SonicWonder: give me a minute, I have my rebutal .This was done that night? It's not going to likely be a big deal. Even if it is compensation film, you'll probably do fine without it. So what you are saying is you have a scratch-able substance left? The substrate glue is not seemingly sticky to touch. But it is quite sticky to the polarizer. I will take a pic of my panel and see if it compares. Give me some time.

Mark.

Re-BUTT-al ... heheh - heheh - hehhe (In my best Beavis voice)

Hey where's the B.A. emoticon ?

meyer2, give us good news!

mikau, if i were you, i would remove everything on the antiglare side down to the glass and wait for a replacement. ive been using the triplet square for a few days now and it really isnt THAT bad (if you can read backwords).

Simul8er I didn't see your reply earlier. Thanks for that, I'll read up on that link.



Well when I pulled up the polarizer, some of that layer stuck to it, and some of it remained on the lcd. Therefore, natuarally, I can ONLY feel the underside of the layer on the piece that stuck under the polarizer. Quite sticky! But I can only feel the top of that layer on the lcd. Not sticky at all.

Now, now Sonic and Mark. If you two don't stop arguing I'll take away your lcds.

I'm with Sonic on this one, but that's not surprising. I personally feel that the stripper method is safer for the lcd. Can the rag technique with water work? Yes. Is there a greater chance of screwing something up with the panels when using the rag technique? Yes. Is the stripper method less safe for the user? Yes. Is it possible to screw your panel up using either method? Yes.

I think all of these points are agreeable to everyone.

If you are prone to inhaling fumes, picking your nose, sucking your thumb or grabbing your crotch while working then I would advise against using the stripper method. Otherwise, I would say the stripper method is more reliable way to rid yourself of the a/g.

And btw simul8er I was aware that total removal was the only way to go and I have to strip it down to the glass. Thats what I'm trying to do.

Mark, Sonic I'm gonna havta ask ya both to leave. Take your debate to another thread, this is getting outta hand...hehehehehehehe.

EVERYBODY, IF YOU HAVE DONE ANY OF THE METHODS TO YOUR PANEL PLEASE POST THEM ON THE OTHER THREAD http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl= .....gawwd, I hate repeating myself...now I feel like Mark.

Hey, who's winning now?????
sim

Mik, you could also try stripper on the glass substrate. Just dont get it over the edges or on your FFC's.

DAMIT GUYZ, GET IT STRAIGHT IT'S NOT SIMUL8TOR, OR SIMUL8ER IT'S S - I - M - U - L - 8 - R !!!!!!!!!

......freaken thread crashers................

Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to win, the enemy is Antiglare. If it is defeated - we all win. In reality, both methods can work and both have their risks. It is more a matter of what one is comfortable with at this point. And you are right, any further debate should be taken to another thread. Or - better yet - the IRC chat room at a designated time ??

my bad simul8er.

Waiting for mark to get back. Hopefully my discovery will allow us to identify what this nonsticky layer is and how to remove it.

Sorry Stimul8r.

Workout time - back at 9:00PM

Maybe I should start a debate on PEEK vs Mothers. Anybody want in on this? Now, what was it you said about MY MOTHERS???

BTW Sonic, can you post some pics with PEEK method on that thread, I wanna see what ya gots.

sim

OK guys I have honestly read all 103 pages of this thread... all 2000some-odd-posts... wow. OK something that I think you are missing in the debate is that these mestods can be combined into a happy medium or comprimise. Let me get this straight:

Pros of the Methyl Chloride
-PVA Safe
-More vertical(depth penetration) control - through shorter exposure time and PVA resistance
-Gooey
-Readily Available

Pros of the Ragging Method
-More lateral control
-Peal off of AntiGood
-Easy clean up

Cons of Meth
-Fumes on the FFC's

OK what I'm thinking...

How 'bout using the stripper with some sort of a sticky rag.
1 - Stick the stickyrag to the LCD
2 - Wrap FFCs in saran wrap or another meth resistant plastic - Ziplock bags - plastic garbage bags etc...
3 - Turn on fan for good ventilation
4 - Paint/Pour on Stripper
5 - Put Saran Wrap over the stripper to prevent vaporization
6 - Peal up sticky-no-more-rag with AntiGood remains and meth goo

Pros of this method
- Controlled fumes
- PVA safe
- No scraping
- Short time
- Easier clean up
- Seducing Peal Effect

I know its my first post, but I wanted to wait until I read the whole thread. I too have a spare panel that I am willing to try this on... But my time is very limited right now so please be patient

I"m beginning to wonder if this is really damage to the polar bear or the way it's supposed to look.

Of the several panels I have taken polar bears off, the Psone polar bear looked different then the rest, it had a "stressed, cracked" look to it when viewed under a magnifying glass. The others didn't.

Could it be that different polar bears have a slightly different structure ?

Welcome aboard tovarishrob, glad to have you join the EXTREME BUNCH. Sounds like you might have some experimenting to do. Give your method a go and let us know. But from my point of view, taping then adding stripper means more hours for the chemical to react thru the tape, adhesive, the antiglare then adhesive then TAC....and thats alot of layers. But thats my point of view, I'd say give it a go, cause basically everything that has been done on this thread has been extremely crazy but heck, we got things done!!
sim

When I said a sticky rag I mean something very pourous... say cheese cloth - for polishing cars - and just some simple (albeit Meth resistant) spray glue to make it tacky. Its purpose is to simply hold the meth goo. I am still thinking only a 30 min exposure.

Yeah we got things done allright...

I am taking the side of the rag technique with a safe solvent. Not water. Huge difference in theory, actually not that different in practice. One of my main arguments is that this solvent will not damage the panel. That is strippers flaw.I've got pics coming, but not for a couple hours. I've got to run out.

Sonic: I didn't have time, but I am actually going to have to go back and see where you were able to damage PVA with proper rag technique. Have I read this wrong?

Mikau: if some stuck to your panel, and some to the polarizer, then I am virtually positive that is just substrate acrylic glue. It will come off with petroleum distillates on towelettes. Sorry I have to run. This isn't over yet Sonic.

Oh, and this debate should definitely be here. We need the references. Or should we debate about that too Sonic? .

Be back in a couple hours,
Mark.

With stripper this wont be neccessary. The goo is very thick and unless you jarr the panel, it aint gonna flow away from where you put it.

Ok, for when you get back:

Is the substrate acrillic glue a layer that is not sticky on one side? (or something like that) like I said the layer is smooth and dry on one side. But the part that came up on the polarizer is sticky on the underside. Thats why this stuff doesn't want to come off.

It also supplies the all so satisfying peal effect that Mark is desiring . As well as the easy clean up and the ability to trust that the whole panel has enough meth to do the job (pressure might push the saran wrap to the surface and it would be difficult to discern)

you kill me mikau...remember, you wanted in, how you wanted to help and approach it was up to you...



tovarishrob, all I can say is that Elken found the 'tape deal' by accident, I found the 'mothers deal' by trial and error as with 'stripper' and Mark with his 'water rag' method. How you take from here is up to you. Good luck.
sim

Toshi,

First off, welcome to the thread (forgot to say that before)! The thing is that Methylene Chloride will turn the TAC into a goop weather or not it is applied with cheescloth or the traditional stripper method. The debate is really over weather there is a chemical that can stip the a/g safer than Methylene Chloride (ie. with less damage to the PVA / surrounding electrical components / plastic / FCC's / etc.) If a better one is found, I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon, but stripper is proving to be quite safe/effective as is.

GAWD I hate situps ... but here I go.

lol. Yeah I know. I have not blamed anybody but myself for what went wrong. I just blame sonic wonder for posting the unthinkable.

Stronger and harder
Than a bad girl's dream ...

Im trying something with marks wet rag technique just for yucks. I have something called Shakee Basic-H
and its called a surfactant.It reduces water surface tension,basicaly it makes water wetter and good thing is it only takes a few drops in water to do this.So Im trying this on my test panel to see how long it will take to peel the ag off.Im betting that this may help the water penetrate into the ag quicker.not sure what it will do to the polar but we will see soon enough.the main ingredient is Linear alcohol alkoxylates
I will test it in an hour and see if I can pull up the ag...ect

I still think that using the methods I described above, the dangers of Meth can be mitigated sucessfully... just the saranwrap covering of the goo and the fan will protect everything but the AntiGood, then a simple wipe away of the leftover goo. No PVA damage, no FFC damage, just a shiny polarizer and increased brightness. Oh yea and maybe some freeky dreams for a couple of nights

Excuse me while I vomit.

(pukes)

Hey! I wonder if stomach acid will remove that adhesive! (scoops up the barf and runs downstairs)

I have doubts the Saran wrap would survive... but if it did, it would be nice to be able to control the fumes. Also it may be bad in that it will not let the other PVA damaging chemicals evaporate out as was mentioned earlier.

Sorry Sim, I must've missed this ... The pic is posted in the results thread that you set up. It is a transmissive pic, as the reflective pic didn't turn out (crappy $40 digital camera).

Oh no! No more peeks from Sonicwonder! Please! I do not want to what he gots.

SonicWonder, Do you still have the link where you found the PVA reactivity chart?

In trying to find the perfect solvent for the wet rag technique, I noticed that the second page of the chart was not posted.

heres a picture of the corner of my test lcd after I got the corner started with a fingernail I was able to pull
part of it up about an hour and twenty minutes after I put the basic-h and water soaked towel on the panel.
would be good if someone else could try this on a test panel to verify it.

Good eye. That was, in fact, a goof. I had such a time compressing these so that they would fit within the 100K limit that I must've missed one. Here's a link to the original:

http://www2.umaine.edu/SEM/Documents/MiscT...stanceGuide.pdf

I also updated the original post with a link.

Thanks for that but the link won't work. Still have the jpeg of the second page?

[edit] I found it by searching the main page.

If you take a piece of polarizer it should stick down. To your finger, it should not seem sticky. Here is a photo of ravaged glue.

Click to view attachment

The really shiny colorful areas are the glass substrate. The topographical looking stuff is substrate glue. It looks edged like that because I have been trying various solvents. The top of the picture is the scissored up polarizer. I find that a long term rag with water, or petroleum distillates (un-du products) work well enough. It still takes a lot of elbow grease.Welcome . How can you see straight after reading this whole thing? The stripper actually turns TAC to goo. There would therefore be no peel effect. It would be exactly the same as if you just spread the stripper out, only the fumes would be controlled. Or have I misunderstood?Thanks a trillion DeathRay. Progress. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a chemical that does not damage PVA to some degree with time.Water has no effect. Stripper turns the rear TAC and adhesive to goo. I am not debating water (Seriously, why do I keep having to say that?).What kind of damage?Harmless vapours.That will be corrected quite easily.Why choose risk and difficulty, when I can have easy? This isn't about me. This is about the people that need to replicate this.I hate to say it, but I think Mikau would agree that he did not take my warning seriously enough. My original instructions stated two warnings:

1. Do not allow the water to drip over the edge.

2. Do not pull with anything less than super light force. If it needs force, soak longer.

Mikau pulled hard enough to tear the anti-glare, and even to pull up the entire polarizer. I am sorry I had to bring this up. Especially now that we have read Mikau's account, someone should know right away that if they cannot flick it up with a fingernail, and have it glide off like butter, something must be wrong.

Mark.

How did the process go? Any worries? If we could get a solvent that would allow that kind of success to be replicated with zero damage to the PVA, and compatibility with oil based adhesives do you feel the process would be inarguably sweet? Bearing as well that this solvent would have a much lower surface tension than water by nature?

Mark.

Mark: Okay, I give up; we are essentially in agreement

I, much like you, was playing devil's advocate. It was fun, but let's not waste any more time/energy. Both these methods work. I understand that water is not the optimal solvent, and is not what you advocate as the final "rag method" soution - great. Let's find one that works better than stripper and then we wil have another debate - hehe

The idea of using a rag to apply the solvent was the part of the process that I have thought ingenious all along. It was the choice of solvent that I had issue with. So - on with the search!!

PS: The damage in the H20 rag method sample I tested was, thin, long hairline cracks along the grain structure of the PVA. I really had to look to find them. But with a magnifying glass and light at the right angle - there they were. I was not able to macro photograph these - just too small. I doubt they would project as they are thinner than a spec of dust. The question is what would happen to these defects over time. I believe we are both in agreement that water just isn't the way to go. For the rag method, we don't know as yet just what solvent is.

DeathRay: I corrected the link. Thank you for informing me - I'm slacking

I appreciate that you gave it the full deal like that . I think we probably showed the true complexity of the comparison at least. I agree, though. Let's move on. Good to hear you will be helping find another solvent, just so we can put to rest if this is going to work. The thing that I like about it the most is that we can truly shop the best solvent possible for all the factors. A custom solution. The rag really just provides artificial thickening to the chemical that we choose, as does the thickeners in stripper. It allows us to target the glue, and nothing else. That is nice.

Putting the debate away, I can say personally I feel there are a number of advantages to that situation if we can tee it up. Only my opinion right now.

Here are some photos I shot of the effects that have been described .

Here is a sample of polarizer that was soaked in water for 12 hours, at which time the anti-glare was torn off. Then soaked in water for an additional day with the PVA obviously exposed.

Click to view attachment

Now here is that same piece tilted in light to reveal grain. These are believed to be fractures in the polarizer that occur when the polarizer has been stressed and then soaked in a solvent. It is thought that the solvent basically fills the stresses, and enlarges them.

Click to view attachment

This next shot is of the crossed transmittance of the same polarizer sample. Note there is seemingly zero loss of efficiency. I have no solid way to test this, but I think there has actually been a loss, we just can't see it under normal circumstances. The white scratches are actually dust between the tow polarizers. The dust diffuses the polarization axis of passing light, so it can pass the second polarizer.

Click to view attachment

This next photo is of a sample that has soaked in mineral spirits for 4 days. It is not doing well. You can see that it's crossed transmittance has been reduced. The first color to make it through lower efficiency polarizers is purple. This polarizer also suffers from grain.

Click to view attachment

This next pic is of 3 samples. From left to right, untouched sample, the water soak sample from above, and lastly the mineral spirits sample. Note the curl. Realize that the mineral spirits sample soaked for 4 days with the PVA exposed. That said, it was supposed to be a PVA safe solvent . Perhaps it is not an iodine or TAC safe solvent.

Click to view attachment

Mark.

This is what I saw in the rag soak sample, but on a much reduced scale. There weren't THAT many cracks visible.

Also, 4 days in mineral spirits is a long time; i can see how that long an immersion would have an adverse effect on the PVA. These PVA-safe solvents have greatly reduced rates of deterioration, but they will still degrade the material if exposed for long enough. Just think of your own skin when exposed to water. A three hour dunk in a tub and my skin is sloughing off. This is one of the attractive aspects of the stripper method; the exposure time is very limited.

I think your idea about the solvent propogating the cracks is essentially correct.

WONDERFUL pics by the way - they really do say 1000 words

This was soaked for a very long time, and it is actually the test piece that I stressed to intentionally create grain. At first there was less, and the bottom half actually didn't have any. The photo is also quite contrasty. It is odd to me that you were able to reproduce grain on an unstressed piece. Do you have any theory to explain what may have happened?

Here are some comparison shots of anti-glare removal VS polishing with PEEK. Unfortunately, this did not work out the way I had hoped it would, as you cannot see the difference in detail. Basically while the overall effect of PEEK is that of a very shiny surface, not all the anti-glare is removed, and the material is left with a milky appearance. That said, it is most impressive for so little work. It took me maybe 2 minutes to prepare this sample area.

First a shot of the PVA surface with the anti-glare removed. You can see where the anti-glare has been cut. It is the exact shape of the wet paper towel I had resting there.

Click to view attachment

This next shot shows a PEEK polished area on the left, and the same rag treated area on the right. Disregard the scratches. This panel has been through it all:

Click to view attachment

Same thing:

Click to view attachment

Again, you really cannot see the difference. All this really does is show that PEEK does a remarkably good job. But there is a very significant improvement going to anti-glare removal.

Hope that helps ,
Mark.

Yes. In fact I think I recall there was no problem at 2 days.

The ragging of mineral spirits would probably be about an hour. And of course, if both methods are done right, the anti-glare is removed before the chemical has time to rest on the PVA for too long.

No problem . It will be funny to see what happens to people brains when they see these. See if they have been following along well .

Mark.

My this is the quietest this thread has been !!!!

Great pics mark! they really do help..

One thing I am a bit confused about...
PVA on its own is sometimes used as an adhesive (elmers white glue).
The Polarizer production methods imbed Iodine in PVA with a little heat to make the polarizer.
Do you think that in some LCD's the polarizers were made with the AG tac in place so the only adhesive is the PVA itself? (this makes sense to me from a manufacturing/Light transmission angle... less layers, less processes, and a reinforcement to the PVA polarizer while it remains in production.)

I think that Sonic said awhile back (~page 96) that he thought the only reason the ragging worked was because the very topmost layer of PVA was dissolving, thereby releasing the TAC. In your panels have you seen a verifiable layer of adhesive between the TAC and PVA? or do you think that when just ripping off the TAC leaves behind a tacky PVA surface and some residual PVA tackiness on the TAC. This might explain the reason for the micro-graining effect tht Sonic saw b/c the PVA was exposed to water, and the pealing was infact a 'stressing' of the very weakened top layer of PVA.

If this is in fact true (that the only adhesive to the AG TAC is PVA itself) then wouldn't the ideal solvent we are looking for be a TAC dissolver instead of a TAC releaser? You may have discussed this some 1000 - odd posts ago and my brain just dumped it due to the shear firehose effect of info from this thread, but please comment on it again for my sake. Thanks

-Rob

2 different PVAs... elmers is poly vinyl acetate( I think) the PVA in lcds is polyvinyl alcohol , yeah it was about 1500 posts ago! ;-) at least its slowed down a little the last few days....
me I have atotally stripped lcd(no front OR rear polars! next day or two I'm taping together some 5" polars and see what kind of picture I'll get...

I posted this in the "results" forum, but I thought I'd add it here to compliment Mark's PEEK pics. This is a transmissive picture of an anti-glare layer (removed via the rag method - ) that has been treated in the lower right hand corner with PEEK:

Click to view attachment

It's a crappy camera but it gives you an idea of the effect. 95% of the way with about 2% the effort.

I have contact and order info from the guy who sells it on ebay for those who are interested:
Occupint@aol.com
Ebay name: webbargains

Oh...but you didn't ask if the tidy whities were ok.

I don't see any reason it would be a problem as we post links to projector material sources all the time.

I wouldn't post his address and home phone but you could give his ebay user name or a link to his store.

Rob,

This is, in fact, what I believe is happening with the rag method. There may be some dissolution of intermediary glue layers as well, but I can say that my panel desn't seem to have glue between the TAC/PVA layers; There is no trace of tack on either of the surfaces. The rag method may also work by "swelling" at the interface, thus causing the PVA/TAC bond to weaken; We really don't know. BUT - it is only of academic interest PROVIDED that the PVA is not damaged.

Methylene Chloride is the chemical that will dissolve TAC. That is what stripper is. This is what our whole debate has been about; is it better to dissolve the TAC with stripper, or use the rag method to lift the TAC intact (pun intended). My concern was that the difference in approaches boiled down to dissolving a top skin of PVA vs. dissolving TAC. Now all this holds true for water only, and Mark assures me that there are better solvents on the horizon. I think he may well be right.

And Mike was right on about PVA being an acronym for 2 different polymers.



Once bitten, twice shy.

ESPECIALLY in that area ...

It would be nice to see projected image comparision pics of no AG vs Peek'd AG of the LCD installed and running.

The majority of the people on this site would probably be willing to do the Peek method. A lot less would attempt to completely remove the AG.

agreed.... especially since it can be done in situ .... whereas the other methods invlove removing the panel fromthe pj and the less you mess with the FFCs and the panel the less chance of ummm.."accidental" damage ;-) which is why its taken me 10 days to egt my panel (almost) back in the projector.... and for even 80% (or whatever) the PEEK method is pretty simple and quick ... if I had spent a couple of hundred dollars on my panel I'd be a lot more inclined to PEEK than POKE ... of course its not nearly as much fun or educational ;-)