When a piece of tissue paper is soaked in water it turns into a pulpy mess. When a piece of tissue paper is soaked in metho, acetone, turpentine or possibly some other solvents, it retains its structure. Just throwing some more info to think about. I’m not saying it is a good think or bad just food for thought.

DJ

Nothing yet, too busy at the moment. Maybe by later this week.

Mark,
Isn't this "universal solvent" methylene chloride (paint stripper) ? As long as the specific brand of paint stripper doesn't have another active ingredient which would be harmful to PVA, a person using paint stripper should be fine, no ?

You said that you tested paint stripper and it also reacted to the PVA ? ... perhaps I missed that post... what specific paint stripper did you use, and what are it's active ingredients ? thanks... gonna try to find your post where to did this test...

grip and rip

i simply removed the entire polarizer

Might I suggest that if known, people post the lcd manufacturer (eg I have a pixo monitor that is a Sharp LCD) it may help in figuring out differnt methods for different panels if indeed glues and layers vary from lcd to lcd... maybe even the panel number also...

Mark, I'm not so sure about this statement. Are you sure that the grain and degredation didn't appear due to the stress effects of peeling the polarizer?? According to elken's tests (goin on memory, might be wrong), his immersion-in-mineral-spririts sample did NOT show grain formation.

Regarding stripper: Methelyne Chloride is the active ingredient in most strippers and is fairly PVA safe (a green 'G'). The problem is that most stippers also contain Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) which is known to break down PVA. I have a stong suspicion that a lot of this evaporates away before it has time to do damage to the PVA. Also, as Sim suggested, the formulation may become intert after x amount of time on a surface. I am trying to contact a chemist at Jasco to confirm some of these questions/suspicions.

One thing is CERTAIN, water does degrade PVA. PVA is soluble in water, and any application is going to be a balancing act in getting the correct exposure time without creating undue damage. There have been several members (elken and myself included) whose results bear this out. I think that it is fair to say that, at this point, even with the unknowns, the stripper method is a "safer" bet.

The rag method with a different solvent, however, still shows great promise in my opinion.

Okay - good news.

I tried two different BUFF methods today. First was with Mark's reccommendation, PEEK polish, and the second was with Meguires Fine Cut. I have pictures but they are really not all that clear (okay now, don't start ...).

My impressions are as follows:

The PEEK: this is REALLY good stuff. It doesn't completely strip the antiglare layer but it sure does help flatten it. The treated area is glossy in appearance (not quite as glossy as straight polarizer though) and very transmissive. An image can be seen looking through the panel with just ambient light.

Meguire's Fine Cut: I think this is probably very similar to Mother's in terms of results. The a/g si smoothed, but remains slightly diffusive. The transmissive results looking through the panel are similar to the peek, but not quite as clear.

Results: The PEEK wins, hands down! The PEEK definately kicks some major butt in the non-invasive approaches camp. The results are very comparable to encapsulation without the added headache of worrying about trapped cooties and bubbles. There is a guy on ebay that sells PEEK (no, I'm not affiliated) for those who can't find it locally. In the US, he may be your best bet because the company that manufactures it is based in Canada.

http://cgi.ebay.com/PEEK-POLISH-Sterling-S...1QQcmdZViewItem

Yeah, you guys are right. It was a little harsh. Forgive me, I apologize.

I can say from personal experience though that the only thing keeping you from being the man you want to be, as opposed to the man you are, is time, perserverence and hard work - damn hard work. These things (self transformation) takes years and even decades and are very frustrating. However, those years will come and go regardless of whether you are transforming yourself or not. The only difference is that after those years come and go, you are either the man you want to be or the man you currently are - just older. I tell you this because the hardest part is not the college or even the hard work, it's the perserverence. It's the time.

Take heart. You have engaged in a project that many people with much more experience are afraid to do. The frustrations, trials and tribulations you go through each time you step outside your comfort zone are the stuff that legends are made out of (really!). The great ones never got there by sitting in their comfort zones and waiting for life to come to them. They went out and grabbed the chalice - damn the criticism. They failed and tried again. Each time getting closer until success was the only option left for them. And along the way they grew thick skins from enduring the laughter, pointed fingers and criticisms of those who did not understand. But in the end, they were self made men.

At 19 your journey has just started. Ten years will come and go regardless of what you do. Trust your instincts. Keep pushing yourself forward. And maybe in ten years you can look back at who you were, and who you are now, and say to yourself "I did it! I am the person I wanted to be!"

Nope. What I am looking for is the application and process of the rag technique, with a relatively PVA safe chemical, that will dissolve both water and oil based adhesives.

Paint stripper obliterates TAC. That is how it works. We can't design the rag technique around that fact.

Here is what I like about the rag technique:

1. No scraper, no squegee, no nothing.
2. If you have a panel that has zero bezel, you can still remove your anti-glare without praying to the gods of steady hand.
3. The anti-glare comes up, no questions asked, in one continues sheet. It just seems right.

So I need to rephrase (it was late when I wrote that ):

It is not the water that impresses me about the rag technique, it is the application and process. It just seems right.

In the end, there are two failing points to water that were unclear, unproven, but speculated before the rag technique was written:

a. PVA is soluble in water. GAH!. This bothered me immensly. It still bothers me immensely because I have no assurance that other panels have the same grade of PVA as mine. However, if they do have a similar grade, it turns out to not be as big an issue as I had thought. The rag technique has been shown to cause in-perceivable if any damage due to water solubility. That said, it is a problem. I personally don't want that burdening the process when it can so easily be resolved: A new solvent.

b. Water is not able to dissolve oil based PVA to TAC adhesives. Predicted. Now proven. This is a big one. I believe it to be the source of Mikau's woes (elaborated later).SIMUL8TOR found that grain occurred after 24 hours:That is the infamous grain. It is not a worry, though, because I have basically confirmed that it only occurs with stressed polarizers, and possibly only when solvent is applied to the back side. It also has occurred with every solvent I have tried that could permeate through the TAC and PVA to TAC adhesive. What we really need to know is wether the crossed transmittance held up.I soaked an exposed section of PVA on it's backing in water for 4 days, and there was no visible damage but grain. Grain is the damage that Elken was describing as well.

The problem is that while they are holding up on first glance, according to Elken the samples are breaking down microscopically. This is experimentally confirmed by testing the crossed transmittance. Elken also put a piece under the microscope. I would say after the 4 day exposed PVA water dunk, the crossed transmittance looked to be somewhere around 1% instead of 0.001%. I still could not easily separate the PVA from it's backing. At 24 hours there seemed to be no change.

I would challenge that absolutely every solvent we've tried will cause damage to the PVA. We have yet to try a known PVA safe solvent other than mineral spirits (which also caused damage).I immersed in mineral spirits. Everything held out much worse than even with water (exposed PVA 4 days). Under my tests it seems you need 3 conditions to produce grain:

1. A stressed polarizer. It must be stressed along the polarization axis. Thus, it depends to a small degree on what corner you started peeling the sample off the substrate earlier (with 45 degree polarizers).

2. The polarizer must then meet with a solvent capable of dissolving the TAC to PVA adhesive. This is not just water. SIMUL8TOR has now seen it with stripper.

3. The solvent must come into contact with the side of the sample mentioned in 1. In this case, that is the back side of the polarizer.

If a polarizer is curled, the grain will appear on the outside of the roll.It really isn't that tricky. I would say by far the biggest problem with the rag technique is it's inability to dissolve all PVA to TAC glues. I encourage you to test the actual rag technique (not a dunk) and see just how well the PVA holds out. That said, as in my recent posts, I feel it more important than ever that we remove any possibility of PVA failure. This is not due to Mikau's experiences. Those have just made me more cautious. Here is what I believe happened with that panel:

It's PVA to TAC adhesive is not water soluble.
It's anti-glare is permeable.
Water got all the way through the TAC and then was sealed out by the adhesive.
The anti-glare was pulled up. At times the adhesive chose to attached to the anti-glare, at times to the PVA.
This was a dry pull. Unfortunately something had to give eventually. Eventually the rear PVA adhesive was what chose to give. It was able to do this because both the front and rear adhesives were equally bonded.

I don't maintain with much confidence that this problem had anything to do with PVA degradation. But I want that possibility gone just as much as everyone else. I am going to test a mineral spirit rag soak on my water soluble adhesive test panel. My hope is that the glue will release much quicker with Mineral Spirits than with water, as they may permeate the TAC quicker and dissolve the PVA quicker. I am still not sure about Mineral Spirits, though. I encourage others to test organic solvents, or oils with the rag technique (on test panels).

Again, dunking a section of polarizer, and treating it to the rag technique are very different. The dunking is a good indication of how damaging the chemical is to the PVA by exaggerating it's exposure. It is not an indication of what you're polarizer will look like given ragging. You could remove your anti-glare with a know non-pva safe chemical and be laughing. Elken did it.

Mikau,

I just realized what may be getting us confused (aside from us not owning digital cameras):

The entire rectangle of plastic that the anti-glare peels from is called the laminate, or polarizer.

The section of your panel (almost the whole thing) that is made of glass is called the glass substrate.

The layer of the laminate/polarizer that does the polarizing is called PVA film.

HTH,
Mark.

phutton, nice come back. mikau, my hats off to you for your drive and perserverance in self improvement.

Gentlemen: Let's not forget that this thread, this discussion is for the sole reason of coming up with sure fire method/s for other DIY'rs to improve on enhancing their pj's. Those of us realize that whatever method is presented is STILL in it's experimental stages and we know the consequences if we also implement these experiments on our own actual panels FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENTATION. There should be no blame or finger pointing towards those ideas brought forth that have worked for others that we presumed would have worked for ourselves and for our own personal benefit, that shouldn't be the case. What we experience with any of these methods is a combined effort amongst ourselves as experimenters towards our goal and must be shared without blame. This is why we provide into the discussion what we can but realizing the risks. Those that do not, subject themselves to their own undoing. However, I realize that this is difficult because understandably most of us as well as outside viewers want our fix now and want to get it over with, well that is up to each individual.

Mikau, we appreciate you joining into this cause. Unfortunately, for your personal benefit you have only to look forward to polar replacement and that is only until someone comes forth with the correct model. However, you now have a antiglare/polar film sample that you can now offer experimentation on. Are you still with us on this or was your sole purpose for joining into this discussion to get your needed fix? And before you answer that just remember what phutton said:

SonicWonder: Think you can post some of your experience with PEEK and some pics on this thread: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=
You know the deal and great work by the way
sim

Mikau's problem seems to be an issue with the middle of the screen, where the bump/lamp would be heating the most I wonder if his problems are relasted to a material chnage due to the heat after being used as a PJ. Possibly the glue dried out and hardened more due to lamp heating, he seemed to be OK at the outer edges so either the water didn't seep into the glue at the center or the glue in the center was soemhow different than that at the edges.

Okay - crap, I am shaking with excitement as I type so please don't mistake my enthusiasm for an endorsement to "go and do this now!!!".

I just finished talking to my chemist at Jasco (let's call her Roxanne). I explained what we are trying to do, and the structure of the LCD films we are trying to remove. We had a great 15 minute long conversation on how stripper works (at least Jasco Brand Premium Epoxy and Paint stripper). I am more convinced than ever that this is the way to go!

Basically, the active ingredient in the stripper is Methlyne Chloride. It is what is doing the bulk of the work in the mixture. This is a PVA "safe" chemical. The rest of the ingredients are inert and used to give the mixture its gel-like consistency. The other ingredient that was causing me worry was Methanol which is not PVA safe. In talking to Roxanne, she explained to me that the methanol is not an "active" ingredient in the mix, but is added for manufacturing purposes. Furthermore, since the vapor pressure of methanol is much higher that Methlyne Chloride, most of it flashes (evaporates) fairly quickly. Furthermore, most of the remaining Methanol would tend to migrate AWAY from the a/g surface, while the Methlyne Chloride would migrate DOWN and continue its solvent action.

I asked if the mixture neutralizes itself after a period of time. The answer is "no". As long as there is gel, there is Methlyne Chloride at work. Less that 2% of the mixture is composed of non-evaporating solids. The upshot of this is that just because Methlyne Chloride is PVA safe, is doesn't give us the option of leaving it on for ridiculous periods of time, damage will still occur. But over the 30-45 minutes average it has been taking to remove a/g with stripper, almost no damage would be done. Roxanne recommeded we do a time-attack test to note the damage (if any) to the PVA when it is exposed to the stripper for various periods of time.

She said our approach of sanding into the TAC was perfect, but she also recommended wiping down the surface of the PVA with naptha for a final cleaning after using the stripper. This will cause any of the remaining solvents to flash while leaving a pristine polar bear in all it's glory.

Methelyne Chloride is very stong stuff. It is just an incredible freak of nature that is appears to react with everything EXCEPT PVA . VERY good news for us indeed!!

However, as a work of caution, this stuff will most probably eat through your FCC's so precautionary masking is imperative.

Simul8R: Dude, you may have started a stripping epidemic. Right now, stripper is my unreserved choice of methods. BUT - all the above applies ONLY for JASCO PREMIUM PAINT & EPOXY STRIPPER. Any other brand, and all bets are off.

PS: I have her contact # so I can ask other pertinent questions if necessary.

Just remember everybody although what you read here may be "antiglare breaking news" this is a decision on your own. The process may be of your own choice but how you implement it is another. Primarily the 'sanding' issue. Do not fold the sandpaper having sharp bulky or crinckled edges, it is preferred that having it rounded on your index finger is best and lightly touching the antiglare. Any more pressure or bulky/crinckled edges and you risk penetrating the layer and damaging the polar (PVA). Take heed.

Also, if your going to strip make sure you keep your 'WHITEY TIGHTEES' on.......

In your honor Sonic...great job, bud!
sim

At this point, I think what we need here is a debate . With no feedback, my points are hollow.

I am 100% for a rag application, and peel process of a TAC safe, PVA safe, surroundings safe solvent. (not water).

Why should I not be?

,
Mark.

First, I just want you to know that i'm thankful for all the work that you've done on this project... you truely have a great understanding of the concepts on how and why LCD's work the way they do, i've learned a tremendous amount of information reading your's and other's posts in this thread. Thank you.

I don't want to turn this into a massive debate as I believe the search for a new, perhaps better, chemical exists to do what you have outlined, and time is better utilized there, but I do hold a different view of the rag technique vs. paint stripper...

1. although there are no "scraper" type tools, the most dangerous part with the rag technique is starting the a/g peel. This is due to the fact that the edges have (hopefully) not been subject to the water (and if they have, bad things can happen to the PVA layer starting on the edges)... I think you will find that most will be using a knife or some other implement to try and start the a/g peel, so saying "no nothing" may be a bit of a stretch, but your point is well taken, no scraping across the entire panel is necessary based on this technique.

2. i'm not quite sure what you are saying here ? I take this to mean that you have better control of the application of the "solvent" using a rag vs. painting it on ? If this is what you are implying, i simply disagree. One of the real big benefits of paint stripper is it's viscosity. It is very thick stuff... it really only goes where you want it to... with a bit of simple masking tape you can get this stuff very close to the edge of the panel, then simply peel the masking tape off before the stripper "dissolves" the tape. The edge of the stripper won't go anywhere... it's like paste... it just sits there... unlike water or some other very thin solvent. If you accidently oversaturate the rag (or if an LCD is on a slight incline)... you'll be in trouble as it will be nearly impossible to control where the solvent goes after "pooling" outside the boundaries of the rag.

3. in the best case senario one sheet would be the goal... however, as you can see from others, this is not always the case. the stripper application is still forgiving in that if there is a/g left behind, just use another application... no worries to the PVA, and additionally no worries to layers below the PVA due to it's low permiability to methylene chloride.

I think in the end the only major benefit of the rag technique would be the non-scraping of the a/g layer for removal, and if using water, the cost benefit as well. I think for each individual there will be some risk assessment for each of these methods... water and no scrape, vs. stripper and squeegy as well as the dangers inherent when using water (very destructive of PVA layer, and hard to control errent application) vs. stripper (low PVA permiability, easy to control application).

One thing is for sure, if anything does go wrong with either of these techniques and the PVA layer is compromised, full polarbear removal is always an option, and perhaps we may find this is the preferred method anyway.

mark (and all), my many thanks, again, for your insights.


edit: gotta love cross-posting... i was trying to avoid a debate and Mark is calling for one !! lol. :-0
personally, i agree with sonic. methylene chloride is the "magic bullet"... dissolves what we don't want, leaves behind what we do... as to application, I still believe stripper is better as it can be controlled better that using a thin liquid solvent with a rag...

hehe...as long as it gets rid of the antiglare Mark, thats the real enemy here. Hell, even Elken 'spat' on it hoping it would run away.

And Mark, you and Elken are my hero's....cause 'LOOK MA, MY SCRATCH IS GONE'!
sim

Debate is good! By the way, PEEK works GREAT, beautiful find Mark

Regarding the rag method with water - hereby referred to as just "the rag method", there are several concerns I have.

The most prevalent is that PVA is water soluble. It doesn't just attack PVA, it actually dissolves it. Our entire purpose in begining this investigation was to find something that was "PVA-safe", water is clearly not. Although many were distracted by my tightey whities , there was actually pertinent information in that post where I showed the results of immersion in water. When I saw the results of this test with my own eyes, I was VERY reluctant to use water as a primary solvent. I am aware that the rag method is not equivalent to a total dunk, but it just goes to show the type of damage that can occur to PVA with prolonged exposure to water.


So far, your response to this seems to be that it is not worrysome because:

1) The attack rate is temperature dependent,

You have proposed a reduced-temperature application. You then have problems with thermally stressing the glass substrate - it is already painfully easy to crack. I think adding this level of complexity isn't optimal in a simple DIY solution.

2) The h20 is in contact with the PVA for a short period of time after it permeates the TAC.

The problem is that various TAC structures may take various times to permeate. There is no way of knowing what the optimal time is accross the board, and it will be, at the very least, panel-dependent. Too little time, and you risk not being able to remove the a/g, too much time, and you risk damaging your polarizer.

We know that Stripper works. After my conversation with Jasco this morning, I am also convinced that it is chemically safe. Furthermore, I believe it to be chemically safer (to PVA) than h20.

PS Mark:This probably doesn't even need to be said, but I felt the need to clarify. The choice of methods, to me, is not a personal one. The enemy, as Sim put it, is antiglare !! In my mind, both these approaches would not have been developed without your input and so both, to an extent, are yours. As I have mentioned to you before, I am in absolute awe of your intellectual and logical capacity. We are all indebted to you for continuing to contibute to this thread.

BTW, I am still running a trial of the rag method for comparison - done at 10:30 tonight

In response to some comments made to me:

Yes I do now have a polarizer with antiglare stuck on it. I am willing to do some experiments beyond what is needed to repair my projector, but I would very much like to get my projector running again.

I'd be willing to test other liquids to soak my antiglare/polarizer in, hopefully I can find a safe method for Vroom and others who use a 512N. The idea that my panel has an oil based adhesive makes sense to me, cause it just won't come off.

Mark, yeah I said there was a black layer under the polarizer still stuck to the substrate, but even a piece of clear tape stuck on an lcd appears black so its most likely clear. If it wasn't it would knock out brightness.

I think its just a layer of double sided adhesive or something like that. You said solvents should work. But could that damage the glass substrate? Isn't the glass really acrylic and made from plastic? Don't want it to melt.

Forunatyl I have a bit of that adhesive stuff on the back corners of my polarizer where it came up before spliting. So I can just try little tests with chemicles on that to see if it removes it. Probably will reck the polarizer behind it but so what.

This forum title fits this procedure,I didn't feel as bad stripping the LCD was not as bad like I did when I used sand paper and stripper on my LCD but I came this far with LL and it's family of creators and youall gave me and my family a great home theater so why not , well after the water procedure didn't work I cleaned my monitor and boy what a diffrence in the picture but the anti-glare stayed on my mind plus I already had a can of the exact stripper in the garage, well I applied it to a small corner of the LCD and let it sit for 30min after scraping it off I could see that the anti-glare came up and it was indeed a glass type surface underneth so being the true diyer that I am half of my monitor is currently soaking with stripper, I did take some pictures (just pic up a 5mp Kodak from ebay) and hopefully I'll be posting pic by tomorrow.
Wish me luck

I don't think you'll need any - but good luck anyway ! Let us know the outcome .

Good luck Raginrudolph!

Mark,

I do not see why the perfect method must be constricted to using the rag method. If that's the case then you can water down stripper and soak it in a rag. However, I see no practical reason to do so. The rag method simply simulates laying a gel on the a/g - what stripper actually does.

I was just looking at the adhesive under the polarizer. I tried just for the heck of it, applying rubbing alchohol on a small portion of it. Odd. If you have ever wetted a piece of tape with water and soap, the tape looses its stickyness as you rub it on. And gets stick again as it evaporates. Well applying the alchohol to the adhesive, the surface became smooth and unsticky, but a small layer seemed to lie beneath the adhesive which wouldn't soften. The alchohol dried and the stickyness came back. It was just like moistening a piece of tape. I'm pretty convinced that this is some sort of double sided tape, or some kind of layer that has glue on both sides.

If I'm right theres a problem. Even if I have a chemicle to remove the adhesive theires still that protective layer with adhesive beneath it. The only way I can get that off is if I can find a way to work the chemicle under the layer. That might be very difficult.



I think the purpose of the rag is to keep the water/stripper under control. It does work well for that.

Mik,

Sorry to hear of your troubles. It is a little difficult for me to visualize exactly what state your panel is in because the terminology we are using seems to be different (TAC, PVA, "black layer", etc., etc.). If you can afford it, I think your best bet at this point is to go for a total replacement of the polarizer film. If you wish to help in the experimentation, please pm Mark rather than going at it blind. He will be able to have you run coordinated tests so that it adds to our collective of knowledge (hope you don't mind Mark ). I am going to see about compiling a FAQ for this thread so that the content is a little easier to digest for people.

Had to wait for someone to post so I could split this in 2. There seems to be some sort of quote limit?Nope. Stripper obliterates the anti-glare. Turns it into goo. Solvent seeps through the anti-glare and selectively attacks the bond that holds the anti-glare TAC to the PVA. It potentially effects nothing else.Read on .I would bet that that is compensation film. You say it has been partially removed? Do not remove it if you have not already. Just try to clean up the surface.

And the parents are visiting. That means I have a digital camera now. Sweet!I am not sure, but I believe as long as solvents are kept away from any area but where the polarizer used to be you will be fine. Acid is a different story.

If you are able to clean up the compensation film, then we need to use a solvent that is safe.

Mark.

I AM going with full removal. But I need to get rid of the remaining adhesive on the panel first.

Dang I don't think this stuff is ever going to come off. Just tried a little nail polish remover on the adhesive on the polarizer. That didn't work either.

Please read my edited post above. I had to pull some trickery to keep this board from rejecting my post.

Debate:

Thanks guys . Just to be clear, I take the stance of 100% for rag technique because it makes for a better debate that way . And I don't take any stance personally. I like the stripper technique. Why? Because so far nothing has gone wrong with it. That is inarguable. What I am saying is that I think there is room for improvement. And I think that can be found in a properly established solvent rag technique.

Now before I rebut , I need you to realize the key here is that I am 100% for a rag technique not involving water. I haven't given up on water myself, because I have seen that if you have water soluble adhesive it works awesome, and does not have enough time/surface area to perceivably damage the PVA. That said, I really don't want to debate it because it isn't perfect .It has been shown that water permeates at a glacial pace horizontally through the PVA to TAC adhesive. I assume this is the same for the substrate to polarizer adhesive. What this means is that water will basically not enter at the edges.

There are also a few reasons why water should not spill over the edge in the first place:

a. It seems the anti-glare surface has a large surface area, so the surface tension of the solvent is enhanced.

b. It is also exceedingly difficult for liquid for water to escape the forces of capillarity at the rag, and the TAC.

c. And a watchful eye can keep things under control.

Now, most solvents will not have even half the surface tension as water, but it is still a significant factor.A fingernail works. It is not a scrape technique. The surface of the PVA is potentially never touched. What you do is brush along the edge of the polarizer until the anti-glare flips up.My basis for better control are three fold:

1. Where stripper is, and what it effects is hard to control. This is because the vapors of the stripper are not inert. They have the potential of damaging nearby areas.

2. Stripper (though not tested) is very likely to be damaging to nearby areas. A carefully chosen solvent will not be.

3. Cleanup and control of the byproduct (TAC sludge). There basically is no cleanup with ragging. Most of the chemical comes up with the sheet. A bit more comes up with the glue. And any leftover will simply evaporate. The paste has thickeners that need to be cleaned up, and the thickeners themselves make it difficult for chemical to quickly evaporate.There is another layer of TAC under there. Even though my own edge permeation argument applies here, I still think it is far better to use a chemical that does not damage TAC.dissolves what we don't want if kept on the anti-glare surface, leaves behind a sludgy mess of what we don't want that we then need to scrape off.

The rag goes down, you leave. You peel off the anti-glare a while later. (No mockery intended. I'm just in debate mode. Please don't hate me ).Yeah . I was impressed too. It doesn't look as good as anti-glare removal, but it's not bad. Very comparable to tape.Only necessary with water. And as mentioned, this is not water I propose. Further, as long as you stay within the manufacturers temperature brackets, you should do just fine (and of course not below the freezing point of the solvent).I think you will be most impressed (if you have water soluble glue).

Mark.

Okay, got impatient and removed the a/g layer after 6 hours using the rag method.

What can I say? - Mark you're a genius. I understand the reason he was psyched when he ran this test - it is SEDUCTIVE to peel your a/g off in one shot. Here are a few pics:


Click to view attachment

More:
looking through a piece o' anti-glare


Click to view attachment

(sigh)

Now through the panel itself:

Click to view attachment

Some explination is necessary. The right triangle is where the polarizer was stripped completely from a previous test. The area in the center where you can just make out the monitor is where I used Meguires / PEEK polishes. The area on the left is sans-antiglare. If this method works for you, you will sing its praises.

The problem is - it don't work 100% o the time


If we could find another solvent, things may look even better. But we know that stripper obliterates TAC/anti-glare and is PVA safe, so the choice is still up for debate. Don't you just love it when a debater jumps sides - hehe ...

FWIW, I could see no visible degredation to the PVA. It looked prisitine. Even more interesting, I could find no trace of adhesive on either the a/g TAC, or the PVA. Apparently this panel doesn't have adhesive between the TAC/PVA layers. This would seem to indicate that the h20 has dissolves the top skin of the PVA (where it bonds to the TAC), but hasn't permeated the PVA further causing damage.

At this point, I would still lean towards the stripper (brute force) method, but the elegance of the rag method is oh so seductive ...

EDIT: Upon closer inspection with a magnifier, I can see that there is some damage to the PVA - all along the grain structure of the Polarizer. I doubt if this would ever project - but nonetheless, it is there.

And that's bad....why?

Antiglare bad! Obliterated antiglare good!

Nice work Sonic. Finally some pics of the screens and not weins! Sorry. Had to take the shot. This is great for those of us who haven't taken the plunge yet. It is a bit hard visualizing what we are reading with no pics.

Thanks,
Brian

Seductive. That's the word I was looking for . Mikau: I need another icepack , , , , . (sigh).

Interesting that you feel there is no adhesive. I would have to disagree given that non dissolving PVA safe solvents have the exact same result. Would it be safe to say that if this is true, you would lean towards ragging? Because that is what I am debating.Oh obliterate very good. But obliterate too harsh than necessary. Rebutal read. .

Mark.

Mark,

I am going to use a ridiculous example to make my point. Even BLOWING on the PVA will damage it if it is done long/hard enough. It is not a matter of "if" PVA-safe solvents will degrade the PVA, it is a matter of "how long does it take?". To use another example. Fire will burn your skin. But I can run my finger through a flame for 1/2 a second with no noticeable degredation. Now try 5 minutes and its a whole different ballgame ...

My theory about what is happening with stripped polarizers is this:
When the PVA layer is suscepted to shear stress (when it is bent), micro-cracks develop in the grain structure. Because these cracks are of higher energy (thermodynamically speaking) than the surrounding surface, these are the areas which will be degraded first. Your tests with mineral spirits are not conclusive in my book because the polarizer had been previously stressed.

Now as to your point about "too harsh" an obliteration, after having spoken with Jasco this morning, my concerns about this have been put to rest. Methylene Chloride is less harmful to PVA than water, this is not debateable.

Stripper works. It works now. It works with no noticeable degredation to the PVA because it works fast (20-45 mins). Overall, it is more controllable than the rag method. You don't have to worry about scoring the polarizer trying to lift the a/g (yes, I marred mine ).

As to whether there is a "safer" chemical out there to use - probably. But if stripper works well, why try looking further (except as an intellectual/experimental exercise)? We are likely going to spend a lot of time and energy finding something that works marginally better. But I doubt if the end result, our projections, will be commensurately improved.

OK, I am SOOO tempted to try the stripper on my 512n, but with no time
to do so I'm sadly forced to sit on the sideline as you guys enjoy the game!


Now if I could get a cold beer n brat to eat while I enjoy watching the game!

Could anyone give me a shopping list for chemicles I should try to remove that adhesive junk? I still can't seem to peel it off so I'm begining to wonder if it is another layer or just glue. But it does not seem to want to come off.

But I've been testing only on the glue stuck to the polarizer. Not the glue stuck to the glass substrate. It might come off easier there.

I'm getting worried now that I'll never get it off.

dam, this is getting good....I wish they served popcorn in this debate Ball is in your court Mark, and I bet it's juicy.

Sonic, come on, spill the beans, did you strip your panel yet, cause your PLOG shows some interesting pics, especially with that light on.
sim

To risk, or not to risk, that is the question...

I have another 17" LCD where the antiglare is damaged (scratched) but it's not through to the glass, probably not the polariser, but I haven't stripped it, and since it's a useful monitor at the moment, I don't really plan to... yet.

My LG 17" monitor is stripped, but it has work to do before I'm willing to take the plunge.

I'll second the request for a chemical shopping list, for now.

Okay, Life lesson 101 - everything is possible if you set your mind to it. And I do mean everything. This thread is a case in point. When I first read what these guys were trying to do, I laughed. And then Elken did it...

What is needed in order to succeed are 2 things. Persistance and a positive attitude. You have the persistance in droves. The attitude can be worked on You are still young and time is a great teacher. You tend to focus on what's wrong or even what is about to go wrong. This seems to be a comon thread that I have noticed in your posts. Confucious says, "A man that worries before it is necessary, worries more than is necessary."

Focus on what's going right. Hell - you BUILT your own pj!!! How cool is that?? That already places you in a different category from the bulk of younguns out there. And you taught yourself math! And, although I didn't find the post funny - apparently you have a great sense of humor (j/k, my own self-depricating sense of humor)

You will get the adhesive off, I can promise you (provided you don't crack your panel trying to rush it ...).

A shopping list of stuff to try (least expensive first):

Naptha
Mineral Spirits
Xyol (Xylene)
Benzine (Carcinogenic, use gloves, don't sniff please)

No need to try acetone, you already tried nail polish remover. The good news is that your substrate is glass - and short of etching it with acid, it's fairly immune chemically to stuff like strippers and solvents. Try these, if you need more, ask.



Sorry, it's BYOP (Bring your own p.... oh well, you get it)

As to if my panel is stripped as yet, I'd say "no", but best to watch the PLOG and see if my results improve any



1) Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Stripper
2) Plastic spatula, no frayed ends.
3) Naptha to clean up afterwards.
4) 220 grit sandpaper

Love the debate, but I feel you guys in the "stripper is better" field are missing one thing also.

STRIPPER DOESN"T WORK ON ALL ANTIGLARE !!!

The 15" HP Lcd I have won't strip with the "rag method" or with the "stripper" method. I tried 3 different types of stripper for varying periods of time with sanding. No luck.

And as far as the stripper goes, it WILL ruin anything else it touches. So if you get it on any FFC Connectors or wires you might ruin them. Please remind people of this.

@Sonic...... Did you say you DID see breakdown on the PVA after the "rag method" removal of your antiglare? And was this a "virgin" panel or had you done a lot of testing on it that might have caused the breakdown before the "rag method" antiglare removal.

Yes I DID see degredation. This was a test panel, but the region where the test was done was virgin. I only do my testing with virgins - much better that way...

Jon: What stripper did you use? How old is the panel? Yes, your FCC's are toast if you get the stripper on it.

And yes, stripper won't work on Titanium-based anti-glares - BWAHAHAH

Mikau: bottom line is that your polar is already partially lost (the corners). The entire film layer has to come off completely and replaced with a new sheet (clear polar)....and I hate to say this...but,...your going to have to 'rip' the entire film down to the acrylic glass which is your substrate before you add that new sheet of polar. Which I'm very afraid for you especially cause ...(now don't get offended)...you seem to have a streak of bad luck following you. I hope your able to 'rip' the film WITHOUT cracking the acrylic glass substrate....aww gawd, I can see that coming...please refer to this page for pulling the entire film off BUT ONLY IF YOUR READY TO DO THIS!!!
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...pic=7882&st=800

If your planning however to utilize your panel 'as is' that is with the two corners missing than a well soaked rag with goo off or denatured alcohol will work (hopefully). Remember what Mark said...if the TAC film (layer where the antiglare was adhesed to) is still on the remaining polar (black colored layer also known as PVA) the question is if the goo off or the denatured alcohol will affect the TAC's clarity and not to mention cause any more damage to the polar/PVA.

Just to also let you know, cleaning off the adhesive can be a 'b....ch'. It may take a little more than just 'swabbing' it. You might have to put a little effort on the acrylic substrate while it is flat on a table and on some paper towels. It may take ALOT of rubbing, patience and elbow grease, but work at it cause it's not easy.

Mark, if I got this wrong in any way, better jump in here cause I fear Mikau is heading into darker waters!!
sim

New developments. I just took a look at my panel and felt the back and made an interesting discovery. The layer that tore off on the polarizer is sticky, on the underside (the underside is the exposed part) but on the lcd, where the top of that layer is exposed, its not sticky at all! Its dry and smooth! This definitly is some sort of layer that has adhesive underneath it. THIS is the layer I can scratch with my finger nail and leave a mark.

So, mark, any idea what layer this is now and what would be best to remove it?

(edit) and thanks for the reply Sonicwonder. And for the compliments.

My panel is Brand New but probably around a year old from when it was manufactured. And I used the 3 different brand paint strippers that Lowes sells. I'm not at home so I can't say for sure which they are.

And very funny on the Titanium based antiglare. HAhaha....but isn't it suprising that of the few of us that have stripped or tried to strip panels, 2 of us have panels with Titanium Antiglare. Not very good odds, huh.

Where are you guys with the replacement polar bears....... we still need some test on replacements.

Mikau, don't scratch off anything until we know what you are dealing with. Again, if that is compensation film you want it to remain in place.I'm not debating water. But I think it could be more harmful than water. We have no evidence to support that it isn't. We have evidence to support that it is.Now that is up for debate. The process of using paint stipper is far more hands on. More chance of disaster. Further, we are comparing using a chemical that is dangerous to its surroundings with one that is not. Stripper is even harmful to the rear TAC.Very little time and energy is needed. All we need is a chemical. We've already established the process. And as long as we are sided with the belief that duration saves the day I say we just use Mineral Spirits.

A reminder: I'm not debating water, but we have not seen water cause damage given the rag technique.

To use an extreme example I have a panel here with practically zero bezel. The only space between the edge of the panel and the image, is the mask area. This is maybe half a centimeter. Beyond that: electronics and substrate sealant. The sort of thing I wouldn't even want the vapors of stripper coming near. I have little doubt that I could find a way to mask this off, and do the deed. But it wouldn't be easy. Probably a few hours of work. And I would be sweating. I wouldn't think twice about laying some paper towel on. Leave it, come back in a few hours and peel the thing up in 5. That is money.

Now lets take this from a different angle. Lets suppose that neither of these two methods will work for your anti-glare. You realize you must clean up, and go back to how things were, hoping for a good encapsulating/buffing method. Which chemical would you have rather used on your anti-glare? The obliterator? Or the one that selectively takes out a layer it never came near?

And did I mention I like Nemo? And Jello. .

Now where is that popcorn?

Mark.

Damn it, this thread is growing too fast to follow. Who is the other member that failed using stripper. This is the first I am hearing of it - might have plain 'ol missed it.

"Mikau, don't scratch off anything until we know what you are dealing with. Again, if that is compensation film you want it to remain in place."

Well thats great news...

Mark, my lcd has been stripped down to the glass in a large area of two corners. If your not supposed to strip it to the glass then my lcd is pretty much wrecked.

Well I thought it was Mikau but looking back I can't find where he tried.

Hey Mikau get some paint stripper and try to strip that Antiglare off your polar bear....... J/K Don't do that unless you aren't planning on keeping it.

No more so than water if it drips over the side. PVA has a low permeability to Methlyne Chloride


The time is expended FINDING the chemical. Money too. If you will buy all the experimentation supplies,
I'll provide the time/labor



Read my last post. I saw grain degredation after 6 Hrs with h20 (rag technique)



You forget that whatever solvent you choose will also have vapors. Not to mention that most of those vapors are not things you want to be sniffing for 12 hours.



Hey, if you can't stand the heat .... hehe



In either case, full replacement of the polarizer would be necessary. By the time you realize it won't work for you, you have already pulled a Mikau.

Earlier mark said "If you run your fingernail along the substrate glue, it should leave a mark." the stuff that remained under the polarizer will scratch very easily so I guess this must be the substate adhesive. But what I don't get is its not sticky on the top. Only on the underside.