Can you give me a reason why TopLED or any other company would want to give you that info? And I still don't understand why you think they SHOULD make that info public.
Mars-Hydro LED Grow Light Discussion
- Thread starter Mars Hydro
- Start date
Can you give me a reason why TopLED or any other company would want to give you that info? And I still don't understand why you think they SHOULD make that info public.
- Thread starter
- #4,542
Mars Hydro
420 Sponsor
thanks for your sharing Boogyman, have a nice weekend
Here is my new setup with my 144x3w reflector series light from tooled. Loving it so far, plants seem to be loving it also! They have only been under them for 4 days. They were under cfls beforehand and they are about two weeks into the 12/12 cycle after being vegd for one month. Middle plant is dinachem, three days into 12/12
- Thread starter
- #4,543
Mars Hydro
420 Sponsor
if we post public or tell others, I believe there are a lot companies will copy our spectrum ratio.We have to admit that people would compare from different compaies before they buy and they will give our information to other company then all are the same at last. we cost a lot to get that spectrum ratio. others pay nothing. it is unfair.
then all are the same at last. we cost a lot to get that spectrum ratio. others pay nothing. it is unfair.
- Thread starter
- #4,544
Mars Hydro
420 Sponsor
@az2000 , I have read your post, but I need to think about it, so will reply your post next Monday have a nice weekend 
have a nice weekend As I said before, it's not a secret. If TopLED's spectrum and ratio is that valuable a competitor could buy a fixture and easily discover it. Shouldn't the question be why TopLED wouldn't provide that information? It's not like they're stopping their feared competitor (who's supposedly just waiting for this info) from acquiring it anytime they wish. All it does is prevent customers from comparing what they're feeding to their plants.
I have no desire to belabor this topic. I just wanted to clarify that your question only makes sense if you ignore the basis of my position. If you don't think it's important for consumers to compare what they feed their plants (bandwidth and strength) in order to understand (quantifiably) how one light differs from another, I'm fine with that.
But, to continue the argument that it's a "secret" perpetuates a falsehood that is the basis of my concern with TopLED's practice. That it may be self-serving in the sense of hiding that it's a copy of someone else's spectrum. Or, that the "mystery" appeal of having something unquantifiably different gives you an edge. That it's a marketing ploy. It certainly doesn't educate the community in ways other LED names do.
Best regards
@az2000 , I have read your post, but I need to think about it, so will reply your post next Monday
Thank you. I'm glad you are giving it your consideration. That's all I could ask for. Don't feel like you have to form a final answer by Monday. Take however long necessary to feel comfortable.
if we post pablic or tell others, I believe there are a lot companies will copy our spectrum ratio.We have to admit that people would compare from different compaies before they buy and they will give our information to other company
I apologize for being repetitive. But, since you said you are considering my concern (point of view?), I just want to reiterate that I believe there is a core, basic fault in your reasoning above. Any company that wants to know your spectrum and ratio could simply buy a fixture and discover the information easily (through spectrometer or disassembly). In fact, after divulging the spectrum I believe the ratio could be discovered by viewing the fixture through appropriate welding shades. It's just 5-6 colors which would be visibly distinct given enough shade to make the light comfortably viewable. (Note, requires UV protection.).
So, while the practice of keeping ratio a "secret" may make competitors have to work for it, it also denies customers the ability to quantifiably compare a TopLED light to another brand. It's not keeping something secret because it's not. It just requires a bit of work (maybe just a welding helmet). Is the benefit worth it? So you lose a sale to a competitor who, if they were that eager to copy your spectrum/ratio, would have bought a long time ago. You'd promote the consumer through transparency with other respected names.
I'm not trying to argue with you or promulgate a perspective beyond civility. But, since you said you'd still consider this topic, I just wanted to restate what I feel is worth reconsideration.
Thanks. I won't reply to any more dissenting opinions. I think I've clarified my thoughts enough.
Competitors can always try to reverse engineer someone else's product. That's no reason for a company to make it easy for them. Your reasoning here doesn't make sense. You want the company to help other people make their product for themselves or to sell to others. There's no "need" for a customer to know details about the spectrum other than to copy it, unless the spectrum is harmful in some way (and I've yet to see any evidence that ANY of these led vendors has harmed anyone with their spectrums).
wildjim
Well-Known Member
Just buy one and get what you want. Mine works wonderfully. Most Mars II users/buyers are like me. We just want it to work and we don't even think about ratios and bins or spectrums.
No need to reply to my dissenting opinion. I can tell you that yours is in the minority and appears to be the dissenting view or opinion. You are long winded though. Are you a lawyer?
As usual cant help giving my 2 cents...
I tend to agree with az2000, trying to keep spectrums ratio/whose diodes used secret is lunacy. As he said if a competitor really wanted to know exactly what another manufacturer is doing, they can simply buy a light and take it apart. If your spectrum/ratio is that special, then get a patent.
IMO where companies need to separate themselves in this industry to be successful in the long run are going to do so on quality vs Price(e.g. if there was a 100% USA assembled panel that was somewhere between 30-50% premium over Chinese made panel, I would buy it, not the current 150-300% premium and they not even USA assembled), customer service, and customizability(we all know how finicky pot growers are). Not what their specific spectrum are, over time this will be common knowledge.
I tend to agree with az2000, trying to keep spectrums ratio/whose diodes used secret is lunacy. As he said if a competitor really wanted to know exactly what another manufacturer is doing, they can simply buy a light and take it apart. If your spectrum/ratio is that special, then get a patent.
IMO where companies need to separate themselves in this industry to be successful in the long run are going to do so on quality vs Price(e.g. if there was a 100% USA assembled panel that was somewhere between 30-50% premium over Chinese made panel, I would buy it, not the current 150-300% premium and they not even USA assembled), customer service, and customizability(we all know how finicky pot growers are). Not what their specific spectrum are, over time this will be common knowledge.
12" -14 ". is good..
I trying to keep my tops 24"-36" away, but that the 1200.
NorCalRider
Well-Known Member
Amen HB, speak the truth brother. az2000 posts sound like he expects Sara to post their intellectual property just because he asks for it. Hell, personally I think they (TopLed) go out of their way to help and have excellent customer service with products that have proven to work time and again. Az2000 if you want to know everything about this light, purchase one yourself and tear it apart. That will be the only way you will get the information you so desperately seek. /rant
Dusty Kiefers
Well-Known Member
Four weeks under 48*3
Donning a welding mask is hardly "reverse engineering." It's merely seeing what is plainly present. A competitor more likely has a spectrometer which involves measuring each bulb. When you measure the pH or TDS of your water, I doubt you consider yourself "reverse engineering."
Your entire argument fails on the fact that it's customary for flourescents to publish their Kelvin and CRI. HPS, MH and CMH bulb makers publish nice color graphs depicting the presence of color and its strength.
I've read forums where LED users discuss how lights compare in over-/under-utilization of spectrum. And, it is information provided by numerous high-end names.
The bottom line is, there's no "need" to hide it from those least capable of discovering the info on their own. Anyone who truly wants it can acquire it easily. IMO, not providing the information so a light's qualities (as a plant sees it) can be objectively evaluated and compared to other models only raises questions about why anyone would attempt to hide what is essentially unhideable.
You say the reason is to prevent others from getting the information. Then you say it's to prevent it from being easy -- while referring to "reverse engineering" which makes it sound hard. It's not hard, especially for a competitor (whom we're told are dying to have this information) would have the equipment to easily ascertain what is easily measurable, if not viewable through appropriate eye shading.
If it's TopLED's position not to publish their spectrum/ratio, that's ok. I won't continue to disrupt TopLED's thread with a topic that's been hashed out. Sara said she (and I assume her associates) will consider it. That's all I was asking for, a considered and official response. I'm actually a fan of TopLED even though I don't own one. On other forums I've recommended it as a worthy, reliable product (among similarly inexpensive imports that can be a gamble). Having a rep dedicated to public discussion is a huge plus.
I'm just concerned when this is depicted as a competitive advantage, or that no grower would ever be interested in this information.
1. I've already posted how spectrum graphs are common for pre-LED technology. HPS/MH growers refer to those all the time.
2. If you really believe the information is "secret," would you agree that it must be harmless for TopLED to provide me with an evaluation unit? That I wouldn't be able to post the ratio just a day after receiving it?
With those two basic points, I don't understand why the information wouldn't be published. It only creates a disadvantage for those least likely to compete with TopLED. Perpetuating the illusion of secrecy raises questions about why. As already established, it can't have anything to do with competition. Is it because the spectrum is a copy of another name? Or, does it play into consumer psychology that "my light works great because of some secret, unmeasurable ingredient others would kill to have?" (An irrational myth).
More likely it's that the topic was never much considered --- just evolved into a practice "always done it this way." No harm in that. I'm glad to have the opportunity to raise this topic and cause it to be more purposefully considered.
Best regards
I'm actually tempted to do that. But, it wouldn't require "tearing it apart." It would simply be a matter of viewing the lights through appropriate shading (welding mask, shading, UV protection, etc.).
Your comment indicates I've made some progress. At least you acknowledge that the information is present to anyone who buys a light.
My question remains: If the information is just "there" to be seen, and if competitors possess the measuring equipment to do this more precisely, why wouldn't the information be available for pre-purchase evaluation?
If it's the color spectrum/ratio which makes a light's results so good, withholding that information isn't really maintaining a "secret" in the literal sense. All it could possibly do is perpetuate a subjective feeling. The marketing (consumer psychology) of buying into a secret ingredient. That's not an invalid goal on its face. But, when it's based upon an easily ascertainable fact, it starts to sound distasteful. And, when the practice is defended on the non-sequitur that "competitors might get it" it's even more distasteful.
I'm just on the side of the consumer. I agree that sellers have legitimate interests which don't always coincide with the consumer's. But, in this particular matter it just doesn't make sense. There is no advantage to the seller except to perpetuate a false sense of buying a secret ingredient. Even you admitted that I could acquire the secret by buying a unit. Anyone who would duplicate TopLED's ratio/spectrum could do so. Ergo, all it does is put the consumer at a disadvantage (in order to sell a dozen units to competitors?).
That is 100% my point. If I'm being too repetitive or pursuing this topic too strongly, feel free to let me know and I'll back off. I respect that this place exists for a broader purpose than a "sit-in" protest.
I just keep making my point because I sometimes feel the crux of the matter isn't clear (as people continue to defend intellectual property that doesn't exist in the way they say it does.).Again, I'm glad Sara (and her associates?) are weighing this matter. If they choose to continue to withhold the information, it won't make TopLED a "bad" light. I think it's simply a topic which deserves more thought within the community.
TopLED isn't the only name that withholds the information. California Lightworks does too. I spoke to them and their reaction spoke volumes about how untenable they know their position to be. It was a classic case of "thou dost protest too much." Tons of misdrection, dissembling, emotional appeals. CLW is a fine product and well regarded in the community. I personally wouldn't patronize a business (especially at that price point) that plays the "it's a secret" game with spectrum and ratio. That's just a matter of business conduct, not a matter of quality.
I'm confident this will become a more important topic for consumers. I hope TopLED is a leader in this regard. I don't think it looks good to defend the secrecy angle. I can understand it's an unpleasant maturation process. Nobody likes more competition. We all want an "edge." I'm sure it's difficult to let go and compete on meaningful attributes. All I can say is: the more it strikes an emotional chord, a feeling of "we'd lose a significant advantage," the more I'd suggest continued consideration because those two things should be warning signs that a practice/policy is based upon irrationality.
Hosebomber
New Member
az, I'm curious as to what you think panel manufacturers can do other than customer service to differentiate themselves from one another. If they all gave all of their IP away, what would be left? You would only have 1 company in the world making all of the LED lights in 2 formats, high end diodes and cheap diodes. The above statement is true due to scales of economics, only the one company that is selling the most panels will be able to order diodes at the lowest price point due to volume and they will run everyone else out of business by cutting prices below their breakeven point then charge whatever they want after they are the only ones left. You will not get any variation and no progress in the field. Ma Bell and the crumbling telephone infrastructure of the US is a prime example... and the government even stepped in and broke it apart to try and fix the poor service, constant price increases, inferior product.
FYI without a high-end radiospectrometer, that very few panel makers (if any) have, there is no way to tell exactly what spectra a diode is. You sure as shit can't do it by looking at it through welding glasses. The wavelengths of LEDs change based on the current, voltage, temperature, and bin. It's possible that by driving the worst bin diode soft and the best bin diode hard there could be as much as 40nm difference in the wavelength. You can reverse engineer anything given enough time money and resources... or you can let each company do their own research using those assets.
FYI without a high-end radiospectrometer, that very few panel makers (if any) have, there is no way to tell exactly what spectra a diode is. You sure as shit can't do it by looking at it through welding glasses. The wavelengths of LEDs change based on the current, voltage, temperature, and bin. It's possible that by driving the worst bin diode soft and the best bin diode hard there could be as much as 40nm difference in the wavelength. You can reverse engineer anything given enough time money and resources... or you can let each company do their own research using those assets.
Red herring. The basis of my reasoning is that spectrum/ratio is already "given away." That it is the nature of the technology. And, that this is recognized by leading names who publish the information as valuable to the consumer in the same way it's been valuable to MH/HPS/CMH users.
If it were that simple, and that much business to be had, we'd already have seen this market efficiency. As I said, the information is already easily obtainable just by purchasing a light.
There is a common tendency among those defending the "secrecy" practice: Just deny the premise of my argument, that the information is already there. Once we dismiss with that premise, then sure, we can argue relative "what ifs" forever. Fortunately, we don't have to. The information is already there. There's no reason I can see to deny this.
Again, dissembling. First we're told panel makers invest in staff horticulturalists, run many tests, etc. Invest millions(?). Now we're told they wouldn't buy a $3k US radiospectrometer.
Area51 has one. The same guy we were told exists due to "stealing" information from a public forum (instead of hiring a staff horticulturalist, running tests, and investing his own dollars in the way panel makers do -- but who wouldn't buy a radiospectrometer.).
Your logic runs all over the place. If you don't feel it's important information for the consumer to have, I could understand that difference of opinion. But, you're making contradictory points to support a position that, at its root makes no sense.
Remember, I said that once the spectrum is disclosed, you can count the 5-8 identifiable colors.
I agree that if the spectrum isn't disclosed, then all you could do is count identifiable colors but have no way of knowing what those colors are.
Again, a red herring. We've already been told what the spectrum is. Just not the ratio.
Even without the spectrum being published, it would be trivial for a competitor (the entity we're told TopLED must guard against) to measure spectrum and ratio using a relatively inexpensive radiospectrometer. Reverse engineering bin numbers and voltage is just a "parade of horribles" to promote a position that, at its root, makes no sense.
Any panel maker who would invest even trivially in R&D would possess a radiospectrometer (as evidenced by your assertions against Area 51, and how he owns one). The only entity who is disadvantaged by the lack of information is the consumer. You could say it's not important -- but years of HPS/MH users indicate otherwise.