# Finnex Fugeray Planted+ PAR



## falcooo (Sep 30, 2011)

They are. And the info is on here somewhere….

Bump: Here's one link. But I couldn't find the chart…. 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=741857


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

Thanks Falcoooo. I was hoping to find the 30" data though. The number of LEDs increase with length so the PAR will vary with the size of the unit. I thought that Finnex should have this information available, but they don't seem to. 

I am interested in finding out what the PAR is at substrate level (in my case ~18") and how the PAR varies with distance from dead center. I have one light in use and was wandering if I need another to get the PAR I want across a 12" surface.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

falcooo said:


> They are. And the info is on here somewhere….
> 
> Bump: Here's one link. But I couldn't find the chart….
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=741857











http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/lighting/89697-par-data-mini-review-finnex-planted.html


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

Thanks jeffkroll. It looks like that is from a 36" light, but I suppose that gets me closer than anything I have found so far.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

I remember seeing a rep from Finnex commenting on this forum. Doesn't he post here anymore? 

I would think that Finnex would be happy promoting the quality of their product by supplying the PAR readings to interested people. They certainly have in the past. Why has this not been done for the Planted + lights?


----------



## DayOlder (Jul 12, 2014)

FYI, I had the Finnex Planted + on my 26B with 18 inches to substrate and was not happy with the PAR at that level.


----------



## cg49me (Oct 25, 2014)

Yeah, from reading lots of posts by people with the P+, if your substrate is more than 12"-14" down, you're going to want a couple of these fixtures for decent light.

...just gives you an excuse to buy two, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## grizzly_a (Sep 9, 2014)

Are you talking about this post from Finnex on the PAR data?

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=338114


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

grizzly_a said:


> Are you talking about this post from Finnex on the PAR data?
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=338114



No. That thread is useless. It seems to be a consumer survey from May of 2013 for research on the new Planted + lights that were in development. It only lists PAR for a 24" fixture at depths immediately below the light source. The last two pages of posts are people asking for PAR data without getting any response back.


----------



## grizzly_a (Sep 9, 2014)

Good to know! This would be a good thread to follow if more folks can post their PAR data.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

I have discovered a rather detailed and complex Excel spreadsheet that someone has taken a lot of time to put together documenting the light levels for fixtures including the Finnex Ray2 and Planted+ lights in 36" and 20" lengths respectively. I do not remember where I got the spreadsheet from so I won't repost it here without the authors consent. However, I feel that I have to distribute the relevant PAR data from the Finnex lights that is there.

If anyone else has Planted+ PAR readings please share...


----------



## jrill (Nov 20, 2013)

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=741857


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fishhes said:


> I have discovered a rather detailed and complex Excel spreadsheet that someone has taken a lot of time to put together documenting the light levels for fixtures including the Finnex Ray2 and Planted+ lights in 36" and 20" lengths respectively. I do not remember where I got the spreadsheet from so I won't repost it here without the authors consent. However, I feel that I have to distribute the relevant PAR data from the Finnex lights that is there.
> 
> If anyone else has Planted+ PAR readings please share...


Those are considerably lower than the other persons measurements..
I suppose the increase in diode overlap by increasing diode count is partially responsible. 20" vs 30". If I got this right..Though if compared to a RayII???


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Those are considerably lower than the other persons measurements..
> I suppose the increase in diode overlap by increasing diode count is partially responsible. 20" vs 30". If I got this right..Though if compared to a RayII???


It's 36" vs 20" actually.. so the difference in length is considerable..

The other difference is one is using a DIY "hoppy" meter. One is using an Apogee. The spectral response of these two meters is quite different.

My own impression is the DIY numbers feel high to me. 

I have a 30" planted+ on a 20" deep 36 bowfront, lowish-tech with glut and no CO2 (other than some tinkering I've been doing). Substrate is about 19" from the light.

If that 68 PAR on a 36" at 18" deep holds true, I'd be pushing 56 on a 30" fixture at 18" deep. I'm a tad over 18", but it would still be over 50..

I have brush algae issues on the tops of my long-leaf hygros where they are within 3" of the light fixture (yeah, I am overdue for pruning, some parts are laying flat on the surface). However, if this fixture was pumping out something on the order of 50 PAR with no CO2 I'd be having brush algae issues everywhere, even at the substrate level. I'm not.

I also think the apogee numbers are a tad low. I have the fixture pushed most of the way towards the back, meaning the front of the tank is 19" down and 10" offset. That would put me under 15 par by the apogee numbers. I have several crypt wenditii in that area that are growing really fast and thriving. These are low light plants, but under 15 should slow them down. It isn't. They've gone from little 1" high tissue cultured plants to softball sized mounds in 3 months.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

mattinmd said:


> It's 36" vs 20" actually.. so the difference in length is considerable..
> 
> The other difference is one is using a DIY "hoppy" meter. One is using an Apogee. The spectral response of these two meters is quite different.
> 
> ...


Yes Apogee has known spectrum bias and weaknesses.. 
Why I mentioned the RayII
[email protected] 18 in above chart vs [email protected] 36" RayII official Finnex number..

PAR measurements are still just best guesses actually..


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Yes Apogee has known spectrum bias and weaknesses..
> Why I mentioned the RayII
> [email protected] 18 in above chart vs [email protected] 36" RayII official Finnex number..
> 
> PAR measurements are still just best guesses actually..



I believe that Finnex did their testing in a clean, shiny tank with fresh clean water in it and probably nothing else. This results in the highest possible PAR readings, but isn't perfectly realistic.

I'm not sure what conditions fishhes tested in, but one, or more, of the following could be the difference:

1) dry tank - lack of the focusing effect of the air-water boundary reduces PAR at the center. This isn't very realistic, as we all should have water in our tanks. I don't think this is the case, but it is possible.

2) "unclean" tank walls - having a tad of biofilm on the walls makes them less reflective, reducing PAR. This is actually a more realistic test, as we all have biofilm and gunk on our tank walls. It gets less realistic if there's huge algae buildups on the walls.

3) less than perfectly clear water - reduces transmission. This is also more realistic as long as it isn't excessive. That said, this should be a very small effect unless you're doing a blackwater tank.

4) clutter - most of our tanks have plants, rocks, driftwood, etc in them. These should block some of the wall-reflections, although this would be a small effect.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

I like the chatter here guys! I'm glad that people are interested and talking about PAR for the Planted+ lights. 

I agree that PAR ratings cannot be compared easily because there are so many variables that can change due to the nature of the liquid (refraction, suspended solids, surface turbidity, depth, etc). I suppose you can call into question the accuracy of the collection device as well due to the level of error found in light readings in most devices without proper calibration. It seems that the most dependable comparison across light models would have to come from someone that conducted the readings using identical parameters (i.e. the same PAR meter, tank and water). It'd be nice if someone could do that review or at least if manufacturers would produce these readings for their whole range of products.

I am still looking for PAR ratings on a 30" light, but I have contacted the member here who reps for Finnex and he has promised to deliver the PAR numbers he has collected with an Apogee meter. As long as he comes through with the data I will post it here.


----------



## grizzly_a (Sep 9, 2014)

Here's a short video of the Planted+ compared to the new Stingray. You may have already seen it. Meter is an Apogee if I'm not mistaken. 24" Planted+ on 20H tank with water, fish, surface agitation, etc. Look at 2:19 for the Planted+ 56PAR at bottom of tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD7QaRzf1Qw


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

fishhes said:


> I like the chatter here guys! I'm glad that people are interested and talking about PAR for the Planted+ lights.
> 
> I agree that PAR ratings cannot be compared easily because there are so many variables that can change due to the nature of the liquid (refraction, suspended solids, surface turbidity, depth, etc). I suppose you can call into question the accuracy of the collection device as well due to the level of error found in light readings in most devices without proper calibration. It seems that the most dependable comparison across light models would have to come from someone that conducted the readings using identical parameters (i.e. the same PAR meter, tank and water). It'd be nice if someone could do that review or at least if manufacturers would produce these readings for their whole range of products.
> 
> I am still looking for PAR ratings on a 30" light, but I have contacted the member here who reps for Finnex and he has promised to deliver the PAR numbers he has collected with an Apogee meter. As long as he comes through with the data I will post it here.


The original post is here. 
All the readings in this spread sheet have a method label in one of the columns so all those with the same method were conducted in the same exact manor with same instruments. The most important point is these were all taken in air in a dark room and not in a tank so internal reflection from glass is not present which should be factored into your rough estimates depending on light position and tank dimensions. In addition PAR was read "upside down" so there was an 8 foot ceiling before light reflects again. This probably explains why PAR numbers seem to be closer near the light and diverge more as you get further away as compared to numbers measured in a tank. With a planted plus one would also want to think about adding a little fudge factor for more of that PAR being usable light for the plants being in the red and blue.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Apogee PAR/ Quantum meters are practically blind to 660nm and above......










Keep that in mind


----------



## Lowe (Nov 11, 2011)

Here's a quick reading at 12" and 24" for your requested 30" Planted+. It was a quick reading through open air, no side walls & w/ an Apogee meter so take the data for what it's worth. Hope this helps somewhat.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

Thanks for the data Lowe! It may not be perfect, but at least it is something.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

Lowe said:


> Here's a quick reading at 12" and 24" for your requested 30" Planted+. It was a quick reading through open air, no side walls & w/ an Apogee meter so take the data for what it's worth. Hope this helps somewhat.


Yes, thanks for the data Lowe! Ask and you shall receive. 

This gives a pretty decent idea of the PAR reaching the substrate. I don't know if it is a genuine linear relationship between the two readings to find an 18" depth, but the extrapolation of these readings should provide a general range. Makes me wonder what impact tank water would have on the readings though?

Bump: I just saw the Apogee wavelength/response chart posted by jeffkroll. If that is true, than any readings from an Apogee meter would be a conservative estimate. I wonder if there is any way to tell what kind of increase would be expected?


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

If they finnex would release their spectrum analysis in the form of a spread sheet we could probably get a decent calculation. The 660nm they put in those is a very sharp peak so probably half of it is cut off by the apogee.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> If they finnex would release their spectrum analysis in the form of a spread sheet we could probably get a decent calculation. The 660nm they put in those is a very sharp peak so probably half of it is cut off by the apogee.














> Our Quantum Meters are accurate to within about ±3 percent for common light sources.
> 
> The spectral response of the Apogee Sensor used in Quantum Meters and the Quantum Sensor is shown at right. As the figure indicates, the sensor underestimates the 400 to 500 nm wavelengths (blue light), overestimates the 550-650 wavelengths (yellow and orange light), and has little sensitivity above 650 nm (red light). Fortunately, common light sources are mixtures of colors and the spectral errors offset each other. The sensor measures green light (500-550 nm) accurately, so it can be used to measure the radiation inside and at the bottom of plant canopies.


more data..
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/2/equipment


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

fearsome said:


> If they finnex would release their spectrum analysis in the form of a spread sheet we could probably get a decent calculation. The 660nm they put in those is a very sharp peak so probably half of it is cut off by the apogee.


This would imply that finnex *has* a spectrum analysis for the light fixture....

Finnex has spectrums for the individual LEDs, you see them in their promotional materials... however those almost certainly come from the LED chip manufacturer, not Finnex.

As far as I know, nobody has measured the spectrum of the planted plus as a combined fixture. I did some crude work to image the spectrum of the white and red LEDs simultaneously, but even I didn't do it as one combined spectrum...

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=743593&highlight=


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The original Finnex lights didn't have much red light in the spectra. For those an Apogee PAR meter was pretty accurate for measuring the PAR. But, the planted plus does have a substantial amount of red in the spectra, red in the 660 nm area of the spectrum, where the Apogee measures none of the light. So, PAR data with an Apogee PAR meter, or any other cheap PAR meter, will under estimate the PAR values. Finnex no longer has someone with a LiCor PAR meter measuring the output of their lights, so they haven't been able to give us accurate PAR numbers.

I just received a planted plus 36 inch light, from Amazon, and it is now over a 65 gallon, 24 inch high tank, about 2 inches above the top of the tank. It looks at least as bright as the DIY LED light I was using, which gave me about 30 PAR at the distance I had it hanging. But, our eyes are terrible PAR meters! I expect to have a Apogee PAR reading on mine soon.


----------



## fusedpro (Dec 29, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> The original Finnex lights didn't have much red light in the spectra. For those an Apogee PAR meter was pretty accurate for measuring the PAR. But, the planted plus does have a substantial amount of red in the spectra, red in the 660 nm area of the spectrum, where the Apogee measures none of the light. So, PAR data with an Apogee PAR meter, or any other cheap PAR meter, will under estimate the PAR values. Finnex no longer has someone with a LiCor PAR meter measuring the output of their lights, so they haven't been able to give us accurate PAR numbers.
> 
> I just received a planted plus 36 inch light, from Amazon, and it is now over a 65 gallon, 24 inch high tank, about 2 inches above the top of the tank. It looks at least as bright as the DIY LED light I was using, which gave me about 30 PAR at the distance I had it hanging. But, our eyes are terrible PAR meters! I expect to have a Apogee PAR reading on mine soon.


Any update on the PAR reading for the 36" Planted+, by chance?


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

fusedpro said:


> Any update on the PAR reading for the 36" Planted+, by chance?


Finnex hasn't officially released any PAR numbers for the Planted+ lights. Apparently, they do not have a source to test their equipment other than an Apogee meter. I imagine that they have to know by now that customers are actively seeking this information and that it would only be beneficial for them to collect and make available some reliable PAR readings to their customers. I would like to see them test all their light units with a standard setting of parameters so that an easy comparison can be made when selecting a light source. It seems like a small investment for the company to promote their product to an interested consumer base.

This thread follows the path I took to find PAR numbers on a 30" light. As you can read, it took a request of the company representative to get an Apogee meter reading. The rep is an active member of this forum and a friendly guy so I suggest dropping him a line. If you get a response please repost the numbers here for other users who may be looking for the same information. But remember that an Apogee meter does not accurately register the full red spectrum so the readings for a Planted+ light will be conservative.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

fusedpro said:


> Any update on the PAR reading for the 36" Planted+, by chance?


No, I have recently moved to an apartment, so we are still getting settled in, and I haven't had the time to play around with a PAR meter yet. But, I will get to it eventually.


----------



## tylergvolk (Jun 17, 2012)

Hoppy said:


> No, I have recently moved to an apartment, so we are still getting settled in, and I haven't had the time to play around with a PAR meter yet. But, I will get to it eventually.


I would really like to hear what your par conclusions are for the finned planted+ 36" fixture.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

I don't know what happened to Hoppy, but someone should collect some readings from these lights and start a compendium from their findings. I've seen lots of people posting about looking for PAR from Finnex LED lights.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

fishhes said:


> I don't know what happened to Hoppy, but someone should collect some readings from these lights and start a compendium from their findings. I've seen lots of people posting about looking for PAR from Finnex LED lights.


Nothing happened to me, except moving to an apartment. What happened to Finnex is they lost their source of PAR readings taken with LiCor PAR meters. When you have a light fixture with a significant amount of the PAR coming from 660 nm LEDs a Apogee Quantum PAR meter doesn't give you good readings, because it doesn't measure that part of the light spectrum. I hope Finnex eventually finds a good source for PAR readings, but until then we can only guess about the PAR produced by the Planted Plus.

I'm now working on a DIY PAR meter that will include the 660 nm area of the spectrum, but it's too early to see if it is going to work well. Calibrating the meter will be a challenge too! I'm hoping to be able to use sunlight as the calibration source of light.


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

I don't understand this whole lost their PAR meter thing that has been going on for quite a while now. Finnex is a company producing and selling a lot of lights. Shouldn't such a company have a professional quality PAR meter of their own?


----------



## jrill (Nov 20, 2013)

fearsome said:


> I don't understand this whole lost their PAR meter thing that has been going on for quite a while now. Finnex is a company producing and selling a lot of lights. Shouldn't such a company have a professional quality PAR meter of their own?


Indeed.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

For all I know Finnex is a couple of guys working in their garages. I know they had a very good contact who had a LiCor PAR meter (as I recall) and who did their PAR measurements before. That quality of PAR meter isn't that widely available, and they are very, very expensive. I'm just happy that Finnex has kept their prices reasonable, and are constantly improving their products.


----------



## brooksie321 (Jul 19, 2014)

fearsome said:


> I don't understand this whole lost their PAR meter thing that has been going on for quite a while now. Finnex is a company producing and selling a lot of lights. Shouldn't such a company have a professional quality PAR meter of their own?


What's your beef? Havnt you checked the tank journals? the lights grow plants and they're pretty cheap.. why the witch hunt??


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

Finnex is a company that had been around for the last 12 years and has a product line including aquarium tanks, filtration, heaters, air pumps, powerheads, all in addition to their LED light systems. The company markets their products internationally, uses an oversees manufacturer and spends lots of money (millions?) in product research and development. The company is most definitely not two guys working from a garage.

The company currently has the ability to take PAR measurements using an Apogee meter (which gives a lower reading because of the inability to read the full red spectrum). A Licor meter costs approximately $1000-$2000 to purchase and would give more precise PAR readings becasue it detects more of the light spectrum. This would provide the PAR information that many in their customer base demands and would be a trivial investment for a company such as Finnex. However, the company chooses not to collect or publicly release this data. 

I have never had any issue with the quality of Finnex products and I understand that they have a great reputation among customers. I use two Planted+ LED systems in my tanks and I have not had any problems with them. They emit plenty of usable light for plant growth and I could think of no reason that Finnex would need to hide PAR results for their lights. I can only speculate that they do not see the benefit of providing these readings to their customers (perhaps there is a perceived lack of demand for PAR data).

This hobby needs a trade magazine or someone with access to a quality PAR meter and enough capital to purchase multiple light systems and do a side by side test of light output using controlled parameters. PAR data across light system models would help consumers when choosing the right light system for their needs. Quality PAR data would also assist hobbyists when adjusting their nutrient and CO2 levels to best compliment their Finnex light output for a healthy and stable tank.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

well to be brutally honest.. I see nothing that Finnex did that was done w/ any heavy research.. Hey they don't even have a dimmer or timer module.. 
Their research in a controllable LED seems stalled and Current rode right over their back w/ both the planted plus and now the PRO... Not to mention Marineland planted (over priced but fairly well spec-ed). now this may sound harsh.. but it is realistic..


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

Fishhes, I'm going to have to ask you to provide some backing to the claim they've spent anywhere near millions in R&D.

As far as being international, they're pretty much a US supplier now. Their Canadian branch has shut down and AFAIK they've never had any other non-us sales offices.

Based on what I see, I would be very surprised if Finnex's revenues were over 20 million USD per year. Assuming they're getting a 5% profit margin, that's under 1 million in profit per year. My own realistic guess would be more on the order of $5 million /year revenue and $250k/year in profits. However, that's my guesswork based on my feel for their share in a US only marketplace for a somewhat niche hobby without wide popular demand. Sorry, aquarium supplies is a much smaller market than cellphones, and being a smaller US-only player in that market doesn't add up to huge numbers. 

I don't think they're quite 2 guys in a garage, but they are positively not a large company by any stretch of the imagination. Their about us page on their website: http://www.finnex.net/index.php/about-us shows a picture of a warehouse with a modest number of pallets of goods in it. Hardly a garage, but also not an office employing a hundred people and moving $500 million in goods each year.

Besides, getting an overseas manufacturing contract isn't terribly expensive or hard (although getting stuff made at decent quality does take quite a bit of doing and vetting your MFG's closely, but it doesn't take millions to get stuff made overseas.)


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

I don't have any supporting facts to the companies profits or expenses. I am not interested in the details of the companies finances, but was merely trying to prove a point that the company is profitable. They can certainly afford to pay the small cost to obtain (or rent) a piece of scientific equipment that is capable of detecting the light emissions from their products. It would actually be a selling point and a way to stand behind the quality of their light systems.


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

First I am not on a witch hunt that would imply I am falsely accusing someone of something. We all already know Finnex hasn't been able to measure PAR for quite a while, not a secret. 

It doesn't really matter how big or small your business is we aren't talking about a million dollar device. Any couple of guys who owned a car garage would need to own equipment in this price range. And of course many people would be surprised at just how small many highly visible corporations in the USA really are. 

If you want to make sure that your Chinese suppliers are not ripping you off you should probably have an accurate light meter, if you want to make sure that the most common PAR meter on the market is not a problem for your current lines such as the planted plus you should be motivated to get access to a device that can do better measurements. If you want to prototype and or stack up your light vs competition to see where you sit you should have this device. It just seems like this is a basic tool that should be in the chest of any company selling half as many lights as Finnex. And if you really don't want to buy it? Outsource the measurements. But when a number of hobbyist have $400 Apogee meters and some even have licor meters and the PAR data has been requested many times over for the planted plus you would think that they should make the sacrifice to get one.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

I see one of two scenarios here.

Either:

1) Finnex has had sufficient cash available to acquire a Licor for a long time, but is run by complete morons who completely fail to grasp their own marketplace and haven't bought one because they don't see the value. This would appear to be your implication.

2) Finnex has not had sufficient cash available to acquire a Licor and has been having to spend their cash resources on other more important things like ordering more product.

In the past Finnex got access to a university lab analysis in the early development stages of the Planted+, but then lost access to it (the university appears to have decided that using it to help a commercial business isn't advancing education):

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4803857&postcount=4

Given that, I don't think it is plausible that the value of providing specs and using a proper meter is lost on Finnex. They're not completely stupid. 

I rule 1) out as a possibility.

I should also point out that that Finnex recently regained access to a Licor, but I'm guessing their energies are focused on using it to test the new models they are trying to bring to market. They have pointed out they have one, but can't get it to the old planted+ at the moment.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6194802&postcount=116

Note they used it to evaluate the pre-production models of the upcoming Planted+ elite:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6195242&postcount=1


----------



## Whjdm069 (Dec 14, 2013)

I would like to say I work for a multimillion dollar company. It's in the food distribution industry. You would be surprised the actual cost of running a company these days. Some might feel a simple meter is obtainable but they do have to eat and pay for supplies. Our biggest expense is payroll. Not sure where they are located but people dont work for free. I to would like more data from them but if I wanted hard data I would have bought a bml. On the other hand I have 2 finnex over my 40b at the same cost of one bml fixture. For all the people who want data why not buy a meter? I'm sure there has to be a club out there that has one. Sorry if I'm sounding like a jerk to some but finnex puts out a great light and we should all be happy it's at a good price point.


----------



## brooksie321 (Jul 19, 2014)

That's what I'm saying^^^ maybe finnex has one.. maybe the par on the planted plus is so high that they do not want release it in fear that Cara will swoop in ninja style with a 36" dutch (i have one and you could take out a bear with it) and take them all out for hi jacking the market.. ever think of that?!? But seriously.. money talks.. can't beat the price on a planted plus..


----------



## jrill (Nov 20, 2013)

My take... If your in the business to make lights or anything else then you need to own the proper instruments to measure their performance.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

I think that's everyone's take, including Finnex.... 

I don't really get why everyone seems to think Finnex has the cash resources to do everything they want... Just because they are a presumably profitable business doesn't mean they've got cash coming out of their ears.

Running a business is full of hard choices... It is a machine that makes money if run correctly, but you constantly have to keep putting money back into it to keep it running. If it runs dry for any reason, it stops, and restarting it is hard.

Do you buy test equipment and spend time using it on your existing products, while your competitors pass you by introducing newer, more versatile products and make you irrelevant? Or do your put your time and money on the new products and try to keep up, but risk criticism for abandoning and never properly testing your old models? Say you can't do both without going bankrupt... which do you do? 

Are you sure your choice won't make you go bankrupt anyway? 

It's easy to armchair quarterback all this and say they should do x, y, and z all at the same time, but put yourselves in the shoes of some hard choices were total failure is always an option.

If you really think you can do it better, hey, by all means start your own aquarium supply company and beat 'em all out... it's easy, right?


----------



## brooksie321 (Jul 19, 2014)

mattinmd said:


> I think that's everyone's take, including Finnex....
> 
> I don't really get why everyone seems to think Finnex has the cash resources to do everything they want... Just because they are a presumably profitable business doesn't mean they've got cash coming out of their ears.
> 
> ...


Furthermore. They were scheduled to release a new line at the end of last year, you'd think all their time and resources would be focused on said line. I hardly see a make/break point in releasing oar data on a light that's been out and selling for years.. irregardless of par, if you want dimming and ramp features you'll be going elsewhere anyways.


----------



## fishhes (Oct 18, 2014)

This thread seems to have gotten a bit off course. I am not trying to publicly ridicule a company here. I am not trying to second guess their business decisions. I like Finnex and I appreciate their affordable and reliable LED lighting systems.

I started this thread to gather PAR information for a recently purchased light to determine whether adding the unit to an existing light setup would require me to drastically readjust nutrients and/or add CO2 to the tank. After a thorough internet search I realized that this information did not exist and I began to wonder why. 

I am aware that the light system which I was originally searching for PAR data for (and got thanks to the Finnex rep) is now an approx. 2 year old model that is being replaced with an improved model. While I would still appreciate some numbers for the light systems that I own, I realize that retroactively testing products that a company is phasing out is probably not the best uses of company resources. However, without the company doing the tests I do not see this happening. 

My hope is that the company will recognize that its customers want to see PAR data, makes steps to acquire the necessary tools to gather this data and then provide it for all upcoming products.


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

brooksie321 said:


> Furthermore. They were scheduled to release a new line at the end of last year, you'd think all their time and resources would be focused on said line. I hardly see a make/break point in releasing oar data on a light that's been out and selling for years.. irregardless of par, if you want dimming and ramp features you'll be going elsewhere anyways.


Or you could just buy a device that cost no more than a computer release the data which would take a day or 2 of work and have it available so more people can purchase you existing light getting you a larger ROI and making buyers more confident on a product you already developed selling an old product that cost you nothing extra to develop and has a more proven reliability track record is a dream come true to many companies. And on top of that you can use the device on your current projects to make sure they are good and know where you sit competitively in the market. I believe the description of this situation is penny wise dollar foolish. No one is talking about a make or break point, we are talking about increasing sales and customer confidence which ultimately leads to more cash on hand. 

I liken the situation sort of to beamswork, they have very little data or information on their lights so it took them a lot longer IMO to build consumer confidence and get a following as many people just wrote them off as it must be cheap and low light. If they had simply produced PAR measurements up front showing people these were very bright lights they could have accelerated sales and even raised prices immensely. I personally delayed my plans to buy a finnex planted plus by nearly 8 months because of lack of information. On top of that I think in the current climate finnex needs to be acutely aware of people selling stuff like beamswork lights which if they release something like the planted plus could be a big problem for finnex.


----------



## mattinmd (Aug 16, 2014)

fishhes said:


> My hope is that the company will recognize that its customers want to see PAR data, makes steps to acquire the necessary tools to gather this data and then provide it for all upcoming products.


That's really quite fair... that said, if you read some of the posts by Lowe that I linked to earlier, it should be obvious that your concerns aren't necessary. Finnex already knows how much customers want PAR data, and is already taking the steps needed to provide it. This includes securing a LiCor this past June...


----------

