I am repeating the test that I did before. Last time I literally let the rag dry right up.

Oh, and did the grain you describe look anything like this? (No need to answer, my digital camera is just making fun of your digital camera ).

Click to view attachment

That's my fingerprint .

Seriously, I would track that down. It could just be an FFC not plugged into the board right.

Mark.

Gadget - that occured to me. Although you cant see it in the pic, I actually "spooned" the stripper onto the surface with a q-tip ("yummy, stripper, can I have some more please?" ). Almost and hour and it isn't dry yet.

I also wanted to add a comment about the bubbling that occurs right after the application of the stripper. I suspect that the small bubbles that rise from the gel are Methanol - that makes sense to me given what Roxanne from Jasco told me regarding the action of the stripper.

1 Hour update: cleaned stripper off using acetone and alcohol (yeah, I know, the only thing I had on hand - hehe). The PVA is pristine. Interestingly, so also is the TAC - I didn't sand it. It looks like sanding is an absolute imperative to get below the a/g layer to the TAC. Soaking some more with a fresh coat of stripper...

I my have left an 8th of a inch around the sides but it's something you cannot see when the projector is running, I think it took my so long because the age of the LCD and having it in the PJ baking the adhesive in didn't make it easy. After useing the stripper 3 hours yesterday and there was still some of the anti-glare that didn't loosen up and a lot of adhisive that was taking to much hard rubbing to removed I decided to completely cover the LCD with the stripper and let it sit while I went to work,that was at 5:30 AM knowing what I left at home I clock out at 12:30 and rush home ,I didn't use the scraper this time just took some paper towels and wipe off the stripper and than used some GOOF OFF to clean up the remaining residue ,and behold holding the monitor up I could see right through it , I'm relieved that it's done and still working .

One question: did you initially sand the anti-glare layer??

When I first started yes I sanded one half of the panel but even after sanding that side it was still hardto remove all of the anti-glare and glue < I used 220 course sand paper and sanded lightly but at the end I could see a couple of spots where the sanding went through to the polerizer panel ,the other side ialso applid sand paper after I forgot to do it , but don't get me wrong the sand paper did help and if you take your r time and don't rush through it you won't leaves scratches on the polor ,I also used a plastic scraper and no scratches were left from it .

I'm sure you did this, but maybe keep three sample areas. One on the bare PVA, another on the untouched ant-glare, and another on the sanded anti-glare. And don't forget: you have that strip of anti-glare that you already removed. Could be used to figure stuff out.

2 hours and absolutely no damage from water. This is turning out just like last time (it is even half on the same spot). I have tried as hard as I see possible to make the grain pop out. There is none. Our PVA is clearly of a different grade. I probably don't need to say this but careful not to use too much of that panel up. It's very special .

Mark.

So far I am running a stripper exposure test on 2 regions only - bare PVA, and bare anti-glare. I have not sanded intentionally, that will be another trial. There is a large area of untouched PVA and the removed a/g still available for mangling. At this point, less than 1/4 of the panel has been used.

Also, please keep that test going for as long as it takes to produce degredation. Let's see just how different these grades can be.

Here is the correct link

[url=http://www.nitto.com/rd/technical/2003_84/pdf/06nagatsukae.qxd.pdf]

Here's the pics I promised
first tested panel

After seeing the polar it was no turning back

sanded half with 220 course sand paper and applied stripper.
a total of 4 coats of stripper and 9 hours was neded to completely strip the anti-glare off the panel

completed panel bottom pic shows what I left at the edge of the panel

RaginRudolph: Could you also post your results here, I know it may be double work for you but we'd appreciate. Thanks.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

Read the intro for what info is needed.
sim

Sure SIMUL8R

3-1/2 hours immersion in stripper. No visible degredation to the PVA.

Mark: I have noticed a very strange effect that I don't have an explanation for, but may give us some clue as to what grain actually is. The stripper was applied partially over a portion of PVA where grain had occured via the rag method. When I swabbed this area with rubbing alcohol, I can see the beginings of grain formation around the original defect (look like tiny, parallel hairs) - but only until the alcohol evaporates. Then, try as I might, they are invisible. This implies to me that the grain is some sort of surface defect...

So far, the strippered PVA looks like a mirror. Going to continue soaking overnight. Update tomorrow.

I just found a really quite nice polarizer:

http://www.sanritz-corp.co.jp/english/prod...izer/index.html

Name: Ultra Super High Contrast
Model: UHLC2-5618
Color: Neutral Gray
Single: 44.3
Parallel: 39.4
Crossed: 0.0098
Co-Efficiency: 99.975

That is pretty spectacular.Does it only occur where water has been, or has been near?

Did you catch my post that shows that grain is in the TAC?

Just to be sure, once you have an area cleared with stripper, you should try water there. Would help tell us if grain comes from TAC somehow stressing the PVA as the TAC fills with water.

7 hours of water soak on exposed PVA, and zero defects. Perfect surface. At first I noticed some colored rings around where the rag had been. The ragged area looked like an oil spill. Turned out to be just water. But this was the first indication I have seen that water is seeping into the material. At least that is how it seems. Took less than 2 minutes for the water to evaporate out and the blemish disapeared.

I too want to see just how much water abuse it can take.

Mark.

MUAAHAHAHAHAH, I just changed my reflector.

Mark, Sonic: Did you get a chance to see the link that I fixed?
sim

Yes, it occurs to the sides directly flanking the original area of damage (really one long crack along the diagonal of the rectangular area of a/g I removed).



I have read every post but that must've slipped by ... gotta link? The alcohol swabbing seems to indicate that this is a surface defect in the PVA, and not in the TAC - what are your thoughts?


It will be at least a day, but I will do it.



I think what you are seeing is dissolved PVA that is solidifying again after the water evaporates. I noticed something similar - on my sample, it felt almost tacky; after the water dried, the tackiness went away.
7 hours is a long time - my PVA was toast after 3 hours of exposure. It would be interesting to see if a droplet directly on the surface behaves the same way as a wet rag on the surface in this respect.

PS: I read a a little while ago where it was stated that stripper looses it's stripping ability over time. This is not true. As long as gel remains, Methylene Chloride is at work. At least in the Jasco stripper, there are less than 2% solids. Just to account for solvent evaporation, I am replacing the stripper at every check interval.

If there has been no disorganization, I think it is safer to just call this permeation. I have felt the tackiness as well. When rubbing with a cloth it slides easily, but just before the last of the water dries up the rag sticks. When I first felt this, I though for sure the PVA had turned to goo, and I had therefore just gouged it. But no blemish. The surface remained very smooth. I hate talking about water this much, though. I'm worried people still think it is the way to go. With your panel's reaction, it might as well not work with a billion panels.

The photo of the grain effecting the TAC, as well as an idea of what may be happening in the next post is here (post 2107):

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97900

SIM: when you say you saw some deterioration, did it look anything like the grain photo I posted? To any degree? Or was the surface pitted?Funny to see that guy holding up the anti-glare. Now if only we knew what he is going to do next.

Hey, something that doesn't dissolve in water: Iodine.

The polarizer PDF you posted even states quite clearly that PVA is water soluble. I actually read that document way back. DOH!. Recognize the panel cross-section? .

I am surprised that 4% of the passing light is reflected back off each polarizer surface. There are two surfaces per polarizer. That gives basically an 8% decrease in transmittance compared to adhered. I don't see that as a small drop. Fortunately it seems anti-glare removal makes up for it, and then some. Fortunately as well is that people can get adhesive replacement polarizers, but application alignment is not going to be easy.

But if these numbers are for real, there is certainly something to be said for avoiding a free floating polarizer. Hope that doesn't really bother anyone. The numbers aren't for sure. They came out of what is basically a promotional brochure.

Anyone get any Micro-Mesh yet?

Edit: I love how stripper is gradually becoming more and more perfect. No matter what we do with the stuff, it seems you can't screw up . Someone has actually put stripper on their panel, left for work, and finished the job later that day. PAINT STRIPPER . I can't wait to see how this test plays out. What a find, SIM. I'm not saying that I don't want to isolate our own custom solvent, but stripper sure seems to be a remarkable solution (I'm not in devil's advocate debate mode anymore, for those wondering about my seemingly split personality ).

Mark.

Okay I had to check before I went to sleep: 6 hour stripper immersion. No NEW grain formation. But grain along the original defect has multiplied. It is now equivalent to where the water was at about 2-3 hours. Cross transmittance is still not affected. Immersing some more for the night.

Mark, I am also going to start a rag soak similar to the one you are doing in an unused area of PVA.

How are you testing crossed transmittance? It would take a black image, and a very bright light to make up for the transmittance of the panel. We will need to pull the samples up and test free standing to be sure (or use about a 400% brighter light). The purple is very faint.

It's unfortunate because I don't like that any grain formed, a continuation of old grain or not. Being that grain forms by spreading. Will be very interesting to see what happens from here. Wether a new patch can form on it's own or not.

Awesome work by the way .

Mark.

Aww geez, sorry Mark, I threw it out already They were more pitted like diagonal bubbling little streaks. Sorry, I didnt check for grain, I honestly didn't know what you and Sonic were talking about until I saw your pics...BTW, nice photography, you gots skill.



Be honest Mark, when I didnt see any pitting on a test piece with stripper I thought this was it, I didn't know anything about graining..perhaps a freak accident like Elken's packaging tape? I'm glad you and Sonic are finding more about it now.
sim

Im going to have a look at the Sharp 15.4 WUXGA (Sharp LQ154M1LW02) panel, I'll give it a go when i strip it.

(edit)oops...great brutuz, how you you going to do it? When done we would appreciate your info at this link, don't forget pics. Thanks
sim
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

Ive got to test the panel first when i get the controller from Minoten. Im thinking of the safest way first, masking with tape and applying some paper towel on the LCD then soaking it in distilled water. Its not been easy reading through 110 pages so i might have missed an important point in the methods that are used. Still a bit unsure

This is a breakthrough in the DYI community, So It would be great if someone could take the time to sum up the methods in detail and create a sticky

I'm simply holding the panel up to a 100 watt light bulb to see any irregularities in transmission.



I agree ... but hold on to your pants for the new info from this morning's results! (I guess this is advice to myself ... )

Stripper Immersion Test: 14 Hours. No new grain formation, and very little progression of existing grain from the previously damaged area. The PVA is like a mirror in the originally grain-free areas.

Interestingly, the a/g layer has NOT been attacked at all. Instead, the stripper has seeped under the seam created by the previously removed a/g and dissolved out the TAC (area to the right of the masked off test area). Please note that stripper was directly placed over this region as well, so the damage to the TAC is not entirely due to horizontal migration of solvent through the TAC/PVA interface. This is verification of what we have thought all along - stripper will have a tough time eating through a/g without fiirst sanding through into the TAC layer.

Click to view attachment


Rag Soak Test on bare PVA: You're gonna like this one Mark...

8 Hours soak time with distilled water. NO new grain formation. No progression of previously created grain (via rag soak on the a/g layer).

It seems that applying solvent with a rag is less agressive than a direct immersion of the surface. Why this holds true, I have no clue. This is one for your theoretical brain to chew on. My best guess is that the grain that I am seeing on this panel was due to someone peeling off the polarizer (partially) during production, and then re-seating it, thus pre-stressing it. This is, indeed, VERY good news for the water camp. Will continue the test just for the hell of it

PS: I saw where it was hypothesized that grain could be forming by TAC stress. That does make sense so me. The original stress may originate in the TAC/PVA interface and the induced crack may migrate upwards towards the surface of the PVA. The upshot of all this testing is that I am finding both stripper and water (via rag method) to be quite safe.

MARK: could tou try an area of bare PVA on your panel with a water droplet to see if you can re-produce my results? This would be definitive proof of the rag method being less invasive than immersion.

Ok. About 24 hours submerged in ammonia, the antiglare still refused to separate from the polarizer. Instead, the polarizer appears to be completely disolving. But the remaining pieces will not slide off.

i agree with brutuz.. i'm new to the anti-glare removal idea and this thread on it is crazy long and difficult to follow everything that is going on within it! it'd be cool to see a summary of the various techniques available for a/g removal independant of all the experimentation discussion.

I don't recommend water. Evidently , I don't recommend any technique until we are certain what we are dealing with. Some critical tests are just being completed now. Nobody had seen any water damage until Sonic's panel which has apparently taken pretty poorly to it (the test was designed to extend the exposure, but the window isn't nearly as wide as mine). Now that his panel has shown water damage, a billion panels might as well have.

Sonic has just confirmed that the brand of stripper we are testing seems to be PVA safe, but he literally just posted, so I would wait a bit until we can pin down exactly what happened (some old grain spread).

We still need a proper crossed transmittance test to be sure nothing has happened.

Mark.

A FAQ is in the works. This is still an experimental thread. It is NOT recommended that you actually try this with a panel of any value. There have been some members who have successfully done so, but I, myself, have not. When all the data is in and there is a consensus among the theoreticians/experimenters in this thread, only then will a consolidation will be made.

IF YOU TRY ANY OF THIS WITH YOUR PROJECTION PANEL RIGHT NOW - YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Can you see grain? The anti-glare will not just slide off. You need to pick at it until a corner flips up. That's when the peel get's easy. It can be quite hard to get things started. Try taking some pliers, and twisting a corner until it sheers apart. If it is going to separate, it surely would under that kind of abuse. 24 hours should have done it if there is an adhesive there that takes to Ammonia, and your anti-glare is permeable. And also if you have no adhesive, and your anti-glare is permeable.

You may want to try sanding the surface of a new dunk sample. Sonic has roughly confirmed that some solvents will not permeate some anti-glare.

Despite the results here, this remains a research log. Not instructions.

20 hours rag soak directly on PVA:

Zero damage.

I set up a 1cm wide water droplet before I went to bed, but it evaporated before I got up. I have no idea how long it lasted. I'll set it up again. However, there is also no grain where the water droplet was. What there is is a watermark. The droplet area is of a different hue than the rest of the panel. I will wait and see if this evaporates out as the rag area had, but I have my doubts that it will. There is still excellent clarity, and basic crossed transmittance seems fine. It does seem that direct water exposure is somehow different than ragging. .

And your water hypersensitive panel has showed a similar result. I can't piece together the slightest theory right now. I can't wait to see how it fairs given longer exposure.

I hope you are keeping everything in place. I don't want to push you, but I say we run these things until they wreck, or the exposure time is ridiculous.

Mark.

I agree 100%. Mark, I am leaning toward the theory that this polarizer was per-stressed in the area where grain formed. I am concurrently running 3 tests now:

Stripper on bare PVA - 16 hours 45 minutes and running
Stripper on bare a/g - 16 hours 45 minutes and running
Distilled water via rag method on bare PVA - 10 hours 45 mins. running

Sonic, I want to compliment you on all your efforts with this. Coming in mid way of this thread and offering so much help shows your true DIY character. You truely deserve the recognition.
sim

I agree 100%. I couldn't agree more . Unless there really is a 110%.

Mark.

Thanks, Boss

But the credit really goes to you, Mark, and Elken for having evolved this thread at the begining. I honestly laughed out loud when I read what you wanted to do. And then I read Mark's theories about separating the polarizer and panel and thought "this guy is in for a big surprise - no way in HELL this is going to work". And then elken bit the bullet and actually did it! And then you used stripper to do it! Well, I'm no idiot, I know value when I see it. I just wanted to make sure it was safe...

So I guess I'm getting a 15% pay raise at the next evaluation?



Wow, the supervisor is putting in a good word too ...

Better make that a 20% raise Sim - hehe

EDIT: [Completely off topic]
This thread is a microchasm of humanity in action. It has been truly moving to see how this has progressed from a disaster (Sim's scratch) to a real breakthrough in the DIY projector world. It was inspiring to see how Mark managed to slowly, without slinging personal convictions, convert the naysayers (including Elken and myself)with rational arguments and data. And when Elken took that leap of faith - well - it was a lesson for me in my personal life to take action. In a very real way, this thread has taught me as much about life as it has about the workings of an LCD. And I want to thank EVERYONE on this thread for that.

HAHAHAHAHHAAHH (wipes tears of laughter)....as I said your character, even more so your sense of humor, it brings out the fun and enthusiasm (spell) in all the hours we spend on this idea. Hell 10%, 20%...I say we make you an honorary share holder. BTW, I'm dieing to see how your projection would like if and when you remove YOUR antiglare.
sim

ps...We just opened an office space with a view, how would like your name stensiled, outlined in white, gold, black or polar?

Okay, that wasn't true. I have a slight bit of a theory. When water is encased in the towel, or the TAC, it simulates being in smaller volume. It is my understanding that dissolution is directly affected by volume. I believe this is because there is more volume for the solute to dissolve into. Thus solvent saturation does not occur as quickly. Also, I feel less volume means less molecule impacts. I also think there is more momentum in a large volume of solvent than in a small volume. Any chemists that can clear my deductions up? The other factor may be the capillarity of the rag and the TAC VS the PVA. The water may be simply more attracted to the porous, high surface area materials. This would mean less molecules escape to the PVA surface, and those that do have less momentum due to the opposing attraction. Again, I'm no chemist, I don't hold any weight to this deduction. It is also possible that the rag, or the TAC is providing structure and support even when the bond is weakened. That's more my style .How about adding one more into the mix. Completely overshooting anti-glare removal with water. That is, a rag on anti-glare. Let it run for a billion years (or a bit less). See if grain formed or damage was done.

Mark.

Done. Start of antiglare Overshoot test: 12:30PM.

Mark: I just ran Xylene (goo off) on the rag method 12+ hours. Xylene shows E across the board in Sonic's chemical chart for PVA. I couldn't get the antiglare layer to 'pop' open. As you already know Xylene has almost the same consistancy as water but it can't penetrate. Do you suppose the breakdown in water is missing in Xylene? I don't know, I'm not a chemist, but do you suppose hydrogen or oxygen are missing in Xylene or would it have anything to do with the substance's polarity?
sim

Here is some interesting data regarding viewing angles, which we seem to be speculating is about AG material.

My previous 15" panel had a viewing angle of 120 degrees, and a transmissiveness of 8% With it, my last lumens measurement was about 180 ANSI lumens.

My current 17" panel has a viewing angle of 160 degrees with a transmissiveness of 7.6% I just measured a tad over 100 ANSI lumens last night.

WTF?! 80 lumens gone, 45% of the light that I had gone, with a 0.4% change in transmissiveness? A little change, yeah, I could see it, but that much? I started looking at differencces, and the viewing angle is the one that stands out.

Where with the 15", I could kinda make out the shape of the lamp arc on a sheet of paper covering the triplet before, that is no longer possible. The distances from lamp to fresnel to fresnel to triplet has not changed in the LCD swap. With the LCD out, the image is sharp and hot enough to scorch the paper.

At some point in the future, when there is more information available, I will attempt to remove the AG material, and see what improvement this makes.

An excerpt from here:

http://www.linkgrinder.com/Patents/polariz..._cellulose.html

"The polymer solution preparation apparatus 100 prepares the polymer solution of triacetyl cellulose. In preparation of the polymer solution, triacetyl cellulose is dissolved in a solvent containing dichloromethane as the main component, and a small amount of n-butanol is added to the solution in which triacetyl cellulose is dissolved. n-Butanol is higher in boiling point than dichloromethane. Additionally, the solubility of triacetyl cellulose in n-butanol is inferior to the solubility of triacetyl cellulose in dichloromethane."

Dichloromethane is commonly known an Methylene Chloride. It seems to be actually used in the production of TAC to create molds from which these films are cast.



Supra, your results make complete sense to me. I would think that the viewing angle of a monitor is a function of scattering in the a/g layer. The more the a/g scatters, the wider the viewing angle. BUT, the more the a/g scatters, the less optically collimated light is available in our lens train.

I would be willing to bet that you would get those lumens back and then some after defeating the a/g. *Not recommending that you go out and do it just yet*

Ahhh, so the analogy of 'likes dissolves likes' is also at play here.

hehehe, somehow I sense the 'darkness of the force' in your last statement there, Sonic
sim

To a certain degree. But I believe improvements in viewing angles are mostly due to panel thinning and the use of compensation film. I have found one source that claims there is basically zero loss of transmittance with the inclusion of compensation. The source is LG. They have a model of polarizer that has compensation film bonded, and a model that does not. The single transmittance did not budge between them.

edit and compensation film is thought to have no effect on a projectors incidence at normal light. It can't take light and spread it out, it just ensures that light that entered the panel at anything other than incidence at the normal will not be elliptically or circularly polarized. By keeping it linear, that light can pass the analyzer. Light entering at the normal will always be linearly polarized.

Certainly this is interesting. Being that you measured the transmittance of the panel, we know dot pitch is not a factor. In fact, depending on how you measured the panel transmittance, we may know that the panel (including it's anti-glare) is not a factor. If you measured collimated light through the panel for that test, then I think the light meter should respond pretty much the same to the anti-glare as the image at the screen does.

There is only a 5% difference between the two panels, so I think what you are probably seeing has more to do with switching to a larger panel. Did you measure the average light across the entire screen, or just the area illuminated by the 15" panel? Could it be that the dim corners of the 17" panel are effecting the average?

Very interesting find.That is the thing. We don't know if:

a. there is an adhesive breaking down

b. the PVA is re-plasticizing

c. a thin layer of PVA is breaking down with water.

Based on this extreme exposure test, and the almost rubbery, but solid feel to the PVA for a second before it dries, I would say that it is either a or b. And I am virtually positive it is b because I have a neat experiment going right now. I am applying anti-glare myself . And no, I'm not wearing one of those white clean room suits, and standing in front of a huge machine. I just pulled up part of the rag test, and pressed some anti-glare down. 10 minutes later the stuff started to stick. It's been 20 minutes now, and it is really taking hold. This pretty much confirms the re-plasticizing theory of how the stuff is applied. They re-plasticize the PVA film with water, re-activating it's adhesive properties. Then sandwitch the TAC on iether side. . Yes. It's all coming together now. We are kind of reversing the process. It's not final, I still need to see if it will go right to a solid, unpeelable state. But my hunch is it will.

QUESTION: Did water ever work with that test sample? And have you tried the rag method on that test piece?

Another thing to add into the mix is that I can't get mineral spirits to permeate the TAC. It seems it spreads in at the edges. It does that much quicker than water did, too. I dunked another sample in Mineral Spirits, and watched it closer this time. Most of the edges peel, but the center does not. Further, there is only grain at the edges. Seems there is something different with water and TAC.

I think I will macro photograph the rag process so people can see exactly what is going on. I'm running out of panel space, though.

One warning I should put out, along with the usual disclaimer. Camera polarizers sometimes delimitate over many years due to changes in temperature, and humidity. Hopefully the removal of the front TAC will not result in de-lamination. Again, I feel it is more important than ever that heat be well controlled at the panel. Of course, we may be able to use my recent confirmation to apply our own non-anti-glare TAC.

Mark.

The same piece I used for the xylene was the same piece I was using for the water for about 4 hours. Since Sonic provided info already on his side I decided to switch to xylene. However, I had two test going on using the rag and a complete submerge. The submerge after 10 hours 'popped' the antiglare (and I was SURPRISED!) but the PVA also came off in strands. While examining it from your description of 'graining' yes there were and all parrallel to the PVA that came off. Sorry if I botched this in anyway.

sim

Good news. Most of my adhesive is off. Goo gone didn't seem to do much, but I got a stripper and applied it on my lcd, it worked to remove the layer on top and exposed the adhesive. Wonderfull! I then applied goo gone to the adhesive but it didn't get it off. Frusterating. Eventually I tried another layer of stripper in desperation. Hmmm...appeared to get some of the adhesive off and thin out the layer. A third coat and it came off. A forth coat cleaned up any remnants, and finally goo gone was usefull in wiping the panel clean of smudges and stuff. At first I gave the stripper 10 minutes to sink in, but found worked just as well with a 60 second wait. Three or four coats and it came off, where as with 10 minutes it still took three or four coats so I gave it 60 seconds each time.

But to actually get this to work I had to use a razor blade and gently scrape off the stripper and peel up the gunk. Didn't leave a scratch on the substrate so I bet it is made of glass.

Well I got most of the middle off after about 3 hours. Now I need to sit back and think how I'm going to do the edges. The edges need to be covered in stripper and scraped with the razor blade, three or four times. I'm going to need protective tape and a lot of caution.

What really ticks me off is this new discovery that separated polarizers could cause an 8% loss in brightness. :angry:

Mikau, good job, but I think your taking a big risk using a razor blade especially on your glass or acrylic LCD, seriously. Yes, mask off the ffc ribbons and circuitry if the stripper rolls over and touches the other polar on the other side of the panel wipe it off immediately with alcohol.

As for 8% loss. Mark thinks you may not see this since your removing antiglare. This was something that came up during research, so remember, we are all learning as we gone with this.

If your planning on trying out your panel after you remove you antiglare post some pics especially at that other thread on antiglare removal methods and research.
sim

Couldn't do it without a razor blade. Don't worry, its not leaving any marks. I'm being gentle.

I wouldn't take it too seriously. The figures came out of a promotional brochure for a company who's product reduces that loss. The 8% figure could be wrong. Some polarizers have optical anti-reflective coatings. We may be able to track one of these down.You need to try with ragging. It is a completely different story. I'm surprised you haven't tried it yet? You really do need to try it to see where I am coming from.

24 hours ragging exposed PVA: perfect surface.

Probably 5 hours of droplet exposer: left a watermark that won't evaporate. This seems to be quite different.

I have been researching PVOH some more. This Q and A is pretty good:

http://www.wtpasia.com/english/cjwtjd.htm

I have started to piece together some answers based on articles like this. These are not definite answers, but are deductions based on some articles I have read.

Q: Why does PVA go brittle if you submerge it exposed in water?

Possible A: Some of the plasticizer additives in PVA are water soluble. They get leached out into the water. PVA is naturally brittle.

I would like to know what specific chemicals these plasticizers are.

Q: Why does that not seem to happen with a rag?

Possible A: I believe this is similar to the reason that ragging does not seem to dissolve PVA: Volume of water. The plasticizers will saturate the water much quicker and thus will not leach beyond a point, or there is simply not enough energy in such a small quantity of water to pop the plasticizers out.

It also seems that PVOH (PVA) will not dissolve notably under cooler circumstances. The temperature at which the plastic will dissolve in water is apparently designed based on which plasticizer additives are used. The lowest film temp I have found is 20 degrees Celsius (agitated). But there could be a film that dissolves cooler.

I will try and see if cooling the water temp will result in the same release we have seen.

Update this anti-glare re-application is definitely working .

Mark.

Yep, Razors are often used to clean glass. You can make a scratch, but as I understand it is surprisingly difficult.

Mark.

Hi guys,, still keeping track here, been busy as, lately...


Here's how happy my "polar bear" is !!!!

He went for the "soak" method

and sad to say nothing is gonna budge him....

Hey Elken, we missed you! So, hows your pj doing, when you gonna put more pics on your plog? I'd say your polar bear is the most unique design out of anybody's here and you should show it off more. hehehe
sim

Mikau: So have you tried soaking your substrate glue with water yet? Same procedure as with anti-glare. I just tried it and it works very quickly. I would give it an hour, and if it is anything the same as mine, it will just peel right off.

edit: actually I remember you saying water did not have an effect on the glue that was on the back of your polarizer. I would try this just in case, though.

I don't know about this new forum engine. Is there any way to make that list go away so I can get my page buttons back? Or so I can see my post immediately after I submit? Or get to the last post without needing a couple intermediate screens?

Mark.

I won't be stripping again untill tomorrow. So in the meantime I suppose I could give the remaining pieces a soak to see if it works. But how long are we talking about? (edit) oh! An hour. Ok. lol.





Good one, Elken!

5:00 test checks:

Rag test on bare PVA: 22 hours. No new grain formation, no migration.

Stripper on bare PVA: 22 hours. There is a slight bit of grain migration. One long strand about 3mm from the original area of damage. The area still looks nothing close to what the droplet region does (far higher grain density there).

Stripper on a/g: a/g still not dissolving. Disolved TAC area under a/g grew.

Rag on a/g Marathon Run: still going

Mark: There is something I noticed before and I though it might be my imagination. But it is appearing to become more evident as time progresses. The PVA area with stripper on it appears to be more transmissive than the areas which were ragged. It is very slight, but the ragged area is just not as "clear" when I look at a bright object through it. The PVA just looks "cleaner" over the strippered area. I have two thoughts:

1) The reason may be that the stripper has dissolved any glue that was residual on the PVA after removal of the TAC. The ragged areas may still have this adhesive on the surface, thus causing some transmission loss. But if there WAS any adhesive, I sure can't find any trace of it.

2) The polarizer is being degraded in either the strippered area or the ragged area. I do not know if degredation in the polarizing properties of the PVA would result in increased or decreased transmission.

Also, there is another thing I noticed when viewing grain. If you swab isopropyl alcohol over a region and then blow on it, as it evaporates grain becomes visible. When it fully evaporates, the grain again becomes invisible. My theory as to why this is happening: the index of refraction of the alcohol is different from air, and the alcohol will evaporate for the flat surface regions first, remaining in any surface irregularities slightly longer. This highlights the grain regions for a period of time, until the alcohol evaporates fully. Again, this implies that grain is a surface defect in the PVA.

What are your thoughts on these two observations?