Sony 34XBR960 Anti-Glare Coating Removal - Page 3 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #61 of 88 Old 01-15-2015, 04:13 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Holy craps again...You're right! Maybe catastrophic implosion/explosion??? Is that why there don't seem to be anyone around here anymore who has removed their film back in the day?!? Now I'm worried...
9604me is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 88 Old 01-16-2015, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I guess it could act as a net to slow down glass particle projectiles. If it was such a big deal I wonder how Sony made up for it on the N models? Do they have clear film? At least it also does help prevent glass scratches. I would contact Sony, they still have to support safety and recycle issues.

Funny one on the disappearing film removal posters.

Floydage is offline  
post #63 of 88 Old 01-16-2015, 09:13 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I can't possibly entertain the notion the film is there in case the ~4.5 INCHES thick glass suddenly shatters...You know?
But seriously...WTF?
9604me is online now  
post #64 of 88 Old 01-19-2015, 10:43 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The notion that antiglare film is used in an attempt to boost the stability of the flat face of the tub is very difficult for me to believe. There is absolutely zero chance that the tube in the N and the standard models are different in any way. The front face of the tube is absolutely the weakest point, when that front is flat, but this is why the frame of the tube is so damn heavy, all up at the front. The heaviest, thickest steel is used there, and its entire purpose is to hold the tube and prevent implosion. Any safety notes in the manual, consumer or service, is absolutely there to caution against removal for potential damage to the tube in the removal process.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #65 of 88 Old 01-19-2015, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
Any safety notes in the manual, consumer or service, is absolutely there to caution against removal for potential damage to the tube in the removal process.
Absolutely? Where did you get that from?

"This film must not be removed as it serves a safety function and removal will increase the risk of serious injury."

After the "and" yes but before the "and" no.

As far as the why "...it serves as a safety function..." we don't know, heck we were just throwing out guesses, sort of in a sarcastically humorous context.

Maybe Sony is just referring to the anti-glare property in terms of eye protection?

Get this - I just downloaded the N manual from Sony and manualslib.com and both were just the 960 manual (no ref. to N, same warning).

Floydage is offline  
post #66 of 88 Old 01-21-2015, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floydage View Post
Absolutely? Where did you get that from?
The fact that the tubes are identical between it and the N looms large. There is no safety risk to watching a non-antiglare film'd CRT, so long as you don't do anything stupid. "Anything stupid" in a manufacturer's eyes would mean opening up the enclosure and messing with it. Maybe not opening up the enclosure and just using a razor blade good and hard doesn't qualify as "anything stupid," but what if you find it as tough to cut through as 9604me did and come back to it with a Ginsu knife, a hatchet, a chainsaw? Honestly, in the world of consumer electronics there is nothing that a legal department will advise you to do to modify your product of their make in the name of covering their own asses.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #67 of 88 Old 01-26-2015, 06:06 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm still thinking aboot this...Maybe the warning means "...removal will increase the risk of serious injury." refers to the fact that if you peel it off like I did, It'll slice the SH!* of yer hands like it did mine?!? Anyway, since I'm paranoid and possibly insane I cut a section out of the middle of my film, and am going to have it X-ray'd for Pb content,,,just to satisfy this unsatiable mind of mine...
9604me is online now  
post #68 of 88 Old 01-27-2015, 07:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
When I read the sentence as a whole it sounds to me like the film is somehow protective in itself. But it could very well be that they just threw that BS out to cover their own asses like 'Snake stated; in which case I wonder if it was added to a revision of the manual after someone seriously injured themselves tearing the TV apart, etc.

And then there's the question of why does the N model use the same manual/warning? Oversight? Or does the N model still have a clear film? Notice they state "protective film" rather than anti-glare film: "The CRT in this product employs a protective film on the face." Maybe we need to change the name of this thread? lol

And add a 9604me film removal warning.

P.S. And did some have a "Coating" while others had a film?

Floydage is offline  
post #69 of 88 Old 01-27-2015, 12:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,023
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 384
IMO... use it, abuse it, do it to it and enjoy it while ya got it.
Ratman is online now  
post #70 of 88 Old 02-10-2015, 04:31 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9604me View Post
I'm still thinking aboot this...Maybe the warning means "...removal will increase the risk of serious injury." refers to the fact that if you peel it off like I did, It'll slice the SH!* of yer hands like it did mine?!? Anyway, since I'm paranoid and possibly insane I cut a section out of the middle of my film, and am going to have it X-ray'd for Pb content,,,just to satisfy this unsatiable mind of mine...
...WELL...had the piece of film tested with an XBR machine to see what elements were present...Happy to say, NO Pb! Yay! But, there WAS Cu and Au....I have NO idea why there'd be copper and gold in there...At first I was relieved there wasn't any lead, but Effin-A, WhyTF is there GOLD in it!?!
NOW, my super paranoid mind takes over and says..."Hmmm, WhyTF would they use uber-expensive, highly reflective GOLD in their "anti-glare film"???" The ONLY thing I can come up with is that the alpha particle emission out the front of the tube is SO bad, they had to use GOLD, not the cheep Pb for sheilding?!?!? Am I that insane? Does anyone else have a different opinion?
9604me is online now  
post #71 of 88 Old 02-11-2015, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Well I've always heard the emissions protection is built into the tube.

Those metals allow maximum light transmission while reflecting outside glare:

http://www.evaporatedcoatings.com/tr...ctive-coatings

Excessive glare can be dangerous to the eyes.


Last edited by Floydage; 02-11-2015 at 01:45 PM. Reason: Removed my error "Maybe they just missed taking that warning out of the N manual."
Floydage is offline  
post #72 of 88 Old 02-11-2015, 10:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,023
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Lead is in the glass... everyone has been safe for decades.
Whatever they use in the "coating"... who cares?

If the "coating" has copper and gold, collect all the TV's you can to salvage the protective coatings... if you are, in fact, insane. Use the profit for medication(s).
Ratman is online now  
post #73 of 88 Old 02-11-2015, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post
Lead is in the glass... everyone has been safe for decades.
Yeah that's what I heard.
Remember the PC monitor anti-glare 'shields' one could place on the front, which would also claim to reduce something like 99% of the gamma rays? Pricey things at the time.

This sub-topic came about because we were trying to figure out why Sony put this warning in the 960 manual:

"Warning
The CRT in this product employs a protective film on the face. This film must not be removed as it serves a safety function and removal will increase the risk of serious injury."

And the 960N (No anti-glare) uses the same manual. Maybe it uses a film but without anti-glare properties?

Floydage is offline  
post #74 of 88 Old 02-11-2015, 02:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,023
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 384
The warning is there as a disclaimer. They know some "wizards" may/will mess around. IOW... they (Sony) are not liable for adventurers.

Here's the fact. The "film" is not there for health reasons.
Ratman is online now  
post #75 of 88 Old 02-11-2015, 04:07 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floydage View Post
Well I've always heard the emissions protection is built into the tube.

Those metals allow maximum light transmission while reflecting outside glare:

http://www.evaporatedcoatings.com/tr...ctive-coatings

Excessive glare can be dangerous to the eyes.
Floydage! I was aware of the use of Indium-Tin-Oxide in these types of AG films, but the use of gold I was not. It makes sense to use if the surface requires high electrical conductivity as per your provided link(thanks), but obviously in this application, the surface of the screen doesn't require electrical conductivity...Just more food for thought, so why would they use it[gold] I still wonder?
Ratman!, When I analysed the film, I didn't do a detailed analysis with percentages and whatnot, I just did a down and dirty to see if there was any lead. Of course, I've already considered collecting all the AG films I could from these tv's to extract gold adn copper, but only for a nanosecond or two...There's prolly five times as much in a modern day cell phone you throw away or trade in...I did the math, it wouldn't even buy a fourth of my monthly required meds if I collected hundreds a month!!!
9604me is online now  
post #76 of 88 Old 02-12-2015, 07:26 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Gold is reflective. I'd imagine to be very beneficial against glare the film would need to be polarized. The arrangement of molecules which allow light through versus those that bounce it back. And obviously this has to work two ways, but differently in each way (into the tube versus out). So I would expect any trace amount of gold would be used to direct outside light, into the tube rather than back towards your eyes.

Ever seen a privacy filter for a computer screen? These are required at certain computers that are used in the public for government benefits, they use gold to reflect light and this blocks someone standing next to the computer screen from seeing it, only a person standing directly in front of the screen can view the image on it. That's how this would work but likely with a lot less material.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #77 of 88 Old 02-12-2015, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Until it can be 'proved' otherwise, we don't know that the warning is there as a disclaimer nor if it's not there for health reasons. No, not a fact just because you say it is.
__________________________

Hmmm, I wonder if that film is purely polarity driven or gets some electrical drive via the CRT action? Pretty cool on the privacy filter. I'd like to have some of those electric controlled tinted windows as I get good solar heating in my southern windows in the winter, would hate to wipe that out with low-E glass.
__________________________
"Floydage!" lol, I do that to others as well.


Last edited by Floydage; 02-12-2015 at 09:27 AM.
Floydage is offline  
post #78 of 88 Old 02-12-2015, 10:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,023
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Until it can be "proven" otherwise... your opinion vs. mine is BS.

IMHO... the coating on the glass (Sony CRT) is not there for "health/safety" reasons.
Ratman is online now  
post #79 of 88 Old 02-12-2015, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
No opinion on my part as I didn't 'claim' that it was for anything in particular, just threw out some possibilities. But the warning exists in the manual and uses key phrases "protective film" and "serves a safety function." I put it out there to 9604 per related subject matter (i.e. not out of the blue). Now he's concerned about it since he just removed it from his Sony. Maybe someone here contacted Sony about it back when they still supported these models?

Floydage is offline  
post #80 of 88 Old 02-12-2015, 05:13 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ah, STILL some very interesting discussions...I noticed once the film was off(and while removing it, and then later under a microscope), it's def. polarized. As far as it needing to be conducive, could the degausser somehow require electrical conductivity across the screen? I wouldn't think so, since my 970 has the same sounding mech. and has no film or coating...And, there was no electrical connection or otherwise to the film from the rest of the chassis/tube...It was totally electrically isolated on the face of the insulating glass, sandwiched by insulating plastic...
As far as the safety warning...I haven't yet bothered with the absurdity of trying to get any answers from $ony...When I recently called customer service about trying to get a cable card working, I was informed all the info. I needed was online at their e-support site(it wasn't) and would spend no more time with someone with a hardware that old...
9604me is online now  
post #81 of 88 Old 02-13-2015, 10:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
No for the degausser, it appears there's apps where shielding and such are required. Anti-static, EMI, and RFI. I remember those external anti-glare shields required grounding to make the gamma ray reduction work properly. Also, maybe required for the likes of the aforementioned privacy filter.

Floydage is offline  
post #82 of 88 Old 02-17-2015, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
The film plays no role in degaussing whatsoever, degaussing is done from the coil that is wrapped around the tube. Take the rear cover off your television and you'll see it. Degaussing affects "the screen," and when we say "the screen" we mean either the shadow mask (in a normal CRT) or the Trinitron wires (in a Trinitron CRT), NOT the glass face. This screen is actually completely behind the glass face and any antiglare film on its opposite surface is not going to affect degaussing in any form or fashion.
LiquidSnake is offline  
post #83 of 88 Old 02-26-2015, 04:44 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Alright, I got nothing else...Hope the more relevant discussions to this thread's title will be useful to someone in the future...
9604me is online now  
post #84 of 88 Old 02-27-2015, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Was hoping someone back in the day of support for these CRTs got an answer from Sony, or maybe a Sony authorized tech, etc. Like you said probably absurd to ask now, but if you happen to contact them about something else...

Floydage is offline  
post #85 of 88 Old Yesterday, 03:53 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Fyi

Well, I do have one more thing to report on topic...After I removed the film, there was a significant increase in the mirror effect of seeing myself, reflective lighting, etc...BUT, I am happy to report that all you have to do is not clean yer screen for a couple weeks! Once you get a FINE layer of attracted dust on the screen, It's no longer reflective, and doesn't affect the pic!! FOR YOUR HEALTH!
Floydage likes this.
9604me is online now  
post #86 of 88 Old Today, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Floydage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 49
'Dust not included.' The hard part is keeping it a thin layer so it doesn't affect the pic. And maybe you should try and find some of that gold and copper laced dust.

Floydage is offline  
post #87 of 88 Old Today, 10:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,023
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 397 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Cigarette smoke is a wonderful "anti-glare" coating.
Ratman is online now  
post #88 of 88 Unread Today, 05:49 PM
Member
 
9604me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post
Cigarette smoke is a wonderful "anti-glare" coating.
RATMAN! You are correct sir...BUT, per my lease I'm not allowed to combust ANY tobacco, or ANY other "substance" as a matter of fact... : ( So I have to wait weeks, not days. : (
9604me is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off