mikeyd beat me to it.

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.

[/quote]

Sonic,
I thought you had stripped the ag on your panel?Im almost sure I saw pictures you posted yesterday on it I havent been able to find the post...just wondering about it.

If it was posted yesterday it could be 20 pages back.

Gentlemen,

I have been reading and following this thread from the begining.
sadly because I don't have a PJ yet I haven't been able to contribute, but now think I can.

A good friend of mine is a manufacturer's rep in the Photographic industry.
I am thinking he might be a source for sheet polarizers if the current source
doesn't turn out well.

Let me know if the polarizers you get aren't acceptable and I can do some research.


Fastscirocco

Will do and welcome to the thread fastscirocco!

Nope, I've got an IBM thinkpad laptop screen I'm experimenting with tho. The pics on my PLOG are with a thick layer of A/G in its full glory . I'm happy with the results for now, but I'm hoping to be completely blown away after the mod ...
I know there are a few more who have stripped their panels now, but Elken2004 and Simul8r were the first. Simul8r posted the 1/2-A/G 1/2-no-A/G comparison screenpics.



Seems to be true of both this thread and my PLOG. Somehow, I always seem to post in flurries

GAAAHHH! .

If any one has any doubt as to why I continue looking for other solutions once one thing that works is found, I think I have a good answer for you:

Water Works. It is hands down the best solvent I have tried yet.

I read that PVA is permeable and almost a sponge to water. Not only that, water increases it's tear and elongation strength. So I figured, if that stuff expands at all, or if it's properties change this much when you soak it in water, it could break free. Further, we still haven't confirmed if the glue is water soluble.

Long story short, the best solvent I have found so far is Dihydrogen Oxide. H2O. Water. Sweet!.

Soaked for 12 hours, the anti-glare came off ten times easier than with mineral spirits. It just feathered off.

The rear glue seems to be compromised as well. This glue could very well be water soluble .

Mark.

you mean we should introduce our lcd into a water filled container?

Sounds counterintuitive, doesnt it?
But still, you cant argue with the results...."It just feathered off"

I have an aging piece of paper tacked to my office wall, all it says is:
"It's probably something simple..."

Excellent job Mark!

Did you notice any problems with FCC connections or the like? I would be worried about corrosion. Did you use distilled water?

Better yet, does it still work?

BOOYAH! Okay. That actually may not be the best. And FWIW distilled water is what you want if you do something like that IMO. The trick is, we still need to only break down the top layer of glue.

Before we can establish a technique there, we need to know for sure whether the water has permeated through the TAC, or worked it's way into the PVA and adhesive from the edges.

a. If the water has permeated the TAC, then dunking the whole thing sounds okay to me. Knowone has confirmed how water-proof these things are, though. If there is a hole in your substrate seal, for instance, than the crystals could displace by osmosis.

Probably the best way is to keep it controlled with the soaked towel technique I mentioned for Mineral Spirits.

b. If the water has permeated at the edges, and TAC is impermeable to water, then dunking will be the only option. Of course, the problem will still remain that we need the anti-glare TAC to separate first. Would be a mess if it didn't. That said, I probably just soaked this piece both the back front and edges immersed in water for way too long, and the PVA seems well bonded to the rear TAC still.

So let's hope that TAC is permeable to distilled water. .This was just a rectangle of fully removed and cleaned up polarizer laminate soaked in water overnight. I have a test panel here, but it never did turn on (FFC's are sliced). I would like to dunk it and see what happens, but this is my only test panel.

edit I did not use distilled water with these tests.

Mark.

ok, so today's word is DUNK = introduce something into water filled container

Now that sounds like a WORST solution than using stripper. The general concern with strippers is that they affect the PVA. The experience is that they affect the a/g with minimal affects on the PVA.

Going the water route is doing just the opposite. Basically you are swelling the PVA and physically breaking the a/g bond layer. I don't know what this does to the polarization dyes, but it can't be beneficial.

Then you have to dry the PVA layer and hope that nothing else (i.e. the polarization dyes) come unloose.

A solvent is a solvent. If water acts as a solvent to PVA then it can be far worst than...let's say... mineral spirits, if the mineral spirits are relatviely inert to PVA.

So I did get the wrong stuff? You said mothers MAG polish "and" alluminum polish. Do you mean magic polish OR alluminum polish? Or do you need both?

It's ONE polish called "Mothers Mag and Aluminum Polish"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MOTHERS-MAG...sspagenameZWDVW

Ok thanks. Man I'm an idiot...

Okay, after searching 1/2 the day, I finally found some GOOD stuff - pumice and rottenstone. About $2.50 per pound of each. The pumice is slightly coarser than the rottenstone. I'd say the pumice is like talc, and the rottenstone like corn starch. I am quite confident these will work because I am able to give a nitro-cellulose lacquer coat an absolute MIRROR surface by hand rubbing with these. The only downside is that it will be labor intensive. I'll give it a go tonight on the diffuser sheets - pics to come.

Mark: the problem with almost all the solvent approaches is that we cannot control where the solvent goes. We do not want to compromise the bonding of the intermediary TAC and glue layers.

I was also looking at some spray on acrylic clear-coat solutions. Now, amazingly, even though acetone is not great for PVA (assuming a dunking in it), it seems to be a component in many acrylic sprays and clear coats - possibly because it evaporates so quickly. Maybe elken's approach was right all along because he didn't expose the PVA for long enough to damage anything but the top skin??

Greetings guys from Las Vegas, been trying to keep up with you all and it looks like your all hard at work, great job. Hope to return and find 10 pages of new info to read. Have to pay for internet use here so difficult to sit and read for very long time without watching time limits.

sim

. Now that's a tough crowd. .It was also last month's word. Only in that case it defined placing a panel into a projector. (Copyright 2005 the Elken dictionary).Could be. However, I think you may be confusing a chemical change with a physical one. It is not reacting with the PVA. There is no chemical change taking place, only physical. It is the same change as one would expect from changes in humidity, because that's what it is. The change is very small, and for that matter, reverses as soon as the water is able to escape the PVA. This takes a few minutes of basic evaporation. Further, it is a temporarily beneficial change, as the PVA will have gained strength for the anti-glare separation. Iodine (The die used) is only slightly water soluble, and is thoroughly embedded in the PVA through it's complete cross sectional depth. The odds of iodine escaping seems slim to me, and it hasn't in my test. There is zero chance that the iodine will reorient as it rests within the grain of the PVA, which I don't feel would be affected with moisture.

By all basic accounts, transmittance has been sustained.

PVA could just as easily be permeable to the stripper, and other solvents I have tested.

Water does not chemically degrade TAC or PVA at all. Stripper does. Stripper chemically degrades TAC and PVA.

This is the most perfect section of exposed PVA I think possible. It seemed easier to seperate than with a longer soak with Mineral Spirits, and is more likely to be a FFC, silicone/acrylic, and electronics safe solvent.

As with mineral spirits, there are no scrapers or cleanup required. The thing comes up in one continuous sheet.

It is very likely this has solved every worry I had. I should bottle this stuff and sell it. How does evian sound. That seems like a memorable product name.

It has not been established yet whether these glues are in fact water soluble or if the TAC is releasing due to the expansion of the PVA (sheer strees).I'm working on it. FWIW, I would say there has been zero damage to the PVA, or it's rear bond with complete emmersion for many hours. My concentrated application is likely going to be overkill.

The main problem I see with water removal is that the PVA is exposed to the elements, and no longer has the front supportive layer. The PVA layer is like a sheet of rice paper in thickness. It is not a very flexible material, so cracks fairly easily.I am not sure what you are saying. What is the top skin? Do you mean Elken's clear coat approach? His anti-glare removal is definitely right. He's been watching movies for a week now . It just doesn't seem confidently replicable, and cannot be done safely with the polarizer stuck to the panel.

Hopefully those compounds will be abrasive enough. I had no trouble obtaining a mirror surface, just not a mirror finish because of the orange peel that remained.

SIM: Las Vegas? Sweet. Yeah, I'm at my house still. You know. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Mark.

My initial findings are showing that TAC and PVA are permeable to water and other solvents.

I placed a 2" x 2" section of polarizer laminate on a peice of paper towel. I then folded a second peice of paper towel up inot a square slightly smaller than the square. I soaked this in water and place it on top.

After 3 hours, the bottom paper seems to be wet, and the water has permeated into the polarizer. You can tell it has permeated because (as with all solvents) the PVA grain becomes visible.

I am going to repeat the experiment with a drop of water in the center of the square and see how far the grain spreads.

It is very important that the anti-glare be given significant time to seperate with a solvent (you want all the glue to be dissolved).

I will soak an exposed section of PVA in water as I have with the other solvents.

Mark.

Hi mark,,

I have been reading everyday,, but work has taken over,,,

I have another panel here,,, I'll try your "dunk" method..

mind you there has to be caution,, as the ffc's are also often adhered to panel edges too..

I wonder if very light scarring by sanding would assist the water method?


ummmm been watching HDTV for two weeks now,, PJ has not been touched since last config... so far all is well with "polar bear"
seems quite stable... hoping soonsomeone gets new "polars" and reports results,,, and did you catch that,, BenQ is 45 degrees?

clive..

I see you've got a Samsung tree too.Exactly. We need to find out what kind of FFC adhesive is used. I have a hard time believing it will be water based. We still don't know if it is the physical change, or if there is a water based adhesive between the PVA and TAC.I imagine it would, but my initial findings have been that water permeates really quickly. I think somewhere around a 5 hour soak is probably going to be good enough. It seems the water permeates the anti-glare TAC within an hour. It would be best for demonstration purposes if you don't rough it up.

You wouldn't happen to have any distilled water?

Dunking the panel will allow water to permeate at the edges.

Just make sure the anti glare is very easy to pull up. It should not be hard at all. You just flip a corner up with your fingernail (sometimes it starts itself) or blade and then peel it off. Any resistance and it needs to soak longer.

My water droplet has not permeated the anti-glare TAC yet. Frustrating. I hope my first experiment didn't get pooched somehow. I am going to try a few more tests.

Thanks for your help .

Mark.

Elken: So that I am not alone on this one, can you look at one of your treated polarizers and see the grain? If you hold the polarizer at an angle to a light source then it glows as streaks. It is these that I am trying to figure out a way of avoiding. It is possible that they will go away after the water evaporates. However, I still believe they may be voids in the PVA waves between the rear TAC and the PVA where the glue used to be.

I keep talking about them, but I don't think anyone knows what I am talking about . I wish I had a digital camera.

edit of course, it is also possible these are stress cracks from peeling up the polarizer.

Mark.

Okay test results. Pummice and rottenstone were tried on a diffuser sheet.

Short version - it doesn't work.

Long version - The pumice (FFF grade) cuts the antiglare flat no problem. However, the A/G layer is VERY thin and it is almost impossible not to cut through it. Underneath, is a softer material that abrades very easily and turns diffusive as it does. What you end up with is a "fringe effect" around the worked area. On the edges, it looks GREAT - but where the finish cuts through, the TAC becomes almost opaque.

Some pics showing the fringe effect:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

As you can see, the central area is very flat, but also turns milky. The fringes are perfect, but it is very difficult not to cut through the A/G. I am guessing the thickeness is on the order of 6 microns or so.

Here is a transmissive pic.

The top pic is a bulb is through the untouched a/g layer. A blur.

The middle pic is throught the fringe area - quite clear (notice the detail in the lamp fixture)

The last pic is the central area where the a/g was abraded through. Still An improvement over the untouched area, but not as good as the fringes.

Click to view attachment

I am thinking that any appoach to abrade away the a/g layer might end similarly unless we are able to "build-up" the layer a bit by putting some high-profile clear-coat and then polishing that to flatness...

Well I got that Mothers Mag and Alluminum Polish. I polished for a while, applying several coats and cleaning. Unlike the plastic polish, this seemed to make some improvement but it was pretty minuscule. It made objects on the other side of the lcd a bit less fuzzy but only a bit. It simpy doesn't come close to what I get with tape. With tape it becomes smooth and seethrough and doesn't get worse with distance, unlike the polish.

(sigh)

I tried the mothers mag polish using my dremel tool on a lower setting with a felt wheel and I was able to get it as good as tape after polishing 3 or 4 times its not as good as stripping the ag but close.you want to keep the dremel moving and not hold it in one place or the ag will heat up.
I did this on my test panel I have not tried it on my hami....yet
peter

I don't have one of those. Boy ripping off my antiglare is begining to sound very appealing. Applying liquids and polishes to the lcd is extremely stressfull. Simply peeling the antiglare off sounds like a piece of cake. It worries me so much when I begin polishing close to the edges of the panel.

I just ran off and used the tried and true PEEK polish on my diffuser sheet (the really rough one). I see what you are saying. Starts out good, then you hit a threshold and it goes cloudy. So I tried the other type of diffuser sheet, the one that is less diffusing, and that appears more like the anti-glare of the monitor. It now looks like a sheet of cellophane. My appologies for not testing the diffuser sheets earlier. And hey, if that product did the same thing as PEEK, it may be the ticket.

Mark.

For sure Mother's mag is not the way to go now. It is just not abrasive enough. PEEK polish is very close. BY HAND I was able to polish out 1/8 of my panel to a mirror finish in around 5 minutes. I imagine if you were timing me I could have done the whole panel in 10. There was never any serious pressure or power tools needed. There was just nothing to worry about. The second thing is that it is a foam. Very easy to control. None fell off the edge of the panel.

The finish is so good, that I was fooled for the better part of a day into thinking I had completely removed the anti-glare. Later, it became apparent that the slight lack of complete luster (compared to the back side of the panel) was due to a very slight orange peel rippling (you basically need a magnifier to see). I don't think I could photograph the ripples or difference in sheen even if I had a digital camera. I have deduced that the rippling remains because the compound was not course enough, so the valleys got cut down at the same time as the peaks. I figure the 2 solutions for this are to use a coarser compound, or better yet, a firm backed micro-mesh treatment. If the backing is firm, then you know the grit will only cut the peaks. Even 2000 grit sandpaper is too coarse for this purpose by my findings. If you get carried away with even 2000 grit, you cut right through to the PVA. I have not tried 2500 grit, but I imagine the same.

Mark.

http://gallery.bcentral.com/ProductDetails...amp;PID=1498872

I guess you can definately get it in the States. Again, it contains a cleaner so I don't recommend it, but it would be nice if people could see what I am trying to beat. It's ridiculous (I am not suggesting you buy from that link, just proof that it must be readily available down there).

Mikau: It scares me too that you are using any kind of polish on your actual panel. Polishing is the least refined of all our techniques. Even PEEK has its unknowns. This is a research log, not instructions. I would imagine all of this will make a lot more sense, and be a lot more refined in a couple days.

Mark.

If you are taking a dremel and felt wheel to your LCD you really should just remove the layer. Any tool with such a little impact cone as a dremel is asking for non-uniform polishing. Im hoping one of these polarizers i ordered makes it here by friday then i can bury the hatchet once and for all.

Like this?
Click to view attachment

Smoothing the Anti-Glare on an LCD Panel

I have NOT been following this thread, I guess I am finally at a point where I can stop and look to see what is happening elsewhere. Anyways, I don't know if this would be viable, but what if.. what if a person was to do this:

1.) Lay the LCD Anti-Glare up, so that it is perfectly level

2.) Build a dam around the edges with masking tape

3.) Take a self-leveling, high-gloss, thin, clear, self-curing fluid and pour over top (Clear coat paint, Clear Nail Polish, etc.)

Why don't some of you try that? At least someone with a messed up panel from other failed experiments?

clear nail polish was one of the worst substances i ever applied ot my LCD antiglare layer. Seconded only by glue stick.

Again with all that work you may as well just remove the layer.

We have talked about that. The reason it hasn't been tried is because it adds another layer, and we have been sort of working backwards from no layers, to thinning out existing layers to actually encapsulating with another layer as you have mentioned.

We have worried about dust with that process, and wether the clarity and transmittance could be kept up. Really, we have made to many strides with the other techniques to give this a go right now. It is on the list. It's all about finding the best way right now.

Mark.

I havnt noticed a big difference in the polarizers from all 3 of my LCDs. Ive put a square from each one on my stripped panel and as long as you get the orientation correct (duh) its all the same. Not really the best test environment to determine such a thing beyond the naked eye i will admit though.

I know I already asked this, but I would like to be sure. I know you got frustrated the last time I asked but I still don't really know:

Why don't you use one of the rear polarizer off one of those panels? Do you still feel the glue cannot be cleaned up? If the panels are descent, then the specs on those polarizers may be better than the ones you have on order.

Same question for Elken. If you have all those panels, why don't you use a rear polarizer off one? Some rear polarizers should even have optical anti-glare coatings.

Mark.

"It was also last month's word. Only in that case it defined placing a panel into a projector. (Copyright 2005 the Elken dictionary)."

mm thanks for the aclaration , I thought it was something like submerging (sink)...

hehehehehehe4hheheh "drowned"

Mark all my original tests were with rear polars,,,
final setup was with my rigie digie BenQ, polar...

and I aslo looked at the a/g stripped polar (BenQ) ,, and it has no grain effect at all,, or even waves as per say,,, it is perfect andlike glass,, with a tint.. I will perhaps later take some Macro shots of it for you to see..

the only one that showed long grains at 45 degrees, was the one that was soaked,, in acetone for too long,, very brittle and fractured easily,


clive....

I hate to post things before I have a test to back it up, but it seems that the acrylic adhesives are also softening up because of the water. I wouldn't call them water soluble, per say. As such, the polarizer to substrate glue pulls off super easy when water is added. Maybe the TAC is also softening up. I image it is the same story with all solvents. If the same glue is used for the front TAC, then this confirms everything.

Elken, I think you will find that everything softens, and that you will need to be careful to only pull off the anti-glare. So we should hope that after the panel dries out:

1. The bonds and seals all return to normal and are unaffected by the anti-glare peel.

2. The PVA grain lines disappear.

3. The panel still works.

That's a lot to hope for, but if it works out I think this is going to be a nice technique.

I would let that test panel soak for a long time (a day or so) so we can learn as much as possible about worst case scenarios. It is imperative that it be soaked for long enough anyway. I just tried another test piece, and the PVA tore because I did not give it long enough. I knew it was going to tear, but I kept pulling to make sure it would. Again, when ready the anti glare should come up with almost zero force.

I wish I had some micro-mesh .

Mark.

Since SIMUL8TOR is away, can anyone else answer as to what sort of consistency the anti-glare is when stripper is added. Is it a goop? Or does it kind of shatter? Or would it be possible to pull up in one sheet?The grain effect is a crystal like light effect. You need to rotate the polarizer and tilt it around until they appear. They only appear st a certain angle. While facing a lamp with the polarizer slightly off the line between you and the lamp. The lines glow when light glistens off them. I have a feeling the lines you are talking about are the other lines that I saw when I soaked for too long in Ammonia. These were gaps between the PVA fibres, and were plainly visible (not a crystal like effect).

The waves that I discussed could not even be macro photographed without some pro equipment. The overall look of the polarizer seems mirror finished, but if you look at the edges of a lamp very close you can see them. I'm not talking look down and you either see them or you don't. I mean you have to put the thing right up to your eye and focus to the depth of the surface, not the reflection. Then move a bright light reflected and you can see the waves effect very slightly. The waves are just a few hairs apart.

It's just slightly more difficult to see than the orange peel rippling I get with the PEEK anti-glare buffing.

Mark.

walmart has it also

goop except for the stuff tha stays hard ( mine had little "islands" left of AG which I could peel off, but most of it got goopy ...definitly not in one sheet, some little pieces here and ther maybe

Mark I'm not following you on the water dunking.

I have 2 panels. My 15" cracked panel and a 5.5" car LCD.

I dunked them both in distilled water for 12 hours, fully immersed.

The 5.5" panel didn't have antiglare on it, but it did have a sheet of clear protective plastic on each side. After the dunk these pulled off with no effort. Then I checked the polar bears. They also came off with no effort.

The 15" panel. The antiglare would still only "flake" off. It wouldn't pull off in one piece. And the "flaking" was in very small pieces. The polar bears pulled right off with no effort.

Now also I'm hearing many different responses to the polishing with Mothers. On the 2 screens I used it on it took barely any effort to get a mirror finsh and yet others get nothing.

So what it is looking like is that there are SEVERAL different types of antiglare and maybe SEVERAL different ways that they're applied. Maybe some are sheets that are laid on and maybe some are sprayed on ? At any rate this might be tougher than we first thought.

Replacement polar bears is looking like it would be a lot easier.

Where's a 3m guy when you need one.

sorry for my delay. i posted bak around page 75 that i had followed in simul8r's footsteps with the strip approach.

here are some photos. firstly, the panel with antiglare. secondly the panel prepd with (difficult to see) some clear vinl borders taped down with household sticky tape. figure if anything began to penetrate under them at least it would be apparent. wasn't a problem in anyhow - the tape held up suprisingly well. the vinl proved to be a worthwhile splash protector. also difficult to make out on the second photo is the sanding done with 500 grit wet'n dry. 500 seemed to do the trick very safely. make sure you don't miss any small areas as they prove to be stubbn as i discovered!

heheheheh,, the saga continues,,,,, viva da revawotion,,, yea

sorry,, overtired here,,, but viva viva,,,

shouldn't be dantherman,,, but Dangerman,,,,

also.....next pic shows the initial paint strip applied. as outlined by others the stuff is quite workable. it never felt out of control. make sure you apply it thickly or you'll be there all night.

2nd pic - after exercisn some patience - 30mins or so - the antiglare just wipes off.
literally. i just used a soft teflon spatchlr from the kitchen section of my local kmart.

no scratches. just streaks. just 'wipe' off and dispose into the anti-glare sinbin.
re-apply stripr and perform process again.

*eek! inbetween posting .... amusing all the same

well.....dangerman it is lol. but im very confident with this process. will be doing 2 more this weekend.

anyway. final picture of my process as im moving out towards the edges.
apply, wipe, reapply....and so on.

at this point ive removed the splash vinl and im using only small quantities of stripper.
wiping from outside in of course
patience is a virtue.

cleanup with meth spirits removes any residual antiglare and leaves a mirror finish (small preview evident in this pic) without scratches. used both paper towel and a sponge.

hope this is of some help to those out there considering the jump.

FYI this is a philips 15" S4 series with a resolved, yet painful, ffc problem.

i have run the thing hot for about 12 hours straight without visible degredation. early days

It still makes me cringe when I see paint stripper on such a delicate piece of technology

DJ