This patent is absurd:

http://www.linkgrinder.com/Patents/Polariz...ds_crystal.html

I cannot believe how much of what we are dealing with it covers. It literally itemizes one paragraph at a time basically everything about the composition of a polarizer for LCD's. And I mean everything. My favourite part was when it talked about brightness enhancement films. And the part where it finally put in writing what I have deduced about compensation film:

Quote: Controlling three-dimensional refractive index may be further preferred since an elliptical polarizing plate can compensate (prevent) colors observed when looking a screen of the liquid crystal display from an oblique direction.

Actually my favorite part was this:

Quote: There is no specific limitation on treatment for adhering the polarizer (polarizing film) to the transparent protective film that is a protective layer. Adhesion can be carried out, for example, by using an adhesive such as an adhesive including a vinyl alcohol-based polymer, or an adhesive including at least a water-soluble crosslinking agent of vinyl alcohol-based polymer such as boric acid, borax, glutaraldehyde, melamine and oxalic acid. A layer of such an adhesive can be formed by, for example, applying and drying an aqueous solution. In preparation of the aqueous solution, other additives, or a catalyst such as an acid can be blended if necessary.

.

At that point, I was actually expecting the article to just outright explain how they would separate anti-glare from PVA . It didn't. Stupid patent.

Nice to finally have a clue what is adhering the TAC to the PVA.

And of course, what brought me to the patent: trying to figure out why TAC curls. The reason why I am investigating that is because Sonic has some confirmation that that grain originates in the TAC. The dissolved PVA sample he had is apparently covered in grain, and there is no PVA left.

Mark.

Wow Mark, this is a great find. Almost wished we had this 100 pages ago. Sure is alot to digest might take me a while.
sim

Yeah Good Luck with it blackmichael.

If I could suggest one thing thou......if you have a camera, can you photograph the whole exercise.
Out of the 126 pages we have (so far), there is very little visual evidence to review.

It's taken the best part of 5 days to read to this point, and a lot of the posts are spent trying to define what the originator is talking about (ala Mikau's situation). 1 photo says a lot more than a 100 posts.

This is just an observation from my point of view, not a critisism of anyone.
I applaud you on your endevours so far.


Couple of questions to throw out there.

1. The CMV panels that showed the 'bubbling', did they bubble in the same area of the screens?

2. Could the the CMV panels have a 'thinner' anti glare sheet and the sanding has cut into the polarizer, allowing the stripper to penetrate?

3. What are the effects to the bare polarizer on 'Sonics' panel if the the polarizer is scratched then stripper is applied? Will the CMV bubbling appear?

Keep up the good work...and I'll try and keep up with the pages.

We don't know because neither of us that has experienced this has a digital camera.


No. When I finally completely got all of the antiglare off, I saw no sanding marks on the polarizer that would have cut through during the sanding phase.

Wha-? :

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99632

edit

The substrate glue: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97805

Sample symptoms: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97810

Clarity comparisons: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97814

Mark.

Hey Chad,

Wouldn't you agree that there's no real way that either of us could have penetrated the a/g with anything? I mean, my lines are so straight and parallel that I couldn't reproduce them unless I had a straight edge, a protractor and a razor. It seems like it HAS to be either stress or some pre-existing slice in the polarizer to me.

Would you agree?

How spaced apart are these lines, and how many are there? Is there any regularity to the spacing pattern at all?

And they truly go right from edge to edge, no breaks in any of the lines?

Mark.

Everyone, please keep in mind about the CMV panels that only the cmv-520 panels gave troubles with bubbling. We do not know about the other cmv panels.

duece985:
You are right. The only thing I touched the antiglare with was sandpaper.
Have you peeled your polarizer up yet? If not, go very slow and try to peel the film back on itself, not straight up. Also, make sure the panel stays as flat as possible. It took about 45 minutes for me. The glue came up with the polarizer except under the bubbles and around the edges. It took 3 applications (1-2 hrs)of stripper then scraping with the plastic putty knife to get the glue thin enough. Then, I rubbed the remaining glue off with denatured alcohol and a paper towel. It does not come off easy, as I spent an hour on this part. I ended up with no scratches on the glass

Everything from removing the antiglare, to peeling off the polarizer, to removing the polarizer glue fought me every inch of the way.

Mark:
There were 3 bubbles on my panel. There was no regular distance between them though. They don't go from edge to edge. Instead, they cover roughly 2/3 the diagnal length of the panel running at about a 45 degree angle. The bubbles didn't go to the edges at all. Also, there are no breaks in each of the 3 bubbles.

Can you see any irregularity in the PVA layer around or above the bubbled areas? Is there any physical evidence that stripper could have seeped through into the rear TAC. In particular, holding the sample up to a light source from various glancing angles, can you see any sign of small, parallel, hairline fractures (grain) ?

I have successfully removed the ag from a CMV 720d panel using the rag soak technique, I will post my method in the other thread later.

I Also have a damaged 5" panel, I think it's a sharp, Which is also minus one ag using the water dunk method with no damage to the polarizer after a few hours.

However over the last few days I've had the 5" soaking a bowl of water, over the last few days with a seperate piece of polarizer this produced some intresting results:

Seperate polarizer piece The pva has mostly been disolved leaving a very thin piece of plastic, this happened very quickly after 1-2 hours I started noticing grain.

The lcd itself seems to be untouched except where there is a scratch and at the edges. It looks like the pva is bonded to the otherside of this plastic which so far doesn't seem to be permeable to water.

Yes..I've seen that, but that thread didn't start till this thread was 93 pages long.



Yes..I've seen that as well, but those pics didn't appear till this thread was 105 pages long.

Look, as I said originally, it's not a critisism, just an observation, so I apologise if offence has been taken, but you also have to remember that this thread started on Sept 17th, and not everyone has a 'test' panel in front of them, so trying to 'visualise' what is being said is not easy. You need to look at it from the point of view of someone reading from page 1 that isn't as close to the project as some of you guys are.

Most of the pics that we have are of 'success' stories, & hopefully they outweigh the failures.
But, ideally pics of the 'failures', in my opinion would be more beneficial, as the failures are what 'we' are trying to avoid.
I feel bad for Chad,deuce & Mikau that their's didn't work, and understand that if they don't have cameras to take pics, so be it.
The main idea of my original post was that if you attempt this, & you have a camera, please take photos to 'enhance' the research.

Basically it's like being on holiday at Loch Ness....seeing 'Nessie', then realising after she's gone...gee, maybe I should've taken a picture with the camera I have around my neck...DOH!

Anyway, I'll slink back into the shadows now, and keep my trap shut.

Wishing you continued sucess !

Yes. A dunk is a very different story than ragging.Just to be clear: there is no dunk method.That is the rear TAC. It is permeable to water (Just the same as the front anti-glare treated TAC), but the glue that holds it to the glass substrate is not always water soluble, so it will likely remain in place.

Mark.

OK...now my CMV 520D has been stripped and cleaned of the antiglare, polarizer, and glue. I installed it back into the projector to test if it even still works. Without any polarizer, I see a very very faint image. So at least I know the LCD still does something.

I have tried putting my mangled mess of the polarizer I pulled off in various positions to try and get an image....in front of the triplet, behind the triplet, and between the heat shield and rear fresnel (it is so mangled it won't fit between the rear fresnel and LCD without stratching something). I have turned it a full 360 degrees. Nothing produces an image over the faint one I allready have. Is this normal?

What is the highest quality polarizer bought so far? This has been touched on, but not to any extent showing results. GadgetSmith, I am assuming you are using the polarization.com one with your CMV 520D? Are you satisfied with the resulting image?

When I get mine, do I just cut out a square anywhere on the 2 foot sheet?






Aside from the crease/fracture running down the middle, no. By the way, the crease did not show up at first when the bubble was first noticed. Only after the 26 hour paint stripper incident did the bubbles grow and a crease form down the middle of them. Obviously, when left on for extended time, the stripper will penetrate portions on the polarizer and seperate it from the adhesive, forming a bubble.

Another thing to think about: have you noticed when the paint stripper is "working its magic" hundreds of tiny little bubbles form on its surface? What if these gasses got through the polarizer? Or if the gasses were emitted from the amount of stripper that penetrated the polarizer and then had nowhere to go?

Nope. But you need to place the polarizer on the same side of the panel it came from, then dial it in until there is an image. So triplet side placement will not work. Not sure why putting it behind the condenser didn't work. Maybe that is not a functional polarizer anymore? Can you get it to cross out with another polarizer section?http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=98665http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=98909That is the current theory of what has happened. The stripper permeated the PVA, then broke down the rear TAC which created the gas.

Mark.

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been around much. Keeping up with this thread was backing me up on my study. I'm still trying to get around to ordering my new polarizer.

So hows it going? Any major discoveries since I left?

Spend some time reading the last 20 pages , you slacker....

Man them young wipper snappers these days *walks away grumbling like an old man*




J/K

Would anyone recommed the rag method to get the ag layer off a benq monitor that has some air pockets in the 2 corners of the monitor?

Im thinking that the air pockets are the polar bear trying to lift off. I actually got the monitor like that. Also, no one seems to have done this with the popular benq monitor? Any ideas as to what could be a good method to try first?

Im more inclined to try the rag method first and see what happens....

No its nots the rear TAC its part of the polarizer, the rear TAC Is very thick this is very thin

layered on the LCD like this:

AG
very thin plastic
PVA
Rear TAC
Glass Substrate

I'm pretty sure the polarizer is 2 layers, looking at the piece of polarizer I have been soaking it is clear in places where the PVA has completely disolved away instead of the normal black.

the lcd with part of the polarizer still attached is still soaking and there hasn't been much damege to the polarizer except at the edges and at a scratch where the water can get through the thin layer of plastic I was talking about.

I would use the rag method:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99632

If you follow the photo guidelines I linked in the other thread, then statistics are on your side. Water has been on a roll. As long as you don't force it to work if it won't, ragging either works or it doesn't. With no harm to the panel either way. At least that is what we have found so far. If you deviate from the guidelines then it is perfectly capable of damage.Okay. It was just the way I defined what you had written. There are definitely polarizers out there that will have this additional layer. I have seen the exploded diagrams of a few. Yours is the first that we have seen. It's good to know ragging worked for it as well .

Mark.

Hey I'm not asking for a full update, just wondering if theres any breaking news since I left.

Anyways I got an idea today. You know how I mentioned tape may be able to remove scratches just like it smoothend out the antiglare? I was thinking, perhaps, if I got an adhesive backed polarizer and applied it, the adhesive would fill in the small scratches in the glass substrate. I'm going to try putting a piece of tape on of the scratches to see if it gets rid of it.

I know I know, air bubbles. But in my oppinion, applying tape to antiglare even with soapy water is not going to work because the surface is rough, and as water evaporates, air works its way in. Applying it to glass may be a differant story. Besides, the adhesive backed polarizer must work somewhere or they wouldn't sell it. Right?

Polarization.com says the adhesive backed polarizar is "great for repairing old lcd's!" So I sent them an email asking "what about the air bubbles?" in the most intelligent manner I could think of. Hopefully I'll get an answer by tommorow.

So if I can get the glass substrate clean of scratches using the polarizer adhesive, and if those front polarizer scuffs annoy me too much, maybe I can replace the front polarizer as well.

Otherwise I'm worried that those scratches will annoy the hell out of me untill I end up buying a new lcd.

I placed the old polarizer between the heat shield and rear fresnel....it still doesn't show much, just a faint image with screwed up colors. But, more importantly, that revealed 3 or 4 dead horizontal rows of pixels on the LCD!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :angry:

Tonight I will take out the LCD, reposition the FFCs, and reinstall, but I think my LCD is ruined!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :angry:

Now I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to redesign the sled for another brand LCD (I have crappy tools and the first build was a nightmare to get right), but on the flip side, the CMV 520D is pure evil, plus its no longer sold. If I go with another CMV, I am only doing the Peek polish this time. I hope the titanium antiglare doesn't resist this as well. I started the projector in May and its still not ready for use. One more failure on any part of this thing, and I give up.....$850 down the drain.

chad dont despair,,,, take a deep breath, even walk away for a while then come back and study problem,,,

hopefully its only bad conects on ffc's

if horz lines look at ffc's that way,, and vertical do same..

Chad,

Try putting the polarizer between the rear fresnal and the lcd. Maybe attach it to the fresnal.

Also, maybe if you can get hold of a magnifying glass you might be able to isolate the issue with the dead lines in your lcd. This is probably simply a dissconnection between the ffc and the lcd.

Your ffc may just be misaligned with your lcd (maybe reversed). This would explain both the weird colors and the lines. If your ffc is activating the wrong lines then the pixels will get the wrong signals, giving wierd colors.

Edit: Oh yeah, listen to elken. You might be too discombobulated to do the work at this very moment. Sit back. Calm down. When your head is grounded again approach the job in a deliberate and careful way. Maybe write down the steps you want to take before starting your troubleshooting.

Definately a good idea to take a break from it all. I ruined my third lcd about 5 months ago. I havent touch the pj since. I am waiting and hoping to find a great deal on a 17 " on Black Friday. Cmv's are too fragile IMHO, then again dropping a brick, throwing it around, putting it next to 134 degree heat from a bulb doesn't help either. Back on topic. I may order me some Brightness enhancement films and see how it plays out.

I am starting the rag technique on a defective 15" Liquid Video LCD (glass broken in many pieces)
I have read all of the posts, but it has been a lot to retain. The anti glare should be on the side of the lcd that gives off a diffused reflection of a light source right?
I pulled up a corner of it just to have a peek at the thickness of it, and am completely amazed at how thin the entire substrate is (ag, tac, polar, etc...) Probably the thickness of 3 sheets of paper together. I now know how dangerous it can be to try to separate this with a razor blade. I will definately try the tape method first.
If my test is successful, then my BenQ FP591 will go under the knife shortly thereafter.

One thing I did note is that, funny enough, paper towel and toilet paper expand when wet! So a perfectly cut piece of 'rag' will become larger after soaking, and therfore the edges will pass the edge of the substrate.
Just something everyone 'ragging' should keep an eye on.

Rhino

Thanks for the tip Rhino. Looking forward to your results as I am currently using the Liquidvideo.

Yes. Here are the guidelines:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99632Note the shot with the penny edge.Exactly . This is why the rag is to be saturated before laying it down onto the anti-glare.

Good luck with it .

Oh, and if I could suggest one thing thou......if you have a camera, can you photograph the whole exercise.
Out of the 127 pages we have (so far), there is very little visual evidence to review . I just misunderstood what you were saying Axe666. I thought you were talking about a lack of generic guidlines.

Mark.

Chad N

We are both in the same boat, its a sinking feeling.

pun intended :-X

ok I got a reply from polarization.com:

Hello
You are correct, applying the film over large areas by hand is tricky as it is difficult to avoid air bubbles. If you are applying it just to a plate of glass, the air bubbles can eliminated by applying head and pressure, but that cannot be done for an assembled LCD. We just got samples of a film with texture that may be easier to apply but I still have to test it.
In stock we have the polarizer with adhesive for LCDs (from Japan) and a general purpose film (no adhesive) that comes in a roll. We plan to have LCD grade polarizer without adhesive in the near future, but at this time we do not stock it.
Regards,
George

That is interesting that he doesn't consider the current stuff to be of LCD grade? The specs are reasonably impressive. I look forward to what he has planned.

The problem is both bubbles and alignment. You have one chance to get perfect 90 degree orientation without bubbles.

Mark.

Yeah sounds exciting.

I'd go with non adhesive without a second thought but I do believe it may knock out those little scratches.

What to do...what to do... non adhesive adhesive

Working with the adhesive stuff is going to be a battle. Likely a much bigger battle then peeling up anti-glare. You've got dust, bubbles and alignment to worry about. And all in one shot. .

You will find a separate way to deal with those scratches, and being that they are on both sides of your panel, it really is a separate issue.

edit and look at the price difference. You need to get a piece big enough to orient properly with your panel. And if your panel orientation doesn't match what's available, you can add cutting accurately on the first try to the mix.

edit #2 and did you ever figure out what your polarization axis angle is?

Mark.

my cmv 520D was 45degrees

and on that note im out for tonight



if you're ever in the central north carolina area, a pitchers on me Mark


Click to view attachment

. There's a big valve sticking out of that trunk. Wait a minute. That's not a trunk. That's a fridge... Hold on, that not just a valve, that looks like a beer tap. But what is a beer tap doing sticking out of a fridge? Think, Mark, think. Oh?.. Unless... N-o-o-o-o-o... Holy ---- .

Mark.

Looks like the handle is under lock and key.

Just a quick operational update on my stripped CMV CT-529.

We watched for 2 hours last night and the temperature in the air between the LCD and the rear fresnel was only 69 degrees F. This is 10 degrees cooler than it was running prior to removing the anti-glare and moving the rear fresnel back to eliminate the fresnel rings on the projection. Ambient temperature in the room was 66 degrees when we started.

Carry on.

Greg

hmmmm,,, need a port, and there aint any, grrrrrr

beer will do,,,

I for the first time, pulled my PJ back so as to fill the entire 8 foot x 4 foot LF screen with a full 2.35:1 screen,, just for the third star wars,, wow what a buzz that was...

and geez, I completely forgot I had no reflector behind lamp either,, been that way for a week now,,, must put back,, did that so I could get all spacings recorded for different setups of all optics,, with enhancements.. reflector would have confused everything...

Well, it's been 19.5 hours, and I can not remove the ag off this liquid video lcd. I have been very liberal with the water, and yet the ag is still stuck on there. I can not get a corner started with a razor blade.
I will leave it soaking for the rest of the day, and test it periodically.

Rhino

I have a Samsung 17", not sure what model it came pre-stripped from ebay.

It's a test panel, I fried some of the circuitry with tin foil, I was stupid enough to try to wrap some on the cables while the monitor was still on.

Anyway here is the method I used, let me know if I did anything wrong:

Placed 4 sheets of paper towel

Liberally applied water

waited 12 hours

used a razor to get a corner up


The panel appeared to be exactly the same as it was prior to my attempt, and the AG was putting up far to much resistance. Personally I don't see how any water is going to penatrate the AG, it is a pretty significant layer which I can only assume is not water permeable.

For experimental purposes I put the removed polarizer from my CMV 520D in a bucket of water and left it overnight. When I came back roughly 16 hours later, I found the actual polarizer was starting to disolve in places leaving behind the clear plastic film.

Also, I took the LCD back out cleaned and repositioned the FFCs, and looked at everything under a magnifying glass - no visible damage anywhere. I was carefull when peeling off the masking tape from the FFCs after stripping, but maybe not carefull enough? Anyway, I put the LCD back in the projector and found it still has the horizontal lines. Have to get a new one now.

If it is taking this long, my gut reaction is that your "TAC layer" is not water permeable. It shouldn't take that long to release ... BUT, I have been wrong before - so carry on!

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99819If you run your finger along the FFC with some downward pressure where it is bonded to the panel (and exactly across from the lines) you should be able to get those lines to light up again if it is just a bond issue.

I have read of people building clamps that clamp the FFC back down, and depending on the panel others have been able to iron the FFC back (that would not be easy), while others have glued it back down.Does this mean you were able to get it started, or it is resisting getting started? If the water has not gone right to the edge (by seeping down, and then across) then you will not be able to flip a corner up, while the piece may be ready. How close to the edge does your towel go?Your anti-glare has a different appearance/thickness than the average anti-glare?

There have been a couple people claiming non water-permeable anti-glares, but I would make absolutely sure that won't flip up. It can be tricky, I suppose. But whatever you do, don't force a peel you can force the corner up because it is in the masked area, but if things are hard during the peel then something is wrong.

Mark.

Mikau had a similar experience with his Samsung. I would think that a given manufacturer would have film structures that are the same accross the board for all their LCD monitors - it makes sense to me from an economic and engineering standpoint.

Although just a hunch, I think it can be said that in general if a technique works with one Brand "Z" LCD, it will work accross the board with all Brand "Z" LCD's. This, of course, does not apply to OEM monitors (like DELL) that are rebaged models from various manufacturers. This is what prompted my comment about "don't use stripper on CMV monitors"; because the 520-D has problems with it, I think that all CMV's will.

Sorry to hear this Chad, I was hoping your attempt had been a successful one along with the others who did it using stripper. To be honest with you, when I strippered off the rear TAC behind the LCD I didn't even take the time to mask off the circuit board. Guess I got really confident with my method after several successful tries. I suppose I got cocky but now your experieces returns me to realize that the worst could still occurr if I don't take the neccessary precautions possibly the next time.

I wish you the best of luck in seeking a replacement panel without excessful $$ loss.
sim

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99485

Mark.

Dam, now I want to try stripping a CMV. I'm putting my name on the method and dam if this brand is going to make me look bad. Anybody want me to do theirs? Otherwise I'll search for one online and show you my results.

TO THE SIMUL8R CAVE........
sim

That's why I said "in general". I believe the Samsung that was successfully ragged was a legacy panel - perhaps they have changed their film structure of late?? The more recent models seem to be suffering from water impermeable a/g layers.

Chad,

Mark is dead-on about this. Don't give up on your panel just as yet. If you look at my PLOG, you'll see I had a similar nightmare with my BenQ boards frying. I had to put it away for a month before I was able to actually resolve the problem.

Also, there are companies that will re-solder the TAB connectors for you at abouyt $80 per pop (as a last resort).

Hey Sim,

Got any comparison pics between a/g removed and a/g+rear-TAC removed??

Man, I thought I was the only one here that was strip-happy?!?

PS: You wanna hear something funny? When my BenQ was on the fritz, I actually purchased another LCD to use in the pj. The model? CMV-520D . It's currently serving as my HTPC monitor so it is not available for stipping