Educators: Combat Scientific Illiteracy

[pixel]

This is in the way of a rant, but I am posting it here as it relates to education and to encourage you educators to do a better job.

I recently bought a well-known manufacturer’s LED light bulb at a home center. I was curious to know the spectral output of the bulb, so I emailed customer service. I know generally how these white light LED curves look (so you needn't bother to show me) but the specific coating on the bulb could affect the output and I thought this would be a simple request.

To my astonishment, they replied that their R&D department said this is proprietary information and not available. I politely pointed out that the output of the light is there for anyone to measure so it cannot be considered proprietary. They only doubled down on their answer.

Granted the front line customer service rep probably did not have a technical background, but it was disappointing to see how resistant to logic she was.

 

[phinds]

Granted the front line customer service rep probably did not have a technical background, but it was disappointing to see how resistant to logic she was.

Oh, you optimist.

My son recently had his backpack stolen and there was some card in it (I forget what but it was maybe a gym card, not a credit card) and he had to call to get them to cancel the old one and issue a new one and the conversation went like this
Son: My backpack was stolen and it had your card it it. I need you to cancel that one and issue me a new one.
Rep: Ok, can you read me the number off the card?
Son: I don't HAVE the card. It was stolen.
Rep: So, the card is not presently in your possession.
Son. No, it was STOLEN!
Rep: So, you can't give me the number on the card?

You get the idea.

 

[rootone]

Awhile ago I was also interested in this, so I did a rough check using a blank CD as a diffraction grating.
While not at all accurate is was very clear that bulb (It was labelled as 'cool white') was producing all of the visible spectrum.
No noticeable bright peaks or gaps.

 

[pixel]

My point is not to discuss the spectral output of the bulb but the response of the manufacturer. If I were still working, we could use the radiometer we had in our lab to get the information I requested in about one minute. So not very proprietary.

What's next - Ford not telling us the colors of their cars because it's proprietary information?

 

[zwierz]

it looks as if these idiots were the first you encountered

 

[RogueOne]

There was a lawyer whispering in that customer service rep's supervisor's ear. I don't know any companies that publish more R&D data than is required by the industry standards or regulations.

 

[RogueOne]

There are legal liabilities for a company when distributing such information to customers.

 

[pixel]

There was a lawyer whispering in that customer service rep's supervisor's ear. I don't know any companies that publish more R&D data than is required by the industry standards or regulations.

I did a quick check to see what other companies might be doing and easily found literature from Sylvania and GE on the spectral output of their lamps:
http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/documents/faq0041-0800.83f1d8de-3fe1-4d24-a209-d95f6cac74b9.pdf

http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/na/resources/tools/lamp-and-ballast/spectral-power-distribution-curves.jsp

So it may be true that their legal department nixed sharing of the data, but it seems silly. All the more so as every one of the data sheets for their discrete LED components includes a spectral distribution curve.

I should add that the rep told me that the lamp in question did not emit any UV.

 

[gmax137]

There are legal liabilities for a company when distributing such information to customers.

Seriously? It's like the brick company refusing to tell you the length of their bricks, "proprietary, you know..." Or, the yardstick maker, refusing to reveal the number of inches on their product. Well, not quite that bad, but really.

 

[RogueOne]

Seriously? It's like the brick company refusing to tell you the length of their bricks, "proprietary, you know..." Or, the yardstick maker, refusing to reveal the number of inches on their product. Well, not quite that bad, but really.

Its more like a car company not giving you their raw chasis dyno results.

 

[pixel]

Its more like a car company not giving you their raw chasis dyno results.

I'm not even sure what that means, but is it really comparable to the light output from a bulb, something that anyone with a radiometer can easily determine without disassembling the item?

 

[BillTre]

Maybe you should go back to them and tell them that you have now obtained their spectrum and you are going to publish it on Facebook (or something they could understand).

They might give you some money (or light bulbs) to keep you quite!

 

[mpresic]

I would dnt jump to the conclusion you are dealing with scientific illiteracy. In 1978, I was on a plant trip to Eastman Kodak. With other students I sat in a "well-lighted" room, while my guide introduced himself. He asked us how we all felt. Many responses were that it was well lighted, we were comfortable, we thought he might be talking about the chairs or accommodations.

He told us the room had special lighting. The lighting had frequencies that simulated outdoor natural lighting. He told us most people felt good in this room. He told us they hope to make it more available, but right now (1978) the cost is go produce the bulb was 900 dollars. Clearly Eastman Kodak should be interested in protecting the research and production methods going into making of the bulb, and the spectral output.

From experience my colleagues and I have in production, I also know if someone asks me for any details concerning any work product, I should clear it with the legal department before passing it along. Unless they determined the request is innocuous the legal department would likely say no.

 

[pixel]

Clearly Eastman Kodak should be interested in protecting the research and production methods going into making of the bulb, and the spectral output.

That's a different situation as the item was not yet commercially available. Once it would become a commercial item, they can no longer hide the spectral output. Presumably they would have filed a patent first.

From experience my colleagues and I have in production, I also know if someone asks me for any details concerning any work product, I should clear it with the legal department before passing it along. Unless they determined the request is innocuous the legal department would likely say no.

Understood. But it appears, from my links above, that manufacturers routinely provide information about the spectral output of their lamps, so why the secrecy in this case? I have a feeling that if I had called on a different day and maybe got a different rep the response might have been different.

 

[RogueOne]

That's a different situation as the item was not yet commercially available. Once it would become a commercial item, they can no longer hide the spectral output. Presumably they would have filed a patent first.
.

The absence of publication/distribution of their test lab information is not the same thing as actively hiding the spectral output. They are smart not to tell you what the expected spectral output is. Based on my current perception of your mentality, I could see you potential for suing them/reporting them over a discrepancy between whatever PSD they give you ~~ and whatever you happen to measure on your exact bulb. Whether that would happen in your particular case is not the issue. When you sell hundreds of thousands of them, and tens of thousands of the recipients each have a 1:10,000 chance of raising a fuss about the spectral output expectations vs their own measured values, its almost a guaranteed issue.

That is the kind of thing that companies have to worry about. Are they going to piss off any sanctioning bodies by distributing the expected spectral output of their bulb without going through certain certification channels? Can they afford to do the QC audits to make sure that their products are within spec? etc etc

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>To my astonishment, they replied that their R&D department said this is proprietary information and not available. I politely pointed out that the output of the light is there for anyone to measure so it cannot be considered proprietary. They only doubled down on their answer.

Has it occurred to you that maybe your question isn't worth their time? Especially since you can go measure it yourself.

Another possibility: the bulb manufacturer may simply purchase the LEDs from another company (or source it from many companies to ensure supply chain continuity) and so they actually don't have that information.

Did you think to ask (or try to find) a datasheet? Did you try and identify the manufacturer of the LED?

 

[pixel]

Based on my current perception of your mentality, I could see you potential for suing them/reporting them over a discrepancy between whatever PSD they give you ~~ and whatever you happen to measure on your exact bulb.

Dr. Freud, it's interesting how you can make a judgment of my "mentality" from a PF posting. I was merely interested the spectral output of a bulb, from a scientific curiosity, not intending to get ammunition for a law suit.

You are trying to justify/explain why they didn't want to give me the information, but, as I said, other bulb manufacturers don't seem to have any issue with this. It would seem if they had the reservations you are suggesting, the company in question would not publish this information for all of their LED components, which they do. I attribute their response not to any such legal reservations, as you suggest, but merely to the fact that they didn't seem to understand the nature of my question.

 

[pixel]

Has it occurred to you that maybe your question isn't worth their time? Especially since you can go measure it yourself.

No, it hadn't. They provide a contact phone number for questions about their product. This seemed like a simple enough question. And a typical caller will not have a radiometer available, as I don't now that I am retired, so they can't go measure it themselves.

Another possibility: the bulb manufacturer may simply purchase the LEDs from another company (or source it from many companies to ensure supply chain continuity) and so they actually don't have that information.

No. This is a major LED component manufacturer that also makes a household LED bulb. I highly doubt they use another company's LED, but even if they did, they didn't say they don't have the information available, they said it was proprietary and couldn't reveal it.[/QUOTE]

Did you think to ask (or try to find) a datasheet? Did you try and identify the manufacturer of the LED?

My initial post was simply to relate my experience with their customer service rep and their ignorance of the fact that the spectral output couldn't be proprietary information. Whether or not I followed up with data sheets is not the point - it shouldn't have had to come to that.

I'm detecting a bit of hostility around this topic, so as far as I'm concerned it can end here.

 

[RogueOne]

This is in the way of a rant, but I am posting it here as it relates to education and to encourage you educators to do a better job.

I recently bought a well-known manufacturer’s LED light bulb at a home center. I was curious to know the spectral output of the bulb, so I emailed customer service. I know generally how these white light LED curves look (so you needn't bother to show me) but the specific coating on the bulb could affect the output and I thought this would be a simple request.

To my astonishment, they replied that their R&D department said this is proprietary information and not available. I politely pointed out that the output of the light is there for anyone to measure so it cannot be considered proprietary. They only doubled down on their answer.

Granted the front line customer service rep probably did not have a technical background, but it was disappointing to see how resistant to logic she was.

Have you ever worked in R&D? If so, how long ago?

Test lab data is indeed propriety information. Virtually all R&D data on every mass-produced product is a measurement of something that anybody with the needed resources could measure.

I don't see how this has anything to do with them somehow having scientific illiteracy. Do you know what scientific illiteracy actually is? If you do, I don't know how you could make any connection between that definition and the behavior of the mfg that you emailed. They made their decision because it was the one that exposed the business to the lowest amount of liability. It sets a low-risk precedent as well.

The actual illiteracy here is economic illiteracy. People like you seem to have no actual understanding of how businesses use R&D departments, what REAL research data is used for within an actual company that faces actual consequences if the R&D guys screw it up, how that data feeds into/back from the market if published/distributed for competitors to see, what regulatory-or-otherwise liabilities companies are opening themselves to when distributing/publishing claims/data, or when its advantageous to distribute/publish data.

Businesses have to be very risk-averse in today's culture. It is a hostile and competitive time for businesses. They can't afford to say anything that they don't want you to have in court, basically. Everything is a threat until proven otherwise. Between Unions, Regulatory hurdles, taxes, fierce competition, sue-happy people, sanctioning bodies, and constantly fending off eradication attempts by the "saviors" of the working class trying to "overthrow the top 1%", you never know what is going to blindside you and snatch up all of the company's profits this year. The companies that did stuff like that have been picked off already

 

[RogueOne]

Dr. Freud, it's interesting how you can make a judgment of my "mentality" from a PF posting. I was merely interested the spectral output of a bulb, from a scientific curiosity, not intending to get ammunition for a law suit.

You are trying to justify/explain why they didn't want to give me the information, but, as I said, other bulb manufacturers don't seem to have any issue with this. It would seem if they had the reservations you are suggesting, the company in question would not publish this information for all of their LED components, which they do. I attribute their response not to any such legal reservations, as you suggest, but merely to the fact that they didn't seem to understand the nature of my question.

In response to your first underlined sentence:
If you read the semantics of the post that you replied to, you would notice that I said "Based on my perception of your mentality". It was said in the present-tense and I'll re-phrase the exact same message again hopes that you will understand it this time: ~~If my current perception of your mentality is correct, then you have an above-average likelihood to sue this company or report them to a bureau/sanctioning body of some sort should they distribute to you a graph that does not match your own measurements of the light's spectral output. I'm not claiming that you do or do not, but rather drawing attention to it to illustrate one possible risk that they would face by distributing/publishing R&D data to you that they got through whichever proprietary testing procedure they used. ~~

In response to your second group of underlined sentences:
You're assessing this situation with a foolish consistency. Although the data itself might be equivalent, the legal protections and compliance methods that the two companies each have might not be the same. One company might have different QC audit methods than the other. One might have recognition from an industry authority or an independent lab to help confirm output. The company you got your LED from might not be as confident in the consistency of their product's output. If a class-action suit was filed based on some sort of false-claims allegation, and they lacked some way to confirm compliance with relavent ANSI standards to back the data that they told you, then who knows what would happen. They are covering their own ass. The customer service person and lab manager are smart. They both could've got in trouble if they distributed that data to you. Its also not just legal reservations. They may have their own proprietary testing procedures or methods that they don't want to give insight to.

 

[velocity_boy]

This is in the way of a rant, but I am posting it here as it relates to education and to encourage you educators to do a better job.

I recently bought a well-known manufacturer’s LED light bulb at a home center. I was curious to know the spectral output of the bulb, so I emailed customer service. I know generally how these white light LED curves look (so you needn't bother to show me) but the specific coating on the bulb could affect the output and I thought this would be a simple request.

To my astonishment, they replied that their R&D department said this is proprietary information and not available. I politely pointed out that the output of the light is there for anyone to measure so it cannot be considered proprietary. They only doubled down on their answer.

Granted the front line customer service rep probably did not have a technical background, but it was disappointing to see how resistant to logic she was.

But your rant that the educators in science and tech need to do better would only be valid if, say, you HAD spoken to one of their trained and educated R&D guys, and they themselves didn't know the answer. Or gave you a wrong one. To rant because a non-scientifically trained customer support worker bee adhered to company policy in speaking with you in no way denigrates of even fairly appraises the scientific educators.

Your rant would make more sense if it were decrying the company's policy. But as such, you are really just picking on the wrong people to criticize.

Hope this helps.

VB

 

[pixel]

But your rant that the educators in science and tech need to do better would only be valid if, say, you HAD spoken to one of their trained and educated R&D guys, and they themselves didn't know the answer. Or gave you a wrong one. To rant because a non-scientifically trained customer support worker bee adhered to company policy in speaking with you in no way denigrates of even fairly appraises the scientific educators.

Your rant would make more sense if it were decrying the company's policy. But as such, you are really just picking on the wrong people to criticize.

As I said, the rep conferred with their R&D dept. and relayed their response. So apparently it is the company's policy. And don't you think someone who represents a technical lighting company should have some understanding of the product line? If not her fault, then certainly the people who put her in that position. And she was resistant to even consider what I was saying to her.

 

[RogueOne]

I think I've come off as too harsh in this thread so I want to apologize for that. I don't mean to berate you. That is not helpful. However, I do stand by my idea that the events described are probably caused by bureaucracy rather than scientific illiteracy. That's especially true since the lab guy was consulted.

Either way, don't let my vitriol earlier in this thread get you down. I'm working on changing that, since it is usually counter-productive to sharing ideas. This isn't the marine corps, so I should lose the Drill-Instructor attitude :)

 

[pixel]

I think I've come off as too harsh in this thread so I want to apologize for that. I don't mean to berate you. That is not helpful. However, I do stand by my idea that the events described are probably caused by bureaucracy rather than scientific illiteracy. That's especially true since the lab guy was consulted.

Either way, don't let my vitriol earlier in this thread get you down. I'm working on changing that, since it is usually counter-productive to sharing ideas. This isn't the marine corps, so I should lose the Drill-Instructor attitude :)

I am glad that you posted this because I was getting ready to return fire.

By the way, I had a long career in R&D. I was involved in patent filings and NDA's and have a fairly good idea of what is "proprietary" information. Maybe it's bureaucracy rather than scientific illiteracy, but if their stance was as you are suggesting, they would not have told me, in writing !, that the bulb emits "no UV" because they would worry that someone would measure 0.05% emission at 399 nm and sue them. So they are not even consistent.

You may have the last word, and then I would ask the mods to close this thread.

 

[velocity_boy]

As I said, the rep conferred with their R&D dept. and relayed their response. So apparently it is the company's policy. And don't you think someone who represents a technical lighting company should have some understanding of the product line? If not her fault, then certainly the people who put her in that position. And she was resistant to even consider what I was saying to her.

I think she probably knew enough about her product line to answer most usual consumer questions. Admit it, spectral output is pushing it a bit. I'm not even sure what you mean. And I have a STEM degree. If you're speaking of the candle power or lumens or the equivalence in wattage emitted by a conventional bulb, then she would get that info for you. Or warranty stuff, power supply, battery, etc. But WTF is spectral output? Are you referring to the particular wavelength of the emitted light beam? If so, you need to know that a very small percentage of buyers would ever ask that.

And who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer. I think you're just angry they wouldn't give it to you, do you're attacking their qualifications. Get over it. Find the answer yourself.

 

[pixel]

I think she probably knew enough about her product line to answer most usual consumer questions. Admit it, spectral output is pushing it a bit. I'm not even sure what you mean. And I have a STEM degree. If you're speaking of the candle power or lumens or the equivalence in wattage emitted by a conventional bulb, then she would get that info for you. Or warranty stuff, power supply, battery, etc. But WTF is spectral output? Are you referring to the particular wavelength of the emitted light beam? If so, you need to know that a very small percentage of buyers would ever ask that.

And who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer. I think you're just angry they wouldn't give it to you, do you're attacking their qualifications. Get over it. Find the answer yourself.

I don't think a spectral distribution curve it's asking too much from a technical lighting company that produces component LED's and publishes that very same information for all those products. I can't tell from your post whether you don't actually know what a spectral output is, or are just saying that other people wouldn't know it.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer." He didn't say he didn't know it, he said it was proprietary. I'm not angry they wouldn't give it to me, I'm just perplexed by them saying it was proprietary.

By the way, since you are relatively new to PF, I should point out that we try to have a welcoming, friendly environment here without people making personal judgments about the psychological state of other posters or telling them to "get over it." If you are more used to a confrontational type of forum, perhaps somewhere else would be better suited to your requirements.

 

[velocity_boy]

I don't think a spectral distribution curve it's asking too much from a technical lighting company that produces component LED's and publishes that very same information for all those products. I can't tell from your post whether you don't actually know what a spectral output is, or are just saying that other people wouldn't know it.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer." He didn't say he didn't know it, he said it was proprietary. I'm not angry they wouldn't give it to me, I'm just perplexed by them saying it was proprietary.

By the way, since you are relatively new to PF, I should point out that we try to have a welcoming, friendly environment here without people making personal judgments about the psychological state of other posters or telling them to "get over it." If you are more used to a confrontational type of forum, perhaps somewhere else would be better suited to your requirements.

No, I admitted I'm not sure what you mean by spectral output. And so what? Who cares? As I said the question is beyond the normal scope for 95% of consumers.

Doubt me? Do this...find me one ad for an LED for the public that uses the term spectral output..just one, and you win!

So if you want to pay yourself on the back by thinking this makes you smarter than the rest of us in this area, do be it. Enjoy! LOL. Frankly, you are coming across as tedious. Just my opinion. I am guessing the customer support gal agreed! LOL.

This will be my last post here, as I am getting off topic. As well as trying not to laugh. You remind me of an undergrad student who just learned a new word and wants to flaunt it.

I've also been a member for a year.

 

[pixel]

No, I admitted I'm not sure what you mean by spectral output. And so what? Who cares? As I said the question is beyond the normal scope for 95% of consumers.

Doubt me? Do this...find me one ad for an LED for the public that uses the term spectral output..just one, and you win!

You fail again to recognize that the company in question also provides component LED's for technical applications and so it's not beyond reason to ask them about this particular bulb. They should be used to dealing with the other 5% of people.

Of course it won't be contained in an ad, but I gave a link above where G.E. provides such curves for a wide range of their consumer bulbs. It should be available and if not, just say it's not available.

So if you want to pay yourself on the back by thinking this makes you smarter than the rest of us in this area, do be it. Enjoy! LOL. Frankly, you are coming across as tedious. Just my opinion. I am guessing the customer support gal agreed! LOL.

Again with the ad hominem attacks. If anyone is tedious, it is you. For the ten millionth time, my only objection was their saying the information is proprietary, which it cannot be. And I don't think talking about a spectral distribution curve is being pedantic on a PHYSICS FORUM ! You claim not to know what it is but that doesn't stop you from posting in this thread and offering opinions. Very strange.

This will be my last post here, as I am getting off topic. As well as trying not to laugh. You remind me of an undergrad student who just learned a new word and wants to flaunt it

I've also been a member for a year.

I am too polite to say what you remind me of. So you have been a member for a year and have 17 posts? Were all those posts created just to attack other people?

MODERATORS: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD !

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...