That pic shows a piece of clear plastic which I assume is the antiglare. I peeled it up with a knife and began pulling on it, then the polarizer came up with it a second later.

That is the glass to polarizer laminate adhesive. It is an acrylic adhesive. It will scuff.

I guess the better way to put it is, when you removed the polarizer completely, was there a hole right through the polarizer where the PVA pulled up (caught a ride)?

The other question is, was the surface that revealed as you removed the anti-glare wet and gooey at all? Or was it dry?

I think what we are dealing with here is unfortunate confirmation that 10 hours is just not long enough. It is possible that the glue needs say, a half hour of water contact. In this case you may have only gotten it for a few minutes. You would therefore have had to apply too much force. It should have felt like a little bit more than removing a wet piece of plastic from a wet piece of plastic. Nowhere near the same force as removing packing tape from the anti-glare, for instance.

Obviously we need to figure this out. PVA failure remains a possibility.

Mark.

oztang65, any update on the replacements?

or meyer2?

Mmm.... I think so. I think I'll need to check that. I've been wondering the same thing myself.



Well I didn't think to feel it really. But it looked pretty dry to me.

Also remember, Mark. The polarizers have been submerged in water all day and still refuse to come apart. I don't think its an issue with undersoaking. I think my antiglare is somehow immune.

EXACTLY !!!!

I've been trying to tell Mark this for the last several days. My 15" HP Lcd is the same.

THE ANTIGLARE WILL NOT LOOSEN WITH WATER !!!

It has been fully summerged for 12 hours and it has had wet rags on it for over 24 hours.

The exact same thing happens with this panel as with Mikau's. The antiglare peels up but it flakes and it is very difficult to peel.

This panel does differ in that the polar bear peels up very easily, but this may be due to the fact that it was soaked for 12 hours and Mikau's wasn't or it may just have different polar bear glue.

But Mikau is right. People need to test the edge after soaking and if the antiglare doesn't peel up VERY easily they need to quit and try the stripper method. But even that may not work, it didn't work on my HP Lcd either. In that case , complete polar bear removal may be the only solution.

But I think it should be very clear to all now.

NOT ALL ANTIGLARE CAN BE REMOVED USING THE "RAG METHOD".

Here here!

But are you saying your polarizer came up easy? Or didn't? Mine sure did once I got under it. Didn't mean to peel it up but it came up anyway.

Also for the record I did not say "stop and try the stripper method" I said stop and soak longer, or quite. Not that I'm against the stripper method but my experiments only proved that the rag method does not work on the 512N. That does not prove stripper method would. I'm not saying it won't but I have no experience with it so I cannot make a statement on it.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never disagreed with what you were seeing. It has been long speculated that not all anti-glare would respond to every treatment. Your panel was proof of that. I thought I even responded directly to you that it is a known issue?
The question was why Mikau's anti-glare did not flake up like yours. It actually peeled. If he had never used any water would it have peeled like this? It's what I am working towards with these questions. Wether water simply didn't get a chance to do its work be it for too short a duration or an impermeable anti-glare.

The problem remains that we have no idea if stripper will work on an impermeable surface. Will it react with polycarbonate as it has with a cellulose based film? I would bet not.

Mark.

Two things to check that will set everything straight.

Thanks for putting up with my interrogation ,
Mark.

Mark I will do my best to answer all the questions I can about what happened, to help figure out what went wrong if anything and how the issue can be resolved.

Meanwhile, the lcd I stripped is my projector lcd, and the only lcd I have. So I'd like to get it up and running again as soon as possible. But of course I can't rush it.

I still have that thin layer of strong adhesive on the lcd. I need to remove. How? Then I need to find a place to get a polarizer. Ordering from 3d lens will be a pain as I need to pay someone who has a credit card. Then I'll have to wait a month for it to ship. :angry: Anywhere else I can get them that sells individual sheets?

Well the lcd is dry by now so I'm afraid we'll never know.

I checked that piece to see if just the polarizer came up. I really can't say. I'll have another look but its hard to say.

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to sound as if you weren't agreeing with me. I just feel that this is a very important thread and a lot of people aren't reading it all , they just skip to the end.
So I was trying to make a point about everyone being cautious.

Sorry about that.

No problem. Cautious is good.

The idea right now is if you soak the panel, and it's still less than easy to remove the anti-glare that nothing good or bad has happened. Your anti-glare just isn't permeable. I say even this cautiously because it is possible that this is the fault of the glue not being water soluble in some panels.

You should know right away if it is stuck too hard. First off, the surface should be gooey. Second, it should take almost zero force to remove. It just glides off.

I've actually been less than truthful on that point. It actually takes a bit of force beyond what I have been saying to remove the anti-glare. I have been posting that it is impossibly easy so that people don't think they are in a fine situation if it is difficult. Because it's way closer to being easy than it is hard. gregeast spilt the beans on that one .

No matter what, at no point should it seem like you are putting enough force in to cause damage. You should feel in complete control of what is separating from what, and going slow enough that if PVA starts to come up, that you can just reverse, tac it down, and abort.

It is just too bad I have no way of showing people how this should go. Mikau suggested pulling on tape as a breaking point. If you ask me, even tape grips too hard. It could be a great way of getting the corner started, though. Rather than pick at the layer.

You should also make sure you are aware of every layer and it's purpose before starting out on this.

It remains experimental.

Mark.

DeathRay: I quoted this from page 68, http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=1350 I'm unable to make out the charts that Sonic provided us that shows if the PVA is safe with Methelyne Chloride. Is your statement still correct or have I missed something after that discussion. The following info is what I found from a little surfing thru the net: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...7&dopt=Abstract

Permeation of protective clothing materials by methylene chloride and perchloroethylene.

Vahdat N.

The permeation of methylene chloride and perchloroethylene through seven protective clothing materials was studied to determine the permeation parameters, and to investigate the effect of solubility (polymer weight gain) and material thickness on the permeation parameters. The materials tested were two different nitrile rubbers, neoprene, Combination (a blend of natural rubber, neoprene and nitrile), two different polyvinyl chlorides, and polyvinyl alcohol. Methylene chloride permeated through all materials, except PVA, with breakthrough times in the range of 2 to 8 min, and permeation rates in the range of 1250-5800 micrograms/cm2 X min. PVA and unsupported nitrile offered good protection against perchloroethylene with breakthrough time occurring after 2 hr. Perchloroethylene permeated through the other materials with breakthrough times in the range of 8 to 36 min and permeation rates in the range of 200 to 1600 micrograms/cm2 X min. It was shown that for both chemicals, there is a correlation between the solubility (weight gain) and the ratio of permeation rate to breakthrough time (PR/BT). For all material/chemical pairs, an increase in solubility, increased (PR/BT). The change in material thickness had an effect on breakthrough time and permeation rate, but no effect on normalized breakthrough time. An increase in thickness reduced permeation rate and increased breakthrough time.

Now help me here to understand, are we still referring PVA to polyvinyl alcohol or is it something else?
sim

though i know nothing on the subject, based upon other's experiences i decided to attempt the paper-towel removal

i'm using a 8.9" lcd from a toshiba portable dvd player

after three hours of soaking, i decided to check on progress so i used my fingernail to lift a corner, and it popped right off.

the rest of the sheet came off like butter, in a single, transparent piece

one question, though: now when i look through the panel at an LED, i get a strange grid-like array of lights. obviously this is caused by the polarizer, but i'd like to confirm that i haven't done anything wrong. thank you!

(slams his head in a brick wall)

(slams Mikau's head into the wall again and then slams his own head in the wall)

holy crap fastest reply ever

Here is one of the pieces that came off of my CMV-529A. You definitely need to be deliberate and patient when pulling up the corner to start the AG peel. Make sure that the corner you pull up is relatively clear, just blurry.

HTH

Greg

EDIT: Just for a frame of reference, the background is the deck of my treadmill.

Ok, I finally had a chance to take some pics. I'm not happy with the quality of these pics but they give you an idea of the brightness, etc. The pics don't do the image justice.

I still have some issues with focus in general and with the fresnel rings being visible, hope to hack on that some this week.

Here's Darla, I love that you can see her fingerprint on the glass!

1st Day of School:

I need an icepack. . We'll figure something out for you Mikau. No worries.

tawamiami: I'm not so sure what this grid like display is that you mention. Could it just be the pixels are much easier to see? Removal will keep light from diffusing and reflecting internally, so the panel will behave more like a piece of glass now. Is it possible to get a photo?

Mark.

gregeast: thanks for the pics. Looks awesome .

The photo that we also need is one that displays clearly the distinction between what came up, and what stayed behind.

Very artistic shot you have there by the way . Very nice balance of composition . The treadmill pattern really makes it pop . Without it, it would have been, let say, missing something.

Seriously, the best part about it is that it shows clearly that it just came right off, there is no damage visible on such a huge piece. That is what people are looking for. Any trouble, and you need to take a step back. Something is wrong.

Mark.

Thanks. Got any idea's for how to remove layer X?

As far as stripping the panel of it polarizer altogether there really is only one method so far. You get a plastic Wendy's (fast food) knife and slowly work the polarizer up. Heat also helps, but too much heat would not.

It is such a worrisome process. As you already know, having removed some (or did you get the whole thing off?). It puts quite a bit of stress on the panel.

Once the polarizer is removed, chances are some of the acrylic adhesive will be left. Some will be on the polarizer, some will remain on the panel glass substrate.

For the stuff on the glass, you can get away with just about any solvent, as long as it only hits the area defined by where the polarizer used to be.

I have found that the un-do products work. These are petroleum distillate based and can be found at craft stores.

Chances are any commercial adhesive remover will work.

But here's the one that you probably don't want to hear. My glue softened up with water. It then took very little work to peel up the glue. You can rag it just like with the anti-glare. I have no idea what the duration is on this stuff. And others have reported that water did not work for their substrate bond. My glue also comes up very slowly just be rubbing it.

I think Elken said Windex and a lot of careful scrubbing worked. But it will not be totally safe for your polarizer. Chances are, though, that any solvent will not harm your polarizer as it needs to permeate the TAC layer first.

Mark.

I noticed that when using a transparency, as a LCD, for testing, that the fresnels grooves show up, but when the LCD is installed the disappear.

In my test with a transparency, I have to move the fresnels around 1.5 to 2" away from the transparency to not see these.

I wonder if the antiglare is hiding these on an unmodified LCD?

Yeah... the gloves were polyvinyl alcohol and the degredation rate was good (not excellent like mineral spirits) and the permeation rate was excellent.

Yes the spacing of REAR polariser relative to the panel has to be increased, this removes fresnel lines

i set a space of,, 45 mm

I am back to split optics, now,,

clive

Why are you worried about me damaging my polarizer? My entire polarizer has been removed all I have is the adhesive stuff left.



So adhesive remover should work, huh? Saw that at home depot.

I know everyone seems to hate use of acetone...

but a wetted tissue or a few,, will clean it off...

clive

But your post seemed to imply that it should only be applied where the polarizer was. Obviously there is no need to put it where you don't need it but is it dangerous if the solvent gets on the glass substrate? I don't see how I could apply it without getting any on the glass.

One hundredth page!

I'm worried that a solvent may damage the polarizer. But not too much. Elken has had good success with even known PVA damaging chemicals (acetone). It is fine as long as you get the job done quick. A solvent I know does not work are the orange or citrus based ones. They do nothing.

The worry about keeping the solvent only on the glass where the polarizer used to be is because there can be invisible electrical connections exposed on your panel as well as surrounding electronics. best to keep it controlled. Use dampened towels.

And of course be careful with the chemical health risks.

Mark.

All of the polarizer from my lcd have been removed and are no longer on the lcd. Why are you worried about me damaging the polarizer with solvants, by applying the solvant where there is no polarizer?

Missing something here.

Here is without a shadow of a doubt what DOES NOT remove the adhesive for me (CMV-520D) :

acetone
water (hot or cold)
goo gone
windex
ammonia
oxicleanspraystuff


the ONLY thing that has remotely worked is constant rubbing on the polarizer until it comes off in a gummy type eraser residue. it takes forever.

The problem is I don't think layer x is just glue. It looks more like a clear sheet of plastic with glue on both sides. So I don't think its just an issue of peeling.

Because I believe that polarizer can be salvaged. Or are you saying that there is no glue left on the polarizer?What makes you think that it is a clear sheet of plastic? You mean you have a perfect sheet of adhesive over the entire area that the polarizer used to be? Try rubbing it. Does any glue bead up?

I think layer x may just be the first compensation film (retardation film, wave plate) that we have seen. We still don't know if it is okay to remove that, given we have collimated light. I would not remove it just in case. I looked into it, and that layer apparently does not affect transmittance much at all, as was originally hypothesized.

Mark.

I tried increasing the distance between the front (field/collector) fresnel & lcd, total change was maybe 5mm or so. It actually helped the focus a bit but had no affect on the visible fresnel rings.

I'll play around with increasing the gap between the rear(collimator) fresnel and let you know what I come up with.

Here's badly focused picture of the rings. They're actually not as obvious as they appear in the picture but are definitely noticieable, especially in light scenes.

Greg

Well I already removed some of it last night. Remember? So no turning back now.

The reason I think its a layer is this. Pulling the polarizer up alone was easy. Prying up the entire substrate from the bottom, very difficult. If it was just glue between the polarizer and glass, then it should not have gotten easier. Instead, the polarizer comes off relatively easy leaving a thin black layer of something underneath.

tawamiami and gregeast please post your methods and info at this link:
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=
It will help us with this research. Please read the introduction for what to provide. Thank you.
sim

No.Black layer? Whoa. There shouldn't be anything black.

This is getting frustrating Mikau. I really have no idea how many layers you are talking about. Every time you post, the picture in my head changes. Maybe it would be best that you go layer by layer from the glass and say what you think there is and in what order.

Mark.

I think all of the frustration is due to all of you guys not having digital cameras to take pics. Come on. Somebody you know has to have a digital camera?

Done

The idea is that those will be from the rear fresnel (if you never had a problem before). Everything in front should behave pretty much the same now. The diffusion of the anti-glare is gone now, so the virtual image of anything behind the fresnel will not be diffused anymore.

brianabs: It's embarrassing because photography is actually a big hobby of mine (I shoot film). I can't think of anyone close by who would lend me one for this (I just moved). It's pathetic.

Mark.

yes,,,

increase distance of condensor fresnel, and if you can reduce distance of field fresnel, << this will bring the virtual LCD image closer to the physical LCD panel location ..

clive..

Mark: I examined the test sample polar with 'stripper' put on for 24 hours. Mind you this is a sample that I cut from the antiglare/polar I pulled previously therefore it's curled up from the stress while pulling. The test sample shows very little deterioration which is surprising since the chemical was on it for that many hours. The deterioration seems to be in between the polar and the plastic protector layer. My guess is that this small deterioration was due to the chemical permeating thru the stress areas and started dissolving the adhesive between polar and plastic (the pattern of the deterioration appears to be speratic and diagonal). Otherwise the polar still maintained its structure, no frays or dissolving features noted.

Also, I took the residue stripper off the sample piece and put it on some antiglare I seperated from another sample piece using MEK. Again after 24 hours the residue chemical was still able to soften and do some corrosion to the antiglare. As a medium I put fresh stripper on another antiglare piece to see how much potency the solvent had after 24 hours of exposure. The fresh stripper was more corrosive to the antiglare.

I am also going to perform the test using the sample antiglare/polar from moniserv.com using water. Will keep you informed.

My best judgement on the stripper method is this, base on my little quote from the net and confirmation with Deathray (below quoted) regarding stripper and polar (PVA) and to include the above test, it would seem that the chemical has NO tremendous effect on the polar but only to possible permeating thru areas that were compromised if the polar was curled from stressfull pulling. Even at that, if the antiglare/polar was ripped from the panel the amount of time to use the stripper method is shortlived as compared to the 24 hours+/- it took for the stripper to find it's way to the adhesives.

Im still waiting for my controller board before i strip mine. If you do take the plunge try and take some photos.

I feel we need to perfect the rag technique. It has too many benefits. It has come up before (and as jonjandran has been saying) I think we may need to leverage this point:What he is getting at is that the anti-glare may almost always be permeable, and that the real issue is glue solubility.

It has come up before, but with Mikau's unfortunate incident, it seems more important than ever that we find a universal solvent that we know will be PVA safe (enough), and will always break down the glue wether it is water soluble or not.

It's the PVA safe part that is going to be hard. The basic rule is that organic solvents and oils are PVA safe, but mineral spirits have already shown to contradict that fact. The section of exposed PVA that I soaked in mineral spirits not only exhibited grain (as did everything else including stripper now) but also an extreme loss of efficiency, and transmittance continuity across the surface. The TAC was also curled.

What we have with the rag technique is a very enjoyable, controlled removal process. But without complete solubility of even non water soluble glues it has been proven fatally flawed. It's not the water that impresses me about the technique (especially now) it is the application.

This is not an issue of PVA water solubility, but while we're at it, we might as well nail that down too.

Mark.

How did you get your AG off? I reviewed your posts and couldn't find what you originally did to your CMV-520D.