is needed. All of my tests have ended in me peeling off the anti-glare in one continuous (strong) sheet. This stuff won't even tear.

I'm thinking if that is the work of the stripper then for sure mineral spirits or other green E should be used. They should be used anyway. I don't think we want anything that could compromise the rear TAC or PVA.

The process I am thinking right now is to:

This is just a preliminary theory of how to adapt mineral spirits to the stripping technique.

1. Rough up the surface of the anti-glare with wet 2500 grit (soak the paper in distilled water for 10 minutes). Don't go too deep. Deep enough that the anti-glare texture has largely disappeared. The anti-glare is not even as thick as a sheet of paper.

2. Clean the surface with distilled water.

3. Tape off the edges just inside of the actual edge. Leave maybe a 2mm gap for the tape to grab on to. The tape must remain perfectly sealed under pressure and time so the proper tape will need to be found.

4. Tape a plastic skirt to the tape to keep all the surrounding free of solvent.

5. Clean again with distilled water. And let dry.

5. Dip an ultra absorbent towel in mineral spirits. You do not want any solvent to be dripping out of the towel.

6. Lay the towel over the panel.

7. Cover the towel in clear plastic and tape around the edges.

8. Wait 5? hours for the mineral spirits to permeate the anti-glare TAC. And also to spread out the 2mm to the edges. We don't want to wait so long that the Mineral spirits permeate through the PVA and compromise the rear bond.

9. Remove the clear plastic cover and towel.

10. Starting at a corner, pry up the anti-glare with a razor. It should just flip up as you drag the edge of the blade along the corner. The anti-glare is about the thickness of a sheet of paper. If it does not pry up, or becomes difficult beyond a point, it needs to be soaked for longer. Re-soak. Otherwise peel the anti-glare off by folding it over itself and pulling parallel to the panel surface towards the opposite corner. If it ever becomes difficult, re-soak. Pulling too hard will likely separate the PVA.

11. Clean up any residue and Mineral Spirits with a flannel cloth and some distilled water.

12. Let air dry. Then remove the tape and skirt.

I saw a car headlamp buffing kit today. Comes with 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 grit wet sand paper and a bottle of plastic restoration polish. The polish are some particles in a petroleum distillate liquid. The guy at the desk said it gave a true mirror finish. Just nice to know the range of papers used for that job.

Mark.

My concern would be chemically weakening the PVA. By using a chemical strip, we may also be removing the protective TAC layer over the polarizer itself. If there is chemical breakdown of the PVA, the damage may be accelerated after exposure to heat and UV over time. Unfortunately, only an extended testing will tell.

But, on the bright side, we know that we can always stip the glass substrate down and completely replace the polarizers in case of extreme damage. SO - it may well be worth a calculated risk. I'm gonna hold out for a polish method - I think we're very close.

Try 8000-10000 grit. This should be in the range of 3 micrometer abrasive particles. Better yet, do it in 3 passes: 8000, 10000, 12000 - should be a glass finish.

Or, as an alternative, a good 'ol pumice slurry, followed by a rottenstone slurry applied with a felt pad. It's what piano makers use to give nitro cellulose finishes that deep mirrored look.

I am not familiar with micro-mesh, but I would think we want a slightly spongy surface (as opposed to a sheet of sandpaper), to conform to the suface indentations of the A/G layer.

The problem with the process for stripping the anti-glare in my last post is working right to the edges without spilling over. The stripper is a paste, and thus does not flow like mineral spirits. I don't think that tape idea is going to work. You will surely need to have more than 2mm of adhesive to hold up. And panels usually have at most one side that can actually take overhanging tape without it sticking to the FFC's or something. It may be better to adapt a Mineral Spirit Paste that could be applied to the anti-glare just as the stripper. The problem will be keeping the paste wet for 5+ hours, and finding a suitable mixture. It would be bad if this stuff got anywhere other than the front surface of the anti-glare. It is also possible that the mineral spirits will traverse across a larger gap than 2mm in a short amount of time. That would be good.

What would be really good is if I had a box of micro-mesh .

Mark.

Just in case there is any confusion, there are 2 ways to go about completely removing the anti-glare TAC.

a. Dissolve the adhesive that I believe we now know exists between the anti-glare and the PVA. This chemical must not affect PVA or TAC, but should dissolve the adhesive.

b. Dissolve the anti-glare TAC, but not the rear TAC. The chemical chosen here must not affect PVA, but should affect TAC, and ideally also the adhesive such that it does not need to be cleaned up separately.

The current method seems to be b. It is quite remarkable that all of the stripper's ingredients seem to be relatively mild to PVA while they basically liquify TAC. The mineral spirits meet the demands of a.

It would be nice to know which specific stripper ingredient ( http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=95614 ) is attacking the TAC (Triacetyl Cellulose).

Mark.

Update:



3dlens:

Your order have been sent by registered postal air mail today.

Important: If package is unclaimed and returned to us, we will just refund you
product cost, not include shipping charge

Thank you
http://www.3Dlens.com





May be here by friday, who knows.





Polarization.com guys:

As a favor we could perhaps cut "double samples" (e.g., 10 x 12), but you
would have to make sure the orientation is adequate for your purposes. If
you are replacing front and back polarizers this will only help if they are
in a parallel (as opposed to crossed) setup. Furthermore, many LCDs use
polarizers at 45 degrees.
George




Landed a good deal on a c02 tank and regulator/tap for a keg project to keep me busy until then *hicup* .

The only issue I have is with the long term effect of the strippers. What will the chemicals do to the PVA over time?

A little confused here. Yesterday I made a trip up to Pep Boyz and picked up a bottle of Mothers Plastic Polish. Took it home, read the directions, and began the polishing job. Spent about an hour applying the stuff and walked away baffled. The stuff had absolutely no effect whatsoever! It neither shined the panel nor increased its transmittancy. No visible improvement on the lcd or resulting projection.

I compared the polished surface to a layer of tape. With the tape you can put your hand behind the lcd and see a clear image of it, rather then a fuzzy outline. With the polish there is no differance at all.

I don't get it. Did I buy the right stuff? Mothers Plastic Polish? Maybe it doesn't work on the 512N for whatever reason, but tape still works.

Really really confused here.

Mothers MAG and aluminum polish...but I'd hold off for a couple of days...some better ones on the horizon..