Earlier in this thread, encapsulation of the a/g with tape was discussed. There were some very nice comparison pics posted by elken and Simul8r showing the difference between encapsulated and a/g in projections. The PEEK is going to be very comparable to encapsulation.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=1140#
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=1200#
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=1264#

Its about $10 per tube (I think) and you'll be able to use the leftovers to clean your wife/girlfriends jewelry. On the other hand, if more invasive methods fail you, you may be forced to HAWK that same jewelry to afford a new panel ...

PS: I am not sure about how practical in situ polishing is. That would be difficult in my setup ...

I believe that there was an intrinsic defect on the PVA surface that just propagated as the water attacked it. Every surface, even a mirror (or a crystal), will have these microscopic defects. The more aggressive the solvent is (on PVA), the quicker these defects will grow.

These pics are encapsulated vs antiglare on.

I want to see encapsulated/Peek vs antiglare off.

In other words, how much better of an improvement are we seeing when removing the antiglare as opposed to merely polishing the antiglare. I've heard explanations, but no pics yet.

Pics will give people a better idea of what they want to do. Some may not find the complete AG removal worth the added risk/trouble, and choose to just polish the AG. Still others may decide the small improvement is worth the added trouble.

That's what it's all about right there, gentlemen! We make a mistake-- we find a way for others to not make the same mistake.

Hats off, Mikau. I'm 18 and seem to have been cursed with DIY bad luck also, but I'll be darned if I give up before reaching my goals.

Look more carefully at the third link. 1/2 the panel is Mother's polish (PEEK Will be at least as good, perhaps better), 1/2 is NO a/g.

EDIT: sorry, I corrected the third link. That was the source of your confusion; look at the bottom of the page.

Absolutely! I invite you to try the PEEK and report back to us

I you look at the PEEK surface in my shots on the last page, and then the Mother's surface in the shot from here (second pic down), you can see that PEEK will surely have a more effective projection. I believe my PEEKED area looks a lot more like the stripped side of this panel:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...339&#entry95339So, just to be clear, even after removing the anti-glare you could still see the crystal like grain. And it took a certain angle of light to see?

I believe the PVA has a naturally microscopically wavy surface. It is one of the reasons I feel there must be an additional adhesive in there.http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=96366

Both Polyvinyl Alcohol and Polyvinyl Acetate are glues. They are both very nice glues. The vinyl we are dealing with (alcohol) is a water soluble glue (not surprisingly). So how have I written off the fact that it may simly be dissolving a thin layer of the PVA? Well to be honest I feel this is a very important answer to find, but I have not come up with a suitable experiment to prove it. I have a few hunches to indicate there is a separate layer of glue:

1. While mineral spirits ravaged the PVA over time, it is not supposed to have, and over a short period it did almost nothing. So I am left to believe that since it is able to release the front TAC so quickly, there may be a separate layer of glue there.

2. The surface of the PVA is naturally wavy. The back of the anti-glare is flat like glass. Pressing these together would result in voids that would be clearly visible as grain. I still have not entirely ruled out that this is what grain is: The glue being displaced from the voids.

3. Manufacture process. It is my understanding that the PVA is made in house, or purchased on rolls. It is not wet when applied, and if water is so damaging then I just can't see them re-placticizing with water.

The other thing is that the type of disintegration I have shown the pics for so far is very different than the type of disintegration that a PVA unsafe chemical causes. Here is a picture of what an Ammonia dunk does in 12 hours with the anti-glare in place and then removed for the photo:

Click to view attachment

Note the edges have been dissolved completely. Now that is PVA unsafe.

Mark.

Yes. Light had to glance over the surface. Your camera is awesome at macro photos, unfortunately, my cheapie is not



What leads you to believe that the mineral spirits aren't dissolving the TAC at the PVA/TAC interface?



I have not noticed the wavyness you refer to. Do you have a pic by any chance?



Mark, can you please elaborate on this a bit. I believe you are right that the effect of water is minimally damaging to the PVA using the rag method. The damage in my sample had to be searched for in order to find. A cursory glance failed to reveal it. I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning fully.

I just realized something from looking at that photo . The PVA was almost completely dissolved from the edges of that Ammonia sample, and yet the grain remains.

So perhaps grain is entirely caused by TAC? Or the adhesive? Huh. . This needs to be looked into.

Mark.

The waviness is a theory. Based purely on how the polymers align.

The manufacture process point was if they have no way of re-plactisizing the PVA after they pull it dry off the roll, then they must have used a separate adhesive. Water is the only re-plasticizer I believe there is.

Mark.

Hey I have to sleep once in a while.



Actually I don't think I saw that warning. Or forgot it, a lot to remember in this thread. But actually, some members had said that when removing their antiglare after a soak, it did not always come up easy and sometimes took a bit of force. ("use the force, mikau!" *RIPS* "damn the force, Obi")

So I just didn't know how much was too much. But from now on we should say NEVER pull hard even if its coming up without ripping, if it doesn't come up easy, soak it longer.



Man over two thousand replies... Very soon it will be the longest thread on lumenlab and maybe even in the world! When this is over, we need to print it out and publish it as a book! Maybe even make it into a movie! (rated R for brief nudity)

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=96860They were unfortunately referring to complete polarizer removal.

Mark.

Sonic,

My question is, if the PVA is the adhesive and there is nothing between it and the AG TAC, what is the 'ideal solvent' going to dissolve?
Don't we have to then make a choice to either dissolve PVA or dissolve TAC.

Any chance you could try a small stamp size sample of stripper on the panel that you did the 'rag' sample on. So that you culd look at the grain side-by-side with the product of the water release method.

Exactly. The whole thing is based on the theory that there is another glue to dissolve. The fact that Sonic could not perceive the glue is actually irrelevant. If it is there, it is clear, and exceptionally thin. There is definitely something there (We have been wiping some sort of goo) but wether it is a separate adhesive or dissolved PVA is still unknown. The ideal solvent is based on my hunch that there is a glue there to dissolve. My reasons for believing this are in an above post. The primary reason is the manufacturing process. There are companies that sell PVA on rolls for polarizer manufacturers (I lost the link ). These rolls are dry. The only way to re-plascticize PVA, as I have heard, is with water. There is no way they would use water if it is as damaging as we assume it is to PVA. If they do use water, then they would be using it in a similarly controlled fashion as we are. It just seems far more likely that they will spray a glue on and be done with it.

I should say that the ideal solvent may also be one that dissolves a very controlled amount of PVA. Less than water. Or a solvent that re-plasticizes without dissolving anything.

What we need to do is figure out exactly how much grain, and what the cause of Sonic's grain was. I have been unable to reproduce his findings. After I pulled the anti-glare off my panel, I rested a smaller rag onto the surface for several hours. I cannot tell where that rag was.

With the recent photograph, I have been led to believe that grain is in the TAC. The TAC weakens, and fractures along the PVA grain, as that is where it is unsupported. As the TAC flexes along this grain, it cracks the PVA as well, but the original source, I believe to be the TAC. I tried bending the soaked TAC, and it cracked.

So how did Sonic's rear TAC get wet? I don't know. If water could have permeated his PVA without simply dissolving it's way through, that explains part of the problem. But then the rear TAC should never have been stressed. Perhaps in the manufacture of his panel the polarizer came off the end of a roll, or was rolled as it was transported or glued down.

A reminder: stripper has been confirmed to cause grain as well. It is a problem that we need to at least define.

Mark.

That, my friend, is the canundrum. Ideally, it is the TAC interface that should be attacked (or the glue at the interface IF it is present) - so the search for the IDEAL solvent continues. But, I am convinced that stripper (Jasco only) is chemically safe for our purposes.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=2000# [post 2013]

The problem with the stripper method is that it is unforgiving to the stuff around your panel (FCC's, plastic, electronics) if you are careless with it. Also, if you are careless removing the stripper, you can theoretically scratch the PVA (although I havent seen anyone do it). Theoretically, you can also ruin your monitor by removing it from its casing ...



It is planned. I need to get the time

I hate repeating myself, but stripper causes grain.

I forgot to mention that there have been several panels successfully modified with water now. No grain there. Sonic's discovery is a real curve ball.

The other critical thing I should mention is that there have been panels that have not taken to water at all. There are 2 possible reasons for this:

a. The anti-glare material is not TAC and is therefore not permeable.

b. The TAC is permeable, but the glue is not water soluble.

As you can probably deduce, if we can confirm that their anti-glare is permeable, then we can be pretty sure that b is the case. If b is the case, then we know there is a seperate layer of glue.

What these people need to try (and jonjandran already suggested this) is another chemical that will not dissolve PVA at all but that we know will dissolve oil based glues. This is the magic solvent that I am proposing we find. I don't recommend this type of experimentation on anything other than a test panel, but it would confirm what we are looking for. Perhaps Mikau has some other solvent he could dunk a test piece into to just get some idea. If Mikau dunks in ammonia and finds the layers separate then we know his anti-glare is TAC. Therefore, there is a separate glue. If his anti-glare does not separate, then we know that either:

a. The oil based glue is not responding to ammonia.

or

b. His anti-glare is not TAC and is not permeable.

Mark.

I believe that was after a 24 hour total soak if I remember correctly? Are you refering to this post:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=1980# [post 1997]

The stripper doesn't stay in contact with the PVA for this period of time and I think that this is something that needs to be made crystal clear. Anything can degrade a thin film if it is exposed to it for long enough - even air. Try soaking PVA in water (or ammonia) for that period of time and compare the results.



Again, please show me where you got this information. It seems to fly in the face of what I learned from talking with Jasco. You are right in that we need to find out what exactly this grain is.

Mark,

Not trying to get on your nerves here, but what makes you think that it's more logical to manufacture the PVA-TAC bond by either introducing another adhesive and thereby optical layer, or altering the PVA and not just altering the TAC?

The bond could just as easily be produced by using a hot roller on top of the TAC to soften it and essentially melt it to the PVA. If the PVA has even a little temp resistence (which we know it does from our hot projectors) this process would work. In addition this process is optically sound (no new layers), simple and cheap.
If this is the case... what are we trying to dissolve?
I am no chemist... in fact I don't know that I could properly spell most chemicals... but are there any chemists out there that could speak to the ability to use some sort of capillary action or diffusivity to import a chem between the layers without reacting to either layer and just force them apart?

Because neither TAC (Triacetyl Cellulose) or PVA (Polyvinyl Alcohol) are hot melt adhesives. TAC is good to just over 100 degrees Celsius, then it darkens.

Mark.

I am not a chemist either, but I cannot perceive how something like that could be done, without the chemical being forced out the TAC again.

Mark.

I'll take a piece of my polarizer and soak it in ammonia to see if comes apart. Got plenty of ammonia.

Yes, I got it from SIM. http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97574

To paraphrase he posts that it is remarkable that nothing much happened to the PVA. There is grain, but bear in mind that this was soaked for a long time.

That sounds exactly like what I have seen water do. Not much, but something. In fact it sounds worse, because in my surface tests, I have been unable to create perceivable damage. I am also thinking that while water retains it's full boar strength for the full test period, the stripper looses power over time. Thus, it could be found that stripper is doing more damage in the same amount of time.

The unfortunate thing is that he has not tested the crossed transmittance.

Sonic: was the grain you saw on the panel in any particular area, or did it span the whole ragged surface?

OFF TOPIC: I've had to start getting really careful with this new board engine. You can easily miss appended posts. .

Mark.

I think the key to figuring out this grain situation is with your test panel Sonic. It is just such a contradiction to what I have seen.Thanks Mikau. Any luck with taking that glue off? Did the photo I posted look familiar?

Mark.

RaginR: Please post your results at the other link. It would help. Read the intro and we appreciate it.
sim

I've been following this thread from the beginning and an amazed at what is forgotten. In an earlier post it was stated that the anti glare was sprayed on the polarizer, if it is a spray no glue between layers will be required. I believe this information was linked to a document elsewhere, it's too hard to search the 100+ pages of this thread to find
the original post

Mike

The anti-glare is not believed to be sprayed onto the PVA. It is sprayed onto the TAC, which is then adhered to the PVA by some means. It is that means that we are currently working to establish.

And spray is not the only process. It is my bet (just a guess) that the anti-glare that I have been seeing is created with the etching process.

Mark.

Pic looked sort of like it but its hard to tell. I have another look.

I need to make a trip up to home depot to get some chemicles to try. Home depot should have petrolium distillate, right?



One thing I'd really like to know is how resistant is the glass substrate to solvents and strong chemicles? I know we call it glass substrate but isn't it actually acryllic and plastic like? Couldn't it be damaged by certain chemicles?

I imagine they will. But I got mine in the form of un-du Gunk & Goo remover towelettes. The problem with the towelettes was that the distillates evaporate too quickly from the towels. You would be best making your own with a rag and a bottle of the stuff.

I'm sure there are a lot of other solvents that would work too. I just don't recommend citric solvents. They didn't work for me (although I didn't try the grandaddy of them all: Orange Up). Orange Up is expensive anyway, and you could wind up with way more than you need just to find out that it doesn't work.

You can get various gunk and goo remover products at pretty much any craft store, or Wal Mart.

Hope it works for you.

I should point out that through all of this, you should have your panel resting on a soft (not bouncy) surface. Soft flannel (even flannel sheets) would be the best if you ask me.

Honestly, if you really pick at the stuff with your fingernail, you should be able to pull it up, just very slowly. Too slowly for anyone to stand. The fact that half of it came up with your polarizer is a perfect indication of this.

Basically I would look for goo remover products, not necessarily pure solvents. I wish I could remember the name of a product I used a few years ago. It liquified every adhesive I put it on.

Mark.

We've already kind of gone over this. Basically the general consensus is that as long as it isn't acid, and is kept in the right place, you will be fine. They say it is glass. It shatters like glass. I believe it is called a substrate because there are electrical deposits on the areas not occupied by the polarizer area. The definition of a substrate is the surface on to which something is deposited or inscribed.

Mark.

A line of pixels died in my CMV-520D

I think im quitting DIY, and just buying an infocus 4805. Its cheaper and brighter, you can keep your resolution.

I hate this feeling .

The grain occured almost exclusively along the diagonal of the rectangle patch where I removed the a/g. There was one long grain structure flanked by several shorter ones. Again, one would be hard pressed to see this on casual inspection, but I have looked no less than 5x on different occasions to see the damage is actually there.

I am testing a patch of the PVA with a drop of water directly on it. At a 1 hour interval, I could begin to see small defects appearing (after having blotted up the h20). I am currently at hour 2. I would like to see the effect of h20 on grain formation, even if in a limited area.

It occurred to me that that panel might somehow have been stressed accross the diagonal where the micro-crack appeared. Perhaps by lifting the a/g? It is rather difficult for me to fathom, however, because I used very little force in lifting the a/g. If it is due to that, it requires disarmingly little stress to make this grain appear.

Mark: have you CLOSELY inspected the ragged area of your panel from all different angles? I'm sure you have, but better to be safe ...

EDIT: I just checked the sample at 2 hours - MUCHO grain formation. Will check again in another hour.

While googling a search for 'bonding PVA & TAC' this is the first thing that came up. Makes ya wonder, huh?

Man - I hate to hear that. I've been there, I know your frustration. Your only consolation is that you will quite likely be able to pick up a scratched old panel on ebay, and retrofit it with new polarizers.



BWAHAHA!! That's classic.

Well I think one of the biggest difficulties is the adhesive is protected by that layer of whater it is. Even if I have a good ahesive remover, its like trying to rub off a piece of tape by applying the adhesive remover on top of the tape when its still attached. Your applying to the cover, not to the adhesive itself.

Unless petrolium distillate is strong enough to completely melt the protective layer.



dang! And I thought I had bad luck!

Well its your choice. Commercial projectors are much less hassle but there is the issue with the 400 dollar bulb waiting to go off. I think it lasts pretty long but not nearly as long as our bulbs.

Mark, everybody...you better take a look at this link. Apparently, theres little loss of transmissivity if the polar was unbonded to the LCD as compared to bonded with adhesives. See page 4.

http://www.nitto.com/rd/technical/2003_84/...atsukae.qxd.pdf

Something to think about for those wanting full removal and replace.

sim

did you mean to say there is "A little loss in transmitancy"?

Mikau,

If you go shopping for some sort of solvent, you won't see the words "petrolium distillate" as an ingredient, although you may see these words within a warning message as in "this substance contains petrolium distallates". I just wanted to clarify this as you appear to be refering to it as if it is some name brand, which it is not. Look for the words "adhesive remover", these general brands of removers all contain some form of petrolium distallates. Again, the specific brand I used was "Oops" adhesive remover... but there are *many* others...

I'm not suggesting you do this, but I removed that adhesive from the LCD glass (substrate) by simply rubbing my thumb along the edge of the adhesive. Once a piece starts to "roll up", it got a bit easier, but it still requires a bit of force (not downward force mind you, only just enough downward force to get the thumb to "stick" a little and start the stuff peeling off). At the end I gave the glass a quick wipe of denatured alcohol to remove fingerprints. My fingers were a little soar after this was over as about 1/2 my panel was covered... the other 1/2 of the adhesive pulled off with the polarbear.

good luck.
gs

Thanks for the info. I tried to gently peel up the remaining glue with a razor blade but it really wouldn't come up. I managed to get off some of the surface but it was ridiculously slow. 10 minutes for a quarter inch. I was carefull with the razor and left no scratches.

Sorry. I thought you said that you could scratch the layer with your fingernail as I had in the photo. Now that you have pulled some up with a razor, can you feel more than one layer? Can you pull it apart and roll it up into a ball like we would expect?

If it really is a shiny surface like the top of tape that you cannot scratch, then that must be compensation film. Hopefully there won't be a problem with removing it.And now you have a blank line. That sucks. But it sounds to me that this may be just a loose connection.The gain of no anti-glare is said to be far more than the loss of transmissivity due to reflection.Seems your PVA must be more permeable than mine. There are many grades of PVA. I will test my panel again to be sure it does not produce grain. I see it as unlikely that if the polarizer was adhered to the panel now, and when you pulled the anti-glare up that that could have provided enough stress. I am very curious to hear how stripper fairs with your PVA. It sound very vulnerable.

EDIT: 3:00 I have reset the water soak directly on the PVA. Let's see what happens this time.

Mark.

Keep in mind, this is from a very old laptop panel, an IBM thinkpad; I wouldn't think that the basic PVA structure would be that different. However, if it is weaker than an "average" panel, it should provide a "worst case scenario".

From what I can gather from rather cryptic web articles, PVA is dissolved with water and Iodine cystals are layed down in a directional matrix (this is the polarizing element), and then the entire film is de-hydrated again to "set" the iodine molecules in place. Voila, this is your polarizer. My thought is that this "grain" we have been observing is a mechanical separation of the iodine matrix from the PVA supporting structure.

Also, I am a bit confused on the continued concern with water after you declared that it is not the ideal solvent to use with the rag method. Is your thinking that it is not optimal, but it might be good enough?

EDIT: Check after 3 hours 10 minutes. Grain clearly visible with the naked eye while light glances on the panel. The density is similar to the picture of your stressed piece above.

Ahhh! This new engine is causing me all kinds of grief

Yes, I can scratch it with my finger. But when I try to apply any sort of cleaner on the piece stuck to the polarizer, the adhesive just temporalily softens, but the layer beneath it stays put and will not come up.

Again the stuff on the panel, though scratchable, is not sticky. It seems to protect the adhesive from whatever I apply to it. 'Course I have yet to try any real adhesive removers.

Ok, trying to put pieces together here so bare with me. On this link page 3 it says PVA is submerged with iodine which becomes the polarizer.
http://www.nitto.com/rd/technical/2003_84/...atsukae.qxd.pdf

In this link (although, it looks like some science report from someone) it says iodine and methylene chloride are nonpolar while water is polar. ..."The methylene chloride dissolves the iodine preferentially because they are both non-polar. Likes dissolve likes. The iodine thus shows it's true purple color in this solution."

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/demos/deeppurplemagic2.htm

So, am I to understand we are looking for a dissolver to permeat in the rag method that is nonpolar?
sim

I believe polar liquids dissolve the PVA. My brain is pretty much mush right now, but I remember reading that. I think I pm'ed Mark a link?

Your first link is not working.

No link. It is said that oils, and organic solvents do not dissolve PVA. This is not what I found with experimentation, but is said to be the case. I am trying to find time to read these articles you keep pulling up SIM . It's great work, though. FWIW, I believe nearly anything will permeate TAC. So what we are looking for is something that will dissolve or re-plasticize water and oil based adhesive, but not damage PVA.Its not that the structure is different it is that it could be a different grade (not related to quality). Some grades of PVA dissolve in water at 10 degrees. Others basicaly don't dissolve at all until you get above 40 degrees. The charts from http://www.dcchem.co.kr/english/product/p_petr/p_petr8.htm show some different grades and how they behave with water.I agree. I think your panel is the key to figuring this out.My biggest concern with water has been that it will not dissolve oil based adhesives. It is your panel's grain results that has me concerned about waters effect on PVA with this application. Up until then, the solubility was only a theoretical problem. We have had no incidences of water damage up until your results. What we had were 2 incidences of insoluble glue, or impermeable anti-glare.For my panel and others like it, absolutely. But with your findings, this has become a problem. I can't possibly recommend something that caused grain without even inducing stress, or extended exposure.

Mark.

4 Hour 10 mins.: I am stopping the h20 droplet test. The grain has become VERY evident. It looks very much like the sample in which Mark stressed the PVA. Light has to hit this at a glancing angle in order to be able to see it by eye; it is not visible upon casual inspection.

Also, I am looking at the crossed transmittance of this region. The cracks are very visible. They look like tiny hairline scratches.

Mark: shall I continue any further with the water test, or start with a patch of stripper?

Mikau: N-hexane is the commercial solvent used to remove the adhesive (courtesy pjgibbs).I say go ahead with the stripper. The water has been on my panel for an hour and no grain.

Do you have any other supposedly PVA safe chemicals you can try? I should get some Petroleum Benzine, or N-hexane. They could be the magic I am looking for.

Mark.

Mark, are you placing a rag on the surface or a water droplet? It is interesting that you are not seeing any degredation/grain. After one hour, my sample had what looked like tiny specs in exposed area. After 2 hours, I could really see the grain forming and it went up from there. The difference between 3 hours and 4 hours didn't seem all that great by camparison. After 4 hours 10 mins, my sample looks like this:

Click to view attachment

Stripper on bare PVA test: begin 4:55 PM

Method: Masked off PVA region with cellophane tape (more to mark the general area than for actual masking), applied stripper with q-tip swab. Applied a bit on the a/g region to the right for reference.

Click to view attachment

sonic,
just a small observation... it was my experience that the layer of stripper had to be pretty thick... putting it (stripper) on thin using a q-tip for some small test pieces I did resulted in the stuff pretty much drying up... i ended up really putting a good layer of goo on there (to keep it wet) for it to work properly... that test was in preparation to clean up a 3x3" piece of polarbear after I had done the complete strip...

I've got to have the record for the longest time to strip the anti-glare from my panel,my panel spent a total of 9 hours under the stripper to basiclly remove I'll say 98% of the anti-glare,but I'm happy to say that my monitor is still working and my picture ie a little brighter and the contrast is alot sharper, colors are more alive I did take some photo's but trying to get my PC straight .

That is very good news . You cannot discern any damage at all? No grain, no pitting? Just a perfectly smooth surface? Outstanding.

Mark.

After having lost our wills to live, my roomie and i pieced together two surplus shed sheet polarizers and consturcted a polarizing fresnel. We put the LCD back in the projecter, and now have a nice image. The white column of about 3 pixels remains due to a somehow damaged FCC (we have no idea).

I do not think i will continue dropping 150-200$ presents into that LCD coffin. I just wanted to say i dont think finding a replacement polarizer will be too hard. It was a bi%ch to make fit, as I had to rotate it 45 degrees for proper image but doable. The image is better then before replacement, but that could be my mind unwilling to believe i broke an LCD for nothing.

Good luck, would like to hear what more people think about replacement polarizers.

Congrats! I guess that means I'm going to have a LONG night of testing ahead of me