buffo
I'm confused. If you agree with our viewpoint "in theory", then what specific realities are you dealing with that force you to deviate from this shared viewpoint?Originally Posted by X-Laser
Admittedly, I am a debater at heart, and I enjoy a good discussion, even if it might turn heated. As for my political affiliations, while they certainly don't have any bearing on this topic, since you listed yours I will do the same.We get into heated discussions (for fun) about a wide range of issues
I started out as a strong republican (though not exactly "conservative", since I don't like the religious connotations that go with that phrase), and now I'm leaning more towards a moderate libertarian (which means I have no political role models). I admit that I value simple solutions, because the frustrated engineer in me still believes in Occam's Razor. But I also understand that the simplest solution isn't always the best one. (And a good compromise usually leaves everyone angry.)
There is no way I'd want a farmer controlling our trade policy. But I'd like the farmer's needs to be addressed by whatever trade policy is placed into effect by wiser men.on those points where we disagree I like to pull out statistics (and sometimes damned statistics) along with what I consider to be very common sense. The world is big, it takes a lot of good minds to tackle the big problems, etc. She takes the tack that we would all be better off if a farmer with a huge work ethic and no higher education took over establishing our trade policy. In other words, I relish nuance and she relishes pure simplicity and more often than not we are both at least partially wrong.
Likewise, I have no problem with statistics, so long as they are not blindly followed. And some common sense never hurt anyone. Trade policy is a particularly thorny issue precisely because politicians (who think they are being clever) try to use it as a tool to exert influence over others. This often has unintended consequences here at home. And while this may go unnoticed in Washington, it certainly is felt by the farmer in your example.
I understand this. And if you're talking about a company that has a sterling reputation (say, Martin, for example), then it's not a problem, because their gear almost never fails to meet spec.I think that we three are taking two different approaches to the same problem. Whether you agree with it or not it IS standard in the professional production and design worlds to rate lighting equipment based upon the lamp source.
However, when it comes to laser projectors, there are several companies that take advantage of the good faith their customers place in them. And LaserWorld is one of the most egregious offenders.
Search the forums here, and you'll find several stories of (former) LaserWorld customers who discovered that their "500 mw" projector was only making 220 mw, and so forth. So you can see why there is so much resistance to your plan to "fudge" the power ratings. It sounds exactly like what LaserWorld has been doing for years.
Likewise, those "better" manufacturers also ensure that their products always produce the expected power out the front end of the fixture. But LaserWorld did not. (And still does not, to this day.)Better manufacturers will supply additional data like peak foot candles, lumens @ 1m and so forth but fixtures are rated based upon their raw source power and then are purchased on that basis.
As I understand the arrangement, you will be buying equipment from them (LaserWorld) and re-packaging it. This raises a huge red flag for anyone who is familiar with LaserWorld's marketing practices.
Now you claim to be unwilling to sell the projector based on it's absolute output, but rather on an industry-standard practice FOR TRUSTED BRANDS. Except you aren't a trusted brand yet. X-laser is an unknown quantity right now. Factor in the idea that you'll be buying gear from LaserWorld, and you can see where our skepticism comes from.
Which one would you trust, if you were a prospective buyer?Our TRUBeam power is a carefully thought out attempt at representing the true *effective* power of the unit while your path toward the same goal is simply to measure the power at the aperture under standardized conditions.
I have a hard time accepting this. I can't see what these "strong" reasons are, nor can I see any justification for them, apart from maximizing your profit at the expense of the customer.From where I sit there are VERY strong reasons for taking the approach we have chosen not all of which I can or should get into now, but none of them stem from wanting to hide the true specs of the product or otherwise mislead the consumer. In fact, it is really quite the opposite though I readily acknowledge that it is less comfortable than the standards you both propose.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to claim that you have a good reason for doing this, you'll need to explain it. Simply saying that you have the customer's best interests at heart isn't good enough.
I understand that selling a projector based solely on it's output power at the aperture places a burden on the manufacturer. Such as: what happens when you build a 1 watt projector and you only get 950 mw out of it, due to alignment issues, slightly higher optical losses through the dichros, or slight variations in the power output of the lasers? Do you still sell it as a 1 watt projector?
From my chair, I can see both sides of this problem. On the customer's side, he wants what he paid for. On the manufacturer's side, they don't want to de-rate a $5000 projector to the next lower tier, because that means dropping the price to $4000 and losing all their profit. The deciding factor, however, should be how each choice will affect the business overall.
If you sell it as a 1 watt unit, and word gets out that you cheat on the power ratings, your future sales will suffer. If you de-rate it, you get a reputation as a provider of "hot" projectors, which probably increases your business volume, but that's useless if you're losing money on each projector you sell.
Perhaps a fair compromise is to sell each projector with a spec'd output power rating, plus or minus some percentage (say, 10%). That is, you state that "we guarantee the projector will make the rated power, within these limits". And a 10% spec would make that 950 mw projector OK to sell as a 1 watt unit.
Now, if word gets out that each and every "1 watt" projector you sell actually makes exactly 901 mw, people are going to figure out what you're up to. But if your projectors range in power from 950 to 1100 mw, then you're fine.
To borrow from Stephen Covey: "Think Win-Win or no deal."
To me, this sounds like you want to make it more acceptable to sell a projector that doesn't make as much power as it should. That you want to indoctrinate the laser customer into the idea that it's OK for a 500 mw projector to only make 350 mw (or less). This allows you to cover your losses when you build a unit that is under-spec.I hope that you can recognize that we are making an effort to bring more realistic output specifications to the marketplace, which again is used to a different system
I don't mean to be rude, but until you can better explain the reasons why direct power measurements are an inferior method of marketing your projectors, I refuse to accept that you have my (and other customer's) best interests at heart.
OK, then what about some real-world examples?we do in fact test the actual output of every single system, at least twice, before it is shipped. Every test result is recorded along with the results of two dozen other tests which are performed to every unit, twice.
Let's say someone orders a 1 watt green projector, and when it comes off the assembly line you measure the output and it's only making 850 mw. Does it ship as a 1 watt green?
What if it's making 900 mw? What if it's making 1.2 watts?
And if it does ship, what does the paperwork that the customer receives say about the laser? Do you sent all the test results from the two dozen tests to the customer? Does he have any way of knowing that this 1 watt laser is in fact only making 850 mw at the aperture?
OK, I'll accept that invitation.We are also happy to extend the same invitation to you that we offered for Marc. If it works out scheduling-wise, I would really like to meet you both
I will be in Washing DC from Wednesday, May 19th, through Sunday, May 23rd. I have plans for Thursday through Saturday, but on either Wednesday or Sunday I could probably drive to your facility, assuming it's within a reasonable drive from the DC metro area.
If you are available during that time, let's get together and talk about this face to face. I'd like to see your facility, and I think it would be interesting to share some pictures with the folks here on the forums.
What do you say?
I agree that the regulatory environment is quite difficult. There is a movement within ILDA to try to change this, but give that we're dealing with a very small piece of an otherwise *huge* government organization, I don't hold much hope for any meaningful change.I think that everything will make more sense when viewed within the crummy regulatory and retail framework which defines our user market.
Still, there are ways to operate within this environment. They may not be as profitable as some would like, but there are several examples of successful companies in this industry. As with any government agency, once you figure out the rules, it's fairly easy to make the paperwork work for you.
Adam
Reply With Quote
X-Laser tour scheduled!
