Woo-Hoo! Just the way I like 'em! Congrats!!

Mark,

Sorry, but I did not reinforce with tape. Edges were quite stuck at 5 hours, so I do not think the tape would have helped. I think the adhesion between the a/g and the polarizer at the edges would have been greater than that of the tape to the a/g. It is for that reason that I do not think it would have helped pulling up the corners either.

One think that did occured to me during the procedure...

My LCD was in its original frame, held in place with silicone II. When I removed it, there was silicone stuck to the lcd, with some bridging the gap between the glass substrate and the a/g. So, if someone was really paranoid about water seeping under the polarizer, could the not just seal the edge with silicone, soak for 10+ hours, then peel of the silicone and the a/g?

I know it might sound overprotective, but that might just be the added level of safety some might need to take the plunge.

Rhino

ACER 17 " AL1714

ragged 5ish hours

top 1/3 peeled off, working on bottom 2/3 this is looking good

slight hazy residue left behind, cleaned up fine with a bit of water


will keep you updated, going to let it sit a bit longer

Why only 1/3? If one part isn't ready, then the whole thing isn't. Or is this a really up to date play by play .My opinion on this is that the added step of adding silicon is more dangerous than just doing the procedure. Would you not agree the procedure is quite safe as is?

I really think that reinforcing with a good packing tape would work great at the edges. I also think it would be reasonable that a good tape could start up a corner if the force is applied from the edge in. I know you have your hunches, but I just hope someone can give it a try.

edit Mike, can you try to reinforce the edges with tape if the sheet is tearing? Only onto the surface of the anti-glare at the edges, and obviously you stick it down after permeation. And can you see if you can lift a corner up with sticky tape stuck down, and then try to roll the corner up (if you see what I mean).

Mark.

the first 1/3 came off in a nice strip, then the rest didnt want to budge, im not going to force things. ill give it an hour and find a razer to pick up the edge (where is the emo room mate when you need him).


hahahah


yeah i will try that mark, ill go at 12 down again

this is a pretty nice LCD now that i think of it. the light tubes in the back had burst lol.

Excellent work mikelish and Rhino17, chuck up 2 for the 'rag'. This is getting exciting, now we can hear from you two how much of difference your pj will be performing.

Also, can you 2 post your methods and findings and of course pics of your successes at my other thread. We would appreciate it.
sim

Sonic, so your using the 'rag' method on the TAC as well? This is interesting if you are. I only thought the antiglare comes up and not the TAC. Or have I sniffed up to much stripper when this passed by?
sim

Both techniques annihilate the TAC and anti-glare. That is, both techniques leave you with nothing but exposed PVA magic polarizing action™. Unless you have the layered anti-glare which we have only one unconfirmed report of.

Mark.

So there is tac on the opposite side of the LCD ? How can you tell it's there?

You cannot. You must believe that it is there. .

Actually, it really boils down to the fact that I have never heard of a polarizer polymer (PVA) not being supported with something on either side (both sides of the PVA as well as both sides of the panel). The supportive "capturing" material is either going to be polycarbonate or TAC. TAC seems to be the most likely. Without supportive layers, the rear polarizer would be extremely thin (thinner than a sheet of paper).

TAC isn't just chosen for LCD polarizers, it is chosen as the supportive material in almost all polarizers because of its minimal optical anisotropy (birefringence), something that needs to be avoided or compensated for in systems incorporating polarized light.

This is a good time to remind that we are removing a supportive layer here. We don't know how that will play out in the long term. My guess is: just fine.

Mark.

this bottom half doesnt want to give it up, and i cant find my razor blade so im going to let it sit a little longer while i hunt

You will probably need a blade to get it up then. How did it wind up in 2? Did an edge snag and the whole think gently tore from there, or did the whole bottom half snag and it kind of ripped apart? If it just gently tore, then you can start the edge up and keep going. But reinforce this time. It is tricky to start that edge up. Careful with that razor.

Remember it isn't all just glass.

Mark.

I for one wanted to push the limit with this discovery of enhancement and dove in to try it with both PVA's exposed. I should have left half the rear TAC on to compare. But I guess I'll never know unless...Sonic, I don't suppose you'd like to experiment a little..... In either case my projection is no where near where I had it a month and half ago, so, I'll just run it down to the ground until something peels off when it shouldn't.

Many thanks again to you Mark and Elken, many thanks.
sim

ALMOST got it all mark, this thing needed alot of soaking, im going to need to clean up the polarizer with something, as there is a slight slight glue haze left over in some spots.

I'm not sure what is going on with this one. If one half went, the other half should have gone at the same time just as easily. Not a huge deal, but not what I would expect. Hope that residue cleans up.We just want yo-cough-hack-Christmas-bonus-cough-raise-u to be happy boss.

Oh. Pardon me, I had a bit of Christmas bonus and pay raise (percentage of course ) caught in my throat.

Mark.

you think i will damage it if i leave a slightly damp rag on it over night?


nevermind i got the rest off and cleaned it up

sat it on the overhead and made sure it worked, we are back in business!

she lives!

Perfect. But too bad there won't be any before and after shot with this one.

Mark.

Well, the only reason my lcd was even out of the pj was that I have started a rebuild. My old pj was functional, but not as adjustable as I would like. The use of threaded rods to keep everything parallel had me sold. I am going to attempt to take the rest of the week off from work, so I can finish the rebuild (Still haven't watched Star Wars III yet) ***hangs his head in shame***

Will post in the other thread shortly.

Rhino

So if the "rag soak" method works to remove the anti-glare then you can use the same method on the other side to remove the Tac ?

good question jonjandran, anyone want to try on a test panel (read:MARK)?

You understand guys that I may be wrong about my observations of clarity being improved when rear TAC is removed. I hope that I'm not starting something here that may be mistaken as just personal opinion. Unless, of course you all are getting into it for same reason I am which is experimental. That rear TAC is really transparent already but there might be more acuteness if it were removed but remember it is protecting the PVA. It's your choice but I'm also curious to hear what others may think of what I'm observing.
sim

well any layer is bad for light transmission, im just not sure its worth the risk.

you are my kind of guy though, jumping in there and taking it off .

note do not let water pool anywhere on the exposed surface of the PVA, always have a rag holding it back. Better yet, try to never let even ragged water hit the surface of the PVA. While this is what we crash tested, it is still not recommended. I would suggest that before you do the peel up that you wipe off any excess water on the surface of the TAC. That way if it tears (hopefully you have reinforced it with tape too), then water will not pool at the tear line between the TAC and the PVA.I just set it up. I have my apprehensions about recommending that technique. As SIM says, try it only if you want to truly experiment with something. This time I feel there is very little theory to support any benefit beyond what I have already stated. Unless you have a diffusive rear TAC.

But of course, there could be something here, we would just need to figure out what it is.

One of my thoughts is that they may have optically coated the rear polarizer with an anti-reflective (good thing) coating. It is on that TAC that this would be located. The reflections off the surface would typically take on some dichroism if this were the case. I think I am seeing this with my test panel. I will know pretty well if this is the case once the film is removed. If it is anti-reflective, then removing that layer will result in up to a 4% (?) loss of transmittance.

Mark.

Guys, look what happened to AustinT



It sounds like he thought he could peel up his antglare by hand, after a good long soak with stripper.

Sent him a pm.

More and more accidents are happening. As this thread gets bigger the information becomes harder to find. We've got to set up some tutorials!!!

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?a...r+%2F%3EAustinT

I feel like I've already said this, but I don't know what you mean about tutorials. The other thread is dedicated specifically to the processes. The way I read it, he used a scraper. We don't know for sure what is causing this problem. A tutorial could only warn that it may happen. The theory right now is to use a higher power stripper to get the job done quicker (less time for the active ingredients to permeate the PVA). It is also possible that the water played a roll, or that these particular panels don't take well to either technique under any circumstance.

Mark.

I have said it several times before,,, I am concerned with prolonged exposure by any method, has to be short and clean,,

the water method seems ok in some situations, under strict control,,

I dont like stripper with its highly active ingredients being left for hours,,
if there is a single bit left or gets on edges, it is going to do damage. and one scratch on glass is going to show, just like what started this whole thread,, ala simul8r......



Mind you if it fails, option is to get the non adhesive version of polarizer from 3dlens.com..

also there seems to be a trend here too..

those who have tried water first, then a second method, seem to have ended up with these effects..

I think even tho the water method appears to fail ala, not lifting easily,, it already has changed the chemistry of layers, so that when the stripper is then applied, it is erratic in its effects of removing a/g layer.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=100763

There are a lot of variables that need to be figured out. I think Deuce985 used Jasco Premium Paint & Epoxy Remover and no water soak, and got bubbles:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99100

Chad N. I'm not sure if he tried the water soak? I don't remember:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=98913

edit I think that Sonic crash tested stripper on the section that had been water soaked.

Mark.

You guys are probably going to stone me for this but I failed to tell you something.

When I used stripper to remove the antiglare/TAC from the front of my panel I tried to make sure that the chemical did not get underneath the other TAC. But guess what, it did in a small area. While strippering off the front antiglare/TAC I slid the used stripper off the panel to the sides away from the fcc's and circuit board. To my surprise, the edges of the polar I was stripping wasn't affected. Thereafter some use of the panel in my pj I notice the part that was affected which was the TAC behind the panel was projecting a little on screen. Thats when I decided to strip off the TAC. I didn't sand it cause, of course, it was to close to the polar so a pour and wait then scrape with the putty knife got it off with several applications of course. But I also allowed the stripper clear accross the edges. After 15 minutes I scraped the entire panel including edges and all sides of the PVA/TAC adhesed to the panel were not affected at all. I even did this without masking the fcc's (Got confident, I guess of my technique).

Sorry if I didn't include this but I just wanted others to be mindful of not having this chemical touch anything else but my experiences tells me that as long as you work quick and steady without affecting the fcc's and such and dont have the chemical remain on the panel longer than 15 mins PVA will not be effected.
sim

(Edit) Oh, and of course clean the panel with denatured alchohol after each application of the stripper. I noticed it wipes off the smearing of the melted TAC and adhesives faster before it hardens.

You told us about that right from the beginning :Mark.

Stone him! stone him! stone him!,,,,, in my best monty python, voice..

Life of Brian of course,,,, Stonnnneee Himmm !!!!

Heheehee, thanks Mark. Was wondering if I did or not. It was actually not the Polar that I ruined when strippering the antiglare/TAC it was the TAC only. After removing this there were no undesirables to be found meaning it was pure PVA on both sides. As far as acuteness, I'll opine to say I'm loving it even more.
sim

Oh Jedi master, I apologize for my arrogance and betrayal but the dark side of the stripper had me delusioned and wanted more power.....in my best Anekin/DVader voice.
sim

oooo,,, stripper polar did he, side dark force, not one the he be,,,


hehehehh

I'ma going verticalitus,,,, oh myyyy

lost lamp,, sob sob, now nothing to do but go uppppp,,,

oh darn now need FS mirror grrrr,, but upsie sidei isei no morrrreeee image running reversei,,, twas giving me the trots it was,, and still no port in sight here, grrrr

now I can scan from my haasie towerie,,, hmmm a haas towerie,, looks like it came from out there, light from rear will look like thrusters going nowhere,,

Ahhhh! - very busy day today. Got a late check on the new posts.



Yes. The a/g is simply an impregnated TAC layer in most cases. TAC is water permeable, so ragging should work for both sides of the LCD. I am strongly tempted to try this on my BenQ ...



Mark, how are you determining if the rear TAC is antireflection coated? Is there some simple test that can be done to determine if it is? I seem to remember that the index of refraction of PVA and TAC are very close to one another so there should be minimal reflective loss at the interface. If that is true, it may not be worth removing a non-diffusive rear TAC.



Yes,I strippered for 50 hours a region that had been previosly ragged for 12 hours. No bubbling, no damage to PVA.

There is, however, little doubt in my mind that H20 "weakened" PVA will be more susceptable to stripper seepage - especially if the PVA is not dry when applied. This is because the PVA is actually being dissolved by the H20. I believe it re-plasticizes when the water evaporates though. As to how long it will take for a failed rag-soak panel to dry with the a/g still intact is still up for debate.

Here's another thought about what may be happening with the bubbling: the process of strippering will cause some micro scratches on the surface of the PVA. Since this film is already so extremely thin, stripper seepage through the damaged area is accelerated. When I stripper exposed my PVA, I did not use an abrasive tool to wipe the stripper off in between application/check-points - that may have been the difference.



I don't think that is glue, I think it amy be dissolved PVA. On my sample panel, the same thing happened (the PVA appeared tacky) but when it dried, it turned glossy again. This seems to be in line with what Mark learned by "glueing" his a/g back onto the PVA with water? That did work, didn't it Mark?

The big unknown about removing rear-TAC is the effect it will have in the long run. In my mind, any damage that we will see will first occur in the film layer facing the lamp. The heat cycling is bound to cause delamination at some point (even if that point is 10 years from now). If the coefficient of expansion of PVA and TAC are very different, this process will be accelerated. Of course, if an when it does happen, you simply do a full-out replacement of the polarizer.

I KNEW it!

Elken IS Yoda!!!

The surface will appear to reflect some colors more than others. Optically coated camera lenses often have a purple reflection as the majority of the light that is not cancelled in that case is purple. My polarizer produces a rainbow effect with bright reflections. I will need to separate the panel from the surface to be sure this is not an effect of the color filters or other panel components.If there is any advantage, I would say it wouldn't have to do with reflections. If the TAC has a closer refractive index to air then PVA does, and/or if the TAC is optically coated then it will only be aiding in transmittance (phase shifting and index matching). There would have to be some other transmittance change, or the reflection angle of attack difference that I mentioned earlier.I don't know Sonic. I haven't seen enough evidence to support this.The same thing could happen with glue. Based on the patent I posted earlier describing the use of only water soluble TAC to anti-glare adhesives, I wouldn't be so sure.Yes and no. It never stuck down extremely well. It was like a piece of lousy tape. There was definitely adhesion, but I don't know what to attribute it to. I never thoroughly cleaned the surface of the TAC and anti-glare first. I could have been re-activating the water soluble glue.

My bet after all this experiment and researching of patents has shifted almost entirely to the belief that there is a water soluble glue that we are breaking down.

My last post pointed out that these bubbling panels did not always have water treatment first. At the most, it may be a contributing factor.

edit My client (Water) and I have no further comment. .

Mark.

What do you think the tackiness on the suface of ragged PVA was? We know that PVA is water soluable - both Ozstang and myself have dissolved PVA completely in water. I am assuming that permeation is going to be faster through a liquid than a solid. Dissolving is not as bad as it sounds, provided the PVA it re-hardens upon evaporation and the alignment of the dichronic element (Iodine) is not screwed up.

PS: Just so we are clear, I don't think that water ragging a panel exacerbates "stripper bubbling" unless the PVA is still in dissolution pending the complete evaporation of water. Whew, what a mouthful!

I truly believe that if the PVA was dissolving at all significantly with ragging (we know it does with H2O in volume), then after that 5 day crash test we would have seen notable damage.

I think it is more likely that the tackiness we are feeling is a combination of leftover water based adhesive (which I truly now believe is there) and the PVA absorbing a bit of water. The properties of PVA change temporarily with the humidity, so the rubber texture could be one of these new properties. I can't think of another material that is like this, right now, but I know there are many. The material isn't actually dissolving, it's coefficient of friction just changes with humidity. That is where I lean right now based on what I have seen, but of course as mentioned in my recent posts, I remain open to the possibility that the water is playing a factor. That said, other panels that have bubbled with just stripper. I therefor don't see how it is possible that water is the smoking gun.

edit I am not responding here to the issue of residual water content in the PVA effecting permeation. That could be the case (could it?). What I am responding to is the idea that you mentioned PVA is dissolved significantly by that water content. Having water in the PVA, and having water previously compromising the PVA are two separate ideas that have gotten entangled here.

Mark.

I agree. Was speculating on my part and just speculating, nothing else.
sim

I said that?!? Boy, I better word my posts more carefully.

I don't think ragging "significantly dissolves" the PVA, but it most certainly "softens" the top skin of the PVA temporarily (making it more susceptable to stripper damage??). What the material science explanation behind that is, I don't know. But very much like wood glue (another PVA), it seems to re-plasticize after evaporation of the water.

Ragging and stripping are both invasive techniques. What is different is the OBJECT of invasion:

H20 = PVA
Stripper = TAC

Mark: That being said, I think we are on the same page. Carry on Counselor.

Ok guys, lets end the speculation.

There are certain plastics, that when you wet them with water they form a coating which when applied to a pure surface, act as a molecular and {atom level} bonding by I think the bonding force are called gluons,,, the longer they stay together, the deeper the bonding, they in effect become one item, however early in their lives, they will be parted with application of water on the surface of the PVA, it is a sublimation process which takes place thru the actual pva material, the more impurities in the water IE (non distilled) the less effective, as they create variables in the subliming process,, I should have remembered all of this from about 12 years ago when working with Peltier cooled CCD Imagers,, we had the same effects in a nitrogen atmosphere, with frost, and delamination of CCD arrays,,

it just struck me today,, thinking about all mark had said, and yes he and his client (water) '''®by 'the force' '''are right

Geez sorry guys,, dead PJ,, too much time to t'ink,, hehehehhe

Ahhh but wait there is More !!!!!


TBC...........

I just finished removing 1/4 sample area of the rear TAC . Went extremely well. Much easier than the front and here's why:

1. Using tape to pull up the corner works, but the technique required is not as mentioned. You need to stick it down flat onto the corner with 2 ends to grab onto. Then you pull the ends away from each other such that the strip is tight and then pull straight up. The tape doesn't have a chance to release from the edge if you do this, so it holds on much better. Let me know if that doesn't read well.

2. Tape works extremely well to reinforce the edges. So well that the anti-glare actually pulled up even from the dry edges given the extra reinforcement.

Which brings me to an interesting point. The anti-glare did come off with less than adequate water soaking but a residue was left behind. I believe this is the aforementioned water soluble glue. So it seems to me that if the TAC comes up and leaves a haze behind, you are sitting right on the borderline of when it is okay to peel the thing off. If you wait longer, that haze would not be there (the glue would be a liquid, and would thus dry flat and smooth again).

So reinforcing and the tape pull up method are excellent. You could easily take the whole sheet up in one piece even if it weren't ready (but wait until it is ready, of course).

I am also pretty convinced that there is no optical coating on this sheet. Reflections have accurate color. However, I can discern zero difference between an area with both TAC's removed, and with just the anti-glare TAC removed in both reflectivity, and clarity. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be something I am missing here, but certainly no obvious difference jumps out. This sheet of TAC I pulled off is impressively clear. I don't think everyone should go ahead and pull this off until one or 2 people can independently confirm that there is a difference.But there you go again . What I am saying is that I don't feel there is any significant restructuring of the PVA. That is, there is no invasion worth talking about or to attributing to anything. Where I am disagreeing (and this is obviously just a somewhat educated guess) is that there may not even be a temporary weakening or disorganization, or dissolution or anything beyond a basic temporary property change of any significance.

Certainly there will be some dissolution, but even if it didn't harden back up to its original state it is could be such a small amount as to be out of context.Oh. I have been replying to this :So did you mean to say "only if the PVA is not dry" as apposed to "especially if the PVA is not dry". I'm confused .

Mark.

if you have an overhead you can quickly check for the transmission of light in different sectors, its how i test polarizers.

you would be amazed at the difference between the antiglare corner i left on and the stripped panel. its pretty remarkable and sad at the same time that we all dealt with that kind of obstacle!

No offense guys, ahem, but this is getting dry. It was more fun trying to find ways to do this instead of claiming and defending the methods that we have come up with. Lets just leave it for the masses to decide for themselves.
sim

You are absolutely correct, Mark, I didn't do any water soak. (Why oh why didn't I?? I have a feeling it would have worked!!).

I did end up leaving my stripper on longer than most, though, because I had already polished my a/g. So it might still be a matter of leaving the stripper on too long, I didn't really worry about how long it was on there since there had been some testing with stripper left on PVA for extended periods.

Anyway, no water soak and I still had PVA bubbling (or whatever you wanna call it!).

Great idea mikelish, are you planning in removing the rear TAC too? Mind, just leaving half and see if there is a difference before you totally remove?
sim

OK now,

I have an Idea,


A Dobsonian Projector !!!!© (elken)


it is under way now,,

Pheonix from the cracked lamp syndrome !!!!

HQI osram 400 watterrrr,, er a Loaner from the owner who knows not about da loaner etc etc...

I am convinced that projection thru panel one way,, ( maskies lasties ) is only way..

darn enhanced panel syndronies,, grrrr, make you do all sorts of things to PJ's,,, more modies oh well,

and yes I am still using the trippy polar bear© method, stripped the film from 3dlens polar and even better image,, no glowies in sightie.....

some of you may think nutz I gone,,,, welll let me inform you,,, YEP......

I have spent the last part of this thread figuring out what is going wrong and what is happening. It is the less fun part of the process for sure, but it has to be done. This conversation is part of that process. It's just work boss. I think Sonic realizes that too .

And FWIW, it is probably almost over. I think I have been responding to a typo .

Mark.