No problem. But, these are not instructions. I am doing my best to point out exactly what to do, but really it's not all there. For instance, I didn't mention that distilled water is ideal, and that I am going to be charging the rag up with more water droplets over time.

There are also still potential risks. There just haven't been enough panels done to know just how risky this is. Me and Sonic put the exposed PVA through an overexposure test, and things were fine. But there are still a couple unanswered questions. There could be a curve-ball making its way with all our techniques.

I wasn't sure if I should try to post every detail with these photos. I plan on doing that when it's done (and everything worked right ). I was just worried that if I posted a lot of stuff, and forgot detail or disclaimer that people would hold me accountable. This is actually a test as well. I am going to see if I don't have to clean up the surface. I plan on just pulling the anti-glare off, and letting the surface dry. Any watermarks left over or dust will be cleaned up later. It just makes the most sense that way in my mind, but I never actually tried it. The reason I am trying this is because it is believed the PVA surface is quite vulnerable to scratches and dulling from rags when it has absorbed some water.

Mark.

Just took a closer look. Yeah they're scuff marks all right. DANG!

So should I remove the front now as well? :angry: Any reason to expect the front will come off easier then the back?

You will always get scuffed marks on the polar Mikau. Especially with stripper, maybe not by the process but in time cause the panel will eventually have to be cleaned every so often. It's just that we removed the layers - antiglare/TAC - were protecting it and now the polar is exposed to vulnerabilities. This might be an advantage with unbonded polar cause during time, when scuffed to severely, can be changed quite easily compared to bonded.
sim

In spit of the scuffs, the polarizer seems to be working ok. Aren't polarizers usually coated with a protective layer? Maybe only that layer was scuffed and I can polish it out.



Sim I was removing the substrate on the back of my lcd, down to the glass. I wasn't stripping the antiglare. The front polarizer, the one I wasn't stripping, is the one that scuffed.

That's exactly it. The rear polarizer is a layer of TAC, the PVA, then TAC. So we can find a way to buff it out if it does show up in projections.

Definitely do not remove that polarizer too.

Mark.

Ok, just to make sure, I need to emphasize the scuffed polarizer is the polarizer on the opposite side, the side I have not touched. It is the side of the lcd facing the front of my projector. When the lcd was unstripped, then it was the rear side that you didn't see.

Yes.

Your nightmare is just about over Mikau. You've managed to separate the damaged polarizer. Let's not make matters worse by fixing things that may not even be broken.

The hard part is done. All you need is a new polarizer and you will be laughing .

edit Did water work to soften up the substrate glue?

Mark.

Sure didn't. Nothing seemed to get that glue off. I don't know what it is with these 512N's. Only thing I could do was melt it off with stripper.

What makes you think the scuff marks won't show up in the projection?

The effect of collimated light could be better or worse than the effect of average diffused light. Until we know if it will project, we best not touch anything. You shouldn't have any problems buffing that scuff out if it is a problem. Anything that works to remove a scratch from a CD will work there too.

Mark.

Ok... well it got dark outside, and then I put in "The Nightmare Before Christmas"... a pretty dark film... I noticed lots of white "smearing" across my projection... looked alot like some *really* bad light leaks... except there were no light leaks. Apparently the ( fresnel > polarbear > glass ) setup is causing these "white smearing" areas all across the projected screen... I've gone back to the ( fresnel > LexanXL10 > polarbear ) setup and the screen is again very dark, no white "smearies" anywhere.

One thing to note: I am using 40mm worth of lens shift... not sure if this is making the difference here.

Back to my original thought... *Nothing* should come between the polarbear and the LCD for maximum results... I'm just curious, Elken, how did you manage to get rid of the "glowies" on the sides while having your polarbear mounted behind the triplet when using split fresnels ? Was it all a matter of lamp placement ?

... working on a new light engine in the back of my brain... something much more adjustable than what i've got now... and seperate from the main box, so I can test different light engines just by installing the modual... much like samurai and others have done...


On another note, this movie looks 100X better after stripping a/g layer... definite contrast or detail enhancement, not sure which for sure, but it looks great.... especially for dark movies & scene's...

Sim, never been more glad that you scratched your panel !!

Well I could pop the fresnels in for a quick test to see if it shows up in the projection. Or do I need a new polarizer in place first?

I still have some Mothers Plastic Polish. Would that do the trick if I need to polish it?

And how about polishing the glass?

Depends on how bad the scratch is. Just use a section of your peeled polarizer if you can't see it with a straight white screen. One things for sure, don't peel up that polarizer.

Polishing glass is no easy trick, but apparently Mothers Chrome Polish works. It likely has fillers, though. That said, it may work great on your scuffed polarizer too.

Half way point: Charging with water (Yay! ):

Click to view attachment

Being careful not to add too much, a piece this size just needs a couple drops. That water applicator thingy is a big gun compared to what I needed for this little square. The idea is you just drip water into the center and let it seep throughout the cloth. By dripping at the center you avoid dribbles rolling off the paper, and keeps the pressure at the edges constant so the rag doesn't blow a gasket.

in case you are just dropping in on this, I am only doing a little square as a demonstration. You would in reality be doing the entire panel. Just enlarge everything I do. .

Oh, and these are not official instructions. There are risks here that are only just being touched on.

And be sure the panel is flat when you do this. Otherwise if the rag rejects more water, it won't roll off the surface and onto sensitive electrical magical stuff.

Note it is possible you would never need to charge up the paper. Obviously this is going to be temperature and humidity dependent. Just play it by feel.

Mark.

Hey, I scratch to please....wait, that didn't sound right :angry: So the theory about bonded and unbonded polar seems to be what your believing Gadget, *nothing* should be in between the polarbear and the LCD. Makes you wonder if that link I posted earlier is making more sense. Especially about glowies you all are experiencing and/or better transmittancy.

Gadget, once again, would you say that using a tempered glass is better off then Lexan?

Mikau: Sorry I was referring to those that stripper off the antiglare such as myself. Since I had pretty much melted off the antiglare and TAC the polar is exposed which means I have to be extra careful when cleaning it otherwise scuffs will develope more and more which will eventually lead to replacing. And that means 'ripping' off the entire film from the LCD.
sim

BTW Gadget, can you post your methods and results at this link...AND DONT FORGET SOME PICS...it would be nice
sim
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

Mark can you or sim, or anyone else look at this thread, and answer the last post. http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...180&#entry98407

Several good questions there that I would also like the answers to.

TIA.

sim,

I'm not sure about being bonded and unbonded to the panel... all I know is that if a piece of lexan XL10 is put between the polarbear (PB) and the LCD, you get color shift... it appears that this can be corrected by rotating the PB. Putting a piece of glass (not tempered in my case) between the PB and LCD gives "white glowies" all over the screen... all I can think of is that is must unpolarizing (diffuse) the light going through the glass to an extent that parts of the screen goes white again (similar to having no PB at all).

for me, i'm back to using the lexan XL10 as it has better transparency than the 1/8" glass... but most important is that the polarizer is the last thing before the LCD ( fresnel > lexan > polarizer > cooling gap > LCD )

i'm also interested to hear how elken apparently got rid of the "glowies" ...

yes, i will post my methods and results... once I figure out what my method really was... "stripper gone wrong" .... news at 11....

Understood.

BTW I meant the replacement of polar method, what model, where bought, how placed...the other thread is for all methods how ever applied. Helps others understand all approaches.
sim

Man! I'm confused now. Typical me , Are you trying to put the PB back on becauase you removed it by mistake when trying to remove the antiglare?

Stress birefringence. The stress fractures in glass act as if a birefringent material were injected there. This splits the polarization into it's horizontal and vertical components relative direction of the fracture. So if the first polarizer sets the light into a plane that is not meant to pass the analyzer, then stress can throw that plane into two planes that are not on that axis. In this manner, light that was not meant to pass will pass the analyzer.

Different materials display a smaller or larger stress birefringent effect. It is possible to relieve the stress from a material, and have the birefringence go with it.

Glass is tested by placing a lamp then a polarizer on one side, and viewing the light through another polarizer (analyzer) on the other side.

Mark.

Could you use silicone the stuff you seal bathrooms with, to seal around the edge of the LCD to stop any water seeping in. Silicone is quite easy to pull of but sometimes sticks in areas. Just an idea

edit do not use a razor blade as I have. Too risky having sharp pointy things near your panel. Instead, I would take Mikau's advise and stick a pice of sticky tape onto the corner, and peel that up, hopefully taking the anti-glare with it. You could also prevent the anti-glare from tearing by reinforcing the perimeter with a line of tape (after confirming the anti-glare will release. Further soaking will not permeate tape).

You know, the reality is that water getting in at the edges is probably not that big a deal. We think it won't get too far, and it will be of such low concentration that grain will most likely not form. This is not for sure yet, though. It would be great if we could overlap the edges in the first place because there is nothing more frustrating than when the anti glare snags on a dry edge spot.

My worry with sealing the edges is that it could make it quite hard to do the peel, and as above it could be a whole lot of worry for nothing. It could also really get in the way.

Well, I think I have pretty much confirmed that no wiping is needed immediately after pulling the anti-glare. If there is a nasty blemish, I would wait a while for things to dry up before trying to remove it.

Here are the last few steps in my anti-glare test removal .

At 10 hours I went for a test pry up with the edge of a razor. Wether I would recommend using a razor to do this with a good panel, probably not. I just can't think of anything that would work better to get underneath the anti-glare and get it started. If we find it is okay to put the water right to the edge, then a thumbnail should work. This is the issue here. We need to figure out if going to the edge is okay. It would eliminate the worry of wielding a razor, and would also ensure the anti-glare came up in one solid sheet as it would not snag on dry edges.

I just gently tried to feather the corner up, and sure enough it popped up. Remember, this is just the top layer of that laminate. As you can see it is about the thickness of a sheet of paper:

Click to view attachment

Then you get ahold of the little bugger. And gently peel it up. If this requires any force beyond super easy then something is wrong. STOP. It should feel like separating a gooey piece of wet plastic from another wet gooey piece of plastic.

edit It is advisable that the rag actually be removed for this process (as long as you do it fairly quick). And that the surface be wiped of excess water. That way if it tears (hopefully you have reinforced the edges with tape at this point) water will not roll of the surface onto the PVA. You don't want any water that is not held back with a rag to touch the surface of the PVA. Better yet, don't even let water that is held back with a rag touch the PVA.

Go very slow, and keep an eye on what is coming up while constantly monitoring for any snags. Note how clear it is. If it is grey or another color, then uh oh. STOP:

Click to view attachment

It may snag on an edge as mine did, and then with zero force, the anti-glare actually splits in two. You could just continue tearing it off in a strip, or you could try to pry up the snag and continue in one large sheet. I chose to pull up as a strip and planned on going back later:

Click to view attachment

Going back later :

Click to view attachment

Mark.

The best part was, I found that no cleaning was needed. The surface that gets exposed is absolutely perfectly pristinely awesome. Here is a shot of trying to focus on the surface. Note how there is nothing to focus on, but a few specks of dust . They blow off in a minute once things have dried.

Click to view attachment

I encoded these images at 50% quality so artifacts will show up where the sub-pixel grid is actually seen in the originals. And just in case you don't believe me :

Click to view attachment

Now here is focusing on the back of a product package. Reflections are perfect. JPEG is not .

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I am really happy about this, because one of my main concerns has been the cleaning process.

Fin.

edit and if all these pictures and writing makes this sound complicated, it really isn't. I did this with photography in about 5 minutes. What you see is all I did. If you wish to try this, don't leave any questions unanswered before doing it. Understand the process completely.

And this is best done with distilled water.

And of course: being this is such a new process, we still don't know what the odds are of you succeeding. Go into this job realizing you may not have a functional panel in the end. Use undue care and caution, and my bet is you will be fine. But that is just my bet . And obviously we need to figure out if edge soaking is a problem. That razor blade is about the worst part of this whole thing.

edit #4 Use sticky tape, not a razor, as edited into the top of the last post.

edit #2 Remember, if your anti-glare is not permeable, this will not work at all. Don't force it.

edit #3 Based on this removal test, I am betting there is nothing to stop you from testing a small corner first, before doing the entire panel. Just don't tear the corner off if it goes. You will want something to keep the water off the exposed PVA for the second soak.

Mark.

Rox, look, actual measurements
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=98303

DJ

Great pictures Mark

When you mention grain, do you mean calcium deposits from the water? If the final conclusion is that water can be used to remove antiglare then would it be better to use distilled water?

Perhaps i'm making this more complicated by my writings... let me clarify.

I have an LCD without a polarizer on one side (due to stripper method going bad... or at least just me not having enough patience with the procedure...)

I have a polarizer from polarization.com, but I am trying to find the right "sandwich" to make before the LCD to give me the best results. There is a cooling gap between this "sandwich" and the LCD... the normal "cooling" slot to keep LCD cool. So far I've tried the following "sandwich recipes":

1) fresnel | polarizer | lexan XL10 (this gave phase shift)
2) fresnel | polarizer | glass (this game white glowies due to befringement effect (stress) ... thanks mark)
3) lexan XL10 | polarizer | fresnel (this also gave phase shift)
4) glass | polarizer | fresnel (this also gave phase shift)
5) fresnel | lexan XL10 | polarizer (this gives very good results)
6) fresnel | glass | polarizer (this gives very good results)

the results: having the polarizer as the last layer in the "sandwich" before hitting the LCD gives the best results. what I really wanted was the polarizer to be between the fresnel and lexan due to the want of the polarbear to curl... it appears that is not goint to happen as any of those recipes ends up with either glowies or phase shift.

I will probably make a frame out of thin plywood or MDF and mount the polarbear to it creating a big "35mm slide" type of thing... this can be installed after the lexan and fresnel in it's own frame.

Rebonding a polarbear directly to the LCD is an option, however I like the idea of it being seperate, especially early on in the testing phase of things... Now I can try various polarbear materials... each in their own "slide"... I really am interested to see the differences between polarbears... now i gotta find something cheap again... I want to test a piece of salvaged polarbear from my "strip gone bad" to the polarizer I bought from polarization.com ... then i'll go from there... maybe i'll get some from 3dlens for another comparison... only time and money prevent me from doing anything else this weekend... maybe Sunday night it will get quiet enough...

cheers,
gs

Hi All,
Im still talking with some manufacturers about polymer coatings to defeat the antiglare. I have two promising formulas in the works. One them, possibly the best, is UV curable.

Does anyone know how much UV is produced by an Ushio and in what UV wavelengths?

This is where I also get a little confused Gadget. The original LL plans I followed designed for the fresnel to be after the Lexan or glass then LCD but in your case you seemed to have placed the fresnel before the lamp then Lexan/glass then LCD. You may have your reasons and I'm interested to know why. Possibly better in your case?

I will be following your experimentation of using other polars closely, time and money permitting. I'm glad you took the plunge and now see a better picture.
sim



Samuraijack, you mean a coating over the antiglare as in encapsulating such as a piece of packaging clear tape?
sim

Yep. I am on the line with a mfr of optically clear epoxy and epoxy based resins. So far I have a few really good leads. The best one is a self leveling, UV curing, optically clear coating with an initial viscosity of 14-1800 cps. It has no outgassing, solvents or vapors. Its an anti yellowing compound and it can be worked until cured. Its got good adhesion and a refractive index of 1.55.

Best one I have found so far.

Oh I forgot to mention that its also a UV filter. It has greater than 97% transmittance, but a really sharp drop just below 400 nanometers.

UV curing? Sounds like a good place to use my UV lamp which I normally use to develop photo-resist circuit boards.

Samuraijack, I'm not really good at explaining this as much as Mark is but I'll give it a try.
We would like to lean away from encapsulation and rather use polishing instead to flatten the antiglare that will allow more transmittancy. At first I found Mother's mag polish to equate to actual tape on the panel as Elken found out, but further testing with PEEK by Mark and Sonic proved better and gave a shinier sheen. Still though the antiglare remains on the panel and can easily be distinguished by it's light yellowish or greyish tint. My experience is that this tint still affects the color saturation of projection. Example: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=1533 Here you can see the antiglare then the tape but look at the panel after stripping of total antiglare and the brightness being projected. Although the tape method did give a bit of improvement it didn't compare to total removal. Also, by encapsulating the panel with an additional layer there is also the issue of heat that is and may be compounded on the panel as suggested earlier in this thread. As far as UV, Sonic has researched that the PVA (polar) is UV safe, so even if the panel was stripped of it's antiglare the panel is still protected...let me see if I could find his post in all this... Of course the ultimate is actually removing the antiglare/polar alltogether and replace with a polar alone.
sim

Would anybody be willing to give me a summary of the last 115 pages of posts?

Has a sure fire method of improving the lcd output been found?

Sorry for my lazyness but I was unaware of this thread till today, and ... yeah, thanks!

It works.

No such thing as "sure fire way", however three methods have been proposed and have been successful with various people. They are 1) complete removal of polarizer with the antiglare attached and then replacing it with an off-the-shelf polarizer, 2) stripping the antiglare off the polarizer with paint stripper, and 3) soaking the antiglare with a water soaked rag or spong, and then peeling it off.

All of these have been successful on many people who have tried. Some people have failed. These procedure can be monitor dependent. I think the laptop lcds are proving kinda tough to strip the antiglare, but many if not most of the regular desktop lcds have proven fairly easy to strip. Each procedure has its weaknesses and strengths. Of course, everytime you touch that panel you increase the risk of breaking it.

Overall increase in brightness and clarity has been spot measured at approximately 50%.

I won't go into the details of each method. That has to be looked up.

Only maybe 5 LCD's have been modified now. The strength of this procedure will be in how many panels it doesn't wreck . So far so good, and the tests have shown things should be fine as long as care is taken with both removal techniques. Some panels don't take to the removal techniques at all.I forgot about Mikau's great suggestion . That instead of prying up the anti-glare, we attach sticky tape to simulate extending the anti-glare over the edge and then peel it up. The sticky tape probably would not give first. There would be a bit of technique to this, as you would want only the edge to come up first. It couldn't get any more noninvasive than that .

I would like to add that it be best that the surface of the anti-glare around the perimeter of the polarizer be layered with tape to prevent anti-glare tearing. This would mean a close eye to be sure nothing else gives instead at a snag, but certainly would be a lot less risky then getting the anti-glare started again.Yes!.Pure water is highly recommended. But that is not what prevents grain. Grain is a stress effect that does not go away. Long thin glowing lines through the polarizer. It is the number one thing we have been trying to correct. It seems to occur when the cross sectional volume of water is high at the surface of the PVA, and it seems only if the polarizer has been stressed (by removal or factory application for instance).

The TAC, and RAG hold the total volume of water back, and if the panel has been manufactured carefully, the polarizer will not have been stressed. Therefore, ragging eliminates both parameters that are believed to be requirements of grain formation.

The issue is if water can bead up at the edges of the polarizer, the volume at the edges will have increased. This may or may not result in grain. It has never been tested. That is the only reason why I warn, because there is the possibility that something could go wrong.

Mark.

Warning: The thing that people need to understand is that while we have tested several panels, there are several different grades of PVA. There is nothing preventing a manufacturer from using PVA with a higher solubility than what we have tested. oztang64 found he could dissolve his PVA without high temperatures or agitation. Truly baffling, but that is what he said.

oztang: would it be possible to get you to attempt the rag technique on a section of that polarizer? It has been stressed, so it's not a perfect test piece, but what you have found is sort of theoretical worst case scenario. I wish you had posted in this thread, or I may have missed this.

When you say completely dissolved, are you saying there was literally nothing gray left to the polarizer at all, anywhere?

And was this a section that had the anti-glare removed?

How hot was the water?

Was there any agitation?

How big was the square?

Thanks,
Mark.

Well spoken and I can see why this would be an issue. The thing that most of the folks here are missing is that the majority of the LL folks might not be willing to soak/rag an LCD panel in water for an ungauranteed ( IE risky..) improvement. While you and I are willing to place bets on the process, there are several thousand folks out there who wont want to do it simply because of the cost and potential loss.
I am a big proponent of the DIY mindset and I have rabidly eaten all of the pages in this subject with great gusto. I LOVE this stuff... But I feel like there may be a middle ground to this process that will be easier for the majority of panel projectionists.

That being said...allow me to place a slightly different view on this...
( if I offend anyone, it is not meant to be so...)

1. The tape is interesting enough and the results tangible, but the problem with the tape is that the gap filling ability of the tape is not nearly as good as a liquid. Also the type of adhesive may give rise to slight diffusion even if it looks clear. A liquid would have an excellent fill capacity. I would re-read the thread but I need to sleep this weekend...

2.. The heat issue would basically be a non issue because you are talking a total depth of less than 1 mm for the coating. The objective here is to fill the gaps in the AG, not to build another layer on top of it.

3. Ease of application. Spread it on and wait for it to set. No soaking, no polishing, stressing fcc's or risk of breaking the panel. Less risk of newbie type accidents...

Im not saying I wouldnt strip my panel, but I feel like there are some who would rather not.
But they would like a modest increase in quality for their picture.
I am proposing an improvement with a slightly higher comfort zone for the less.....hmmmm..."adventurous" builders. I recently finished a 3 dimensional fresnel adjustment design and its main focus for me was to make it so that just about any average joe could do it. I could do an elaborate mechanism that whirls and buzzes and goes "ba-ping!", but how does that better our community?

Now if this train of thought needs adjusting, please tell me and I will take it somewhere else. Me? I probably will strip my panel, but I was thinking about the other 95% who might feel better about things if we could say "hey, just spray this on and get X% improvement".

My respects to you all.

SJ

Samuraijack: Your suggestions are more than welcomed here. Your idea and approach would be easier for the less adventurous builders has you pointed out. By bad assumption on my part I wasn't sure if you knew of the polishing method and it's ease and affectiveness and if you have read about it in this thread previously (bad assumption especially when your current plog is like a bible in the making ) It would be interesting to see how the polymer additive compares to the results from polishing technique.

Returned respects.
sim

Supraguy, Thanks for your assistance in keeping the other thread clean of unwanted discussion : http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl= . I can see that you and everybody here is doing everything in their power to prevent 'gumming' up the research and experimentation of this new found discovery and I personally thank each and everyone of you for this and the help .
sim


This may be one of the reasons why we are seeing others fail in their attempt to remove their antiglare. By jumping in at the tail end of the discussion missing all the risk factors that been brought up in the past. Not to point at anyone in particular but Mikau, would you care to explain to ArchibaldTuttle how it is important to read this entire thread before he too destroys his panel?
sim

Many thanks.
For a bit, I thought I might have offended the group, which was not my intent.
The digestion of 115 pages of spontaneous thought and fierce intelligence can be overwhelming.
I shall continue my talks with the polymer folks.

Now for an explosive question?

I have seen a lot of folks use chemical strippers of the more volatile nature. Has anyone tried one of the more "natural, eco-friendly-green-safe" products?

By preliminary testing, it seems one of the issues with encapsulation is that the refractive index of the adhesive must match the anti-glare to be fully effective. Different panels have different refractive indices. Further, it is believed that the composition of the anti-glare is such that their are actually 2 materials at play. Small beads set in a compound. You could therefore not match the index to the two materials at once, assuming they are not the same. For this reason, if you could flatten the surface, you would still take a hit. I don't feel this is a reason to stop pursuing encapsulation, though. As long as the index is closer than air, there will be notable improvement as you have said. And the only way to completely bypass this issue is full anti-glare removal.

The actual number one issue with tape is bubbles on application.Just to be clear, even filling the gaps wil result in more material, and thus more hindered heat dissipation (assuming anti-glare and it's respective fillers are poor conductors of heat). My hunch is to agree. I don't feel heat is much of an issue no matter what we do in terms of adding material.I look forward to an adapted technique here. I worry about dust though. Even in the time it took to strip the anti-glare in my recent photo's dust settled on the surface. The surface was likely charged, mind you, from the separation of the anti-glare.

FWIW: Polishing seems actually quite noninvasive. I can't think of anything that would be easier.

Anyone get any micro-mesh yet? .

Mark.

Well I checked and the scuff marks are definitly showing up in the projection. I tried Mothers plastic polish but it didn't seem to work. I don't get it, you apply the polish and polish it in, and let it dry like the instructions say, you buff it out, the polish comes off and the scratch comes back. Worthless stuff!

I also found a few more minor scratches in the glass substrate. Very small and few but still an annoyance.

I need some reccomendations for good polishes for the glass substrate and for the front polarizer. (Rather, for the protective layer of the polarizer)

If anyone has any good polishes on hand, and a piece of removed polarizer, if you could gently scuff up a piece and see if you can polish it out, I'd appreciate it. I've already wasted time and money on other polishes, I don't want to waste any more trying stuff out.

I haven't tried it, but Mothers chrome polish is still my bet.

Mark.

Well said, Mark.

If I remember correctly the illustration of the AG layer was a from a Viewsonic? Im wondering if other , less pricy, manufacturers might not opt for a simple light diffusion acrylic, rather than a very complicated layered solution? Can anyone verify that there is only style of AG layer?

I agree with the statement about the heat being a moot point. With an addition of less than two grams of material spread over a 108 square inch area, it shouldnt change the heat dissipation qualities by much.

You mean Mag and Alluminum polish? If not, would it hurt to give it a shot anyways?

You could try that too, but in your case you have glass to polish. Chrome polish is the only one I've seen that will do glass. Nobody has tried the chrome polish yet. It may even be the anti-glare killer we are looking for .

This post outlines the various applicable Mothers products and provides a link to the catalogue:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=94929Yes, there are two types of anti-glare. I would say the more common is simply an etched plastic surface. This would not be effected by the split index problem, but would still optimally require a matched index encapsulator. There actually was a link a while back for a company that does encapsulation of panels. The basically stick a large sheet of packing tape on the surface . They wrote specifically about all the different glues they use to get the index matched just right.

Mark.

I don't get it. The mothers plastic polish is designed to remove minor scratches from plastic. Tried it on a cd and a plexiglass window, did nothing. The scratch reappears when you polish it off.

Tried the mag and alluminum polish on a cd, didn't do a thing either. Scratches reappear when you polish it off.

What's odd is for others, the mag and alluminum polish worked just as well as tape, I could barely get it do to a thing. It wouldn't work on the antiglare and it even won't do what its advertised to do.

It would seem polishes don't work on my planet.

thanks Dazzla, I just didn´t pay atention to this thread in a time and jumped that interesting elken's post.

mmm, you meassured 50% increase. Can you tell me from how many lumens to how many? what about contrast?

also I dind´understan about the 200nm to 450nm filters in the luxmeter... Tried on google search about your luxmeter but no luck, could you tel me the exact model? Is it a light meter or a laser testing device?

edit: http://www.newport.com/Light%20Test%20and%...roductmain.aspx
any of those?

TAC is not the same material as Polymethyl methacrylate (Plexiglas) and polycarbonate (CD's and some anti-glare). You may have just confirmed that you have polycarbonate polarizer support films.

I wouldn't let the stuff dry and then polish it off. I would work with it in liquid form, it should cut quicker. As I understand it, dry polishing is meant for really smooth finishing. No matter what, if you work at it long enough you will get those scratches out. Of course, some materials don't polish (Lexan) but I don't think this is one of them.

Slightly off topic:

Here is some idea of why so little light gets through the panel in the first place.

The panel basically has these primary transmittance bottlenecks:

a. Reflections off the inside of the analyzer surface as light makes the transition from plastic to air.

b. Reflections off the outside of the polarizer surface as light makes the transition from air to plastic.

c. Total internal reflection caused by the anti-glare if oriented as the analyzer.

d. Single transmittance of the polarizer.

e. Parallel transmittance of the analyzer.

f. Dichroic efficiency of the color filters.

g. Transmittance of the color filters.

h. Transmittance of the various elements.

i. Masking.

Let's ignore total internal reflection as the removal of anti-glare, or standard panel orinetation should basically eliminate that. The parameter that is missing is diffusion in cenarios where the only useful light is light exiting at the normal (projectors). Removing the anti-glare largely takes care of this. I am also going to ignore the masking only because I am too lazy to work out what percent of the panel is masked (based on dot pitch) .

So taking a simple slice of those parameters above that really matter yields this estimate:

Air to polarizer interface: 96% transmittance (according to Nitto Denko).

Polarizer: Maximum 44.3% (Sanritz).

Color filters: 30% (deduciton based on 10 fairly equal parts to full spectrum white light, 3 of which we use).

Analyzer: Maximum 84% (3M).

Plastic to air interface: 96% (According to Nitto Denko).


Put that all together and you get:

100 * 0.96 * 0.443 * 0.30 * 0.84 * 0.96 = 10.2% transmittance.

So if a panel were to take choice of the optimal of each component we have found, and extract an exact cross section of each of Red Green and Blue (RGB), we would have a 10.2% transmittant panel. But I maintain that this is only the theoretical optimal. Without switching to less efficient color filtering, the transmittance can only go down from here.

But lets see what happens if the light that is not polarizeable can be 100% recycled. This is the case with commercial projectors:

The polarizer now takes on a theoretical tranmittance of 84% (same as optimal parallel tranmittance).

100 * 0.96 * 0.84 * 0.30 * 0.84 * 0.96 = 19.5% transmittance.

The light output has nearly doubled. This is one of the major reasons why a commercial projector is so bright. Just a breakdown of why I am excited about trying the light recycler roughly established earlier in this thread .

Mark.

Well I'll try the mag and alluminum polish for the heck of it. But I'm sure it will do nothing. I'd rather shy away from any more Mothers polishes. They don't appear to be working.

What kind of polish will be good for the glass substrate?

Googled up some scratch removers:

Displex polish http://www.mobilefun.co.uk/product/3298.htm

Novus® 3 Plastic Heavy-Duty Scratch Remover http://www.modernplastics.com/novisplasticpolish.html

212 plus Plastic Scratch remover http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/210plus.php

Most interesting is that displex polish. Its made to remove scratches from cell phone screens. Sounds perfect. But what bugs me is that all the polishes I've tried so far say they remove scratches. You buy them and they simply don't work! Why should these be any differant?

I'm game Mark. Wanna begin this scenario and I'll pick the pieces and experiment in my pj if you'd like. Just jot down your ingredients.
sim

You all ready for BIG PICTURE....hehehehe