It’s up to you which you pick, bake and risk damage or deal with the tunneling. Neither option sounds great…
Yeah it’s going to end up pad in some way or another.It’s up to you which you pick, bake and risk damage or deal with the tunneling. Neither option sounds great…
Yeah it’s going to end up pad in some way or another.
This is the current state of the panel
Yup. Can’t complain too much since it is manageable now compared to the whole screen being unreadable.Well, It is better than it was.
I agree with that there is definitely an element of keeping originality. The displays would be nice for those people who don’t mind sacrificing a damaged or broken panel for a new one.What that guy did is nice, but I think most people are interested in preservation and repair of original materials, along with reproduction of parts contemporary to the machine. Any solutions that are technically augmentations are usually workarounds for situations where reproduction of parts contemporary to the machine is not reasonable, such as with the 2.5" rotating platter drives that Apple used in the Powerbook series. No one in the hobby space has the ability to fabricate 2.5" rotating platter drives, it just isn't reasonable. All the true augmentations, such as the expansion of the memory of the LC III, are actually tapping into the potential of the machine that was never realized. I find this tends to be essential to most true augmentations, they are meant to bring out unutilized potential that exists for whatever reason.
Or perhaps a humidity test would help. Bake a screen to fix it, then put it next to a humidifier and see if it comes back. That would be additional observational data. Then if it comes back you can simply re-bake it to get rid of it. For those that think it's humidity, it should be an easy and safe test.
The reason I'm skeptical of moisture is that if there are gaps in the screen that cause moisture to enter, then why would baking it keep it away for over 6 months, especially when part of those 6 months are July, August, and September; very humid months. Wouldn't it just enter again when the pressure changes during some minute expansion of the panels, while sucking in air? Also, having seen the way vapor behaves between window panes, it doesn't disappear as orderly and timely as the LCD panel has done for me when shutting down and having it completely go away in a somewhat set period of time. I would think it might persist for much longer (days) around the edges depending on humidity conditions outside...i.e. during really humid times, wouldn't the tunneling just stay as is?
I'm not discounting it as a theory completely, but I feel like that's been the main fallback and thrown out there as fact. Heating and cooling between two close surfaces and their potential movement away from each other when not fastened together due to lack of sealant seems just as plausible and potentially could be more constant. As the screen warms up due to electricity flowing through it, the panels start minutely separating and that could be causing the constancy of the tunneling pattern. Just as heating could be vaporizing moisture between panels, so could it be re-flowing sealant, causing less movement between those panels. The latter would not be impacted by by outside condition. Why does vacuum sealing also work? Again, could be sucking out the moisture, or it could be pushing the panels together, thus creating a tighter bond (note, I've only heard anecdotal stories about someone trying that technique). Why does storing it in rice (or some other dehydration method) for 10 years work (that's one that I heard)? Well, again, that's a hard one, to say something worked because it was stored for 10 years. I mean, how was it stored? How bad was it before hand? Was it completely cured?
If it is a separation issue and a vacuum environment is able to apply enough pressure to partially correct the issue, it should be eminently testable using a constant, even weight/pressure across an impacted screen for a given period of time and test it for improvement. If there is no improvement then we would know with a reasonable degree of certainty it is not a separation issue. It would be a reasonable test since it would remove the vacuum element that could improve an LCD for either cause, as well as remove the thermal repair element since that would also work for both causes.
Is anyone up to testing the theory?
What that guy did is nice, but I think most people are interested in preservation and repair of original materials, along with reproduction of parts contemporary to the machine. Any solutions that are technically augmentations are usually workarounds for situations where reproduction of parts contemporary to the machine is not reasonable, such as with the 2.5" rotating platter drives that Apple used in the Powerbook series. No one in the hobby space has the ability to fabricate 2.5" rotating platter drives, it just isn't reasonable. All the true augmentations, such as the expansion of the memory of the LC III, are actually tapping into the potential of the machine that was never realized. I find this tends to be essential to most true augmentations, they are meant to bring out unutilized potential that exists for whatever reason.
For the blackbird series, what this guy did, by upgrading to a color screen, is like taking a 540 with tunnel vision and sticking a color screen in it. All that does it make it a 540c. There are plenty of 540c's with original screens that don't have any issues. Anyone who wants an actual 540 is interested in the 6-bit grayscale screen, which is unique to the 540. Saving the screen is the essence of the battle against tunnel vision.
Well, I just heard anecdotally that someone had argued the thing to do is use the vacuum method to remove (and thus prove its) moisture. My counter argument was that that type of vacuum sealing could apply enough pressure to suck the panels together as well and so it wouldn't necessarily prove moisture. I don't think it would disprove the separation issue since there is no re-flowing of adhesive, and pressing two things together that aren't held together by adhesive, when the pressing force releases, may come right back apart. Of course you could have one instance where it works (adhesive still has something left and force caused a bond) and one where it doesn't (just too dried up), so it will yield inconclusive information.
Again, put a humidifier next to a running, fixed (baked), LCD screen for a while (don't know, days maybe, or a week) and see if the screen sucks it back in...that'll prove it's moisture related. I would not do that with a primary model (I won't be doing it with my PB 180) since it could destroy or degrade other parts of the machine, but for those that may have a bunch of old PB's lying around, where some are in bad shape (broken plastic,, etc) and used primarily for spare parts, they could put something together temporarily, try and bake the screen to fix it, and then try this approach to see if moisture returns. That would be a bit more conclusive since, if no moisture comes back then why not? I suppose maybe the moisture was driven out AND the seals re-flowed to close things up? I mean that could be too. So perhaps a baseline test is to find a not-so-bad LCD, then not bake it, and do the humidity test to see if it gets even worse more quickly. Really, only someone with a stash of these machines could do that test.
This kind of test wouldn't work. Once a screen is treated with baking, whether it is in a high humidity environment or not, it would be impossible to determine the cause of progression, whether it is humidity, or separation, since either or both could be occurring and it would be impossible to tell them apart just by observation, which is the crux of the current issue.
The best test case would be to use a desiccator filled with a powerful desiccant and place the screen inside for a period of time necessary to push all the water out of the screen. If it was hooked up immediately and a noticeable improvement was seen, then it would have to be moisture related since the only thing about the screen that would have changed would be the water content. The only issue I can think of is I don't think I've ever seen a desiccator large enough to fit a Powerbook screen inside. Only someone on a university campus would have access to equipment like that.
I agree. It will never be 1:1 but hopefully we can find a way to get a close enough panel. I do like the retro feel of the old panel for sure d would miss that but it wouldnt be a hard decision for me at all. Tv versus no tv and I would chose the no tv all day as long as it fits and works.Just tried to submit this and the database crashed for a few minutes! It seems to be back now though...
It comes down to preference, but I'd be bothered by it. If the modern panel was a 1-1 match for the original in terms of looks, I wouldn't be, but the
limitations and retro "look" of this panel just look so cool to me when I'm using it. It's downright my favorite LCD on any laptop I own.