So you took my shit way out of context.
You said that a lot to me too. Your "101" page says
"Standard self contained diodes are the leading LEDs in the Industry and have performances that are double that of C.O.B. LEDs."
When I pointed out that guys here believe they're getting equal or better performance from COBs, you say we're taking your 101 page out of context. That it's a "101" generalization about LEDs, not your product specifically -- even though the headline on that page says "WHAT SETS
US APART."
The bottom line is that, if you're using XB-D diodes, I sincerely doubt you're getting more (let alone anything approaching "double") luminance of the best COBs. Datasheets may be merely theoretical, but they're comparable. Are you saying the XB-D datasheet lies less than CXA datasheet?
It's that context which has some of us concerned the consumers you come in contact with will come away less informed.
IMO, this could be resolved pretty quickly with a PAR grid chart. Comparing reflector to non-reflector shouldn't matter. The sum of measurable umoles for either should be comparable. I.e., reflected light from your light will be less intense than if it was unreflected. While unreflected COBs (consuming the same watts) will suffer from more diffuse light traveling further (inverse square law).
The design choice of more concentrated narrow beam from a greater distance should be just as much a performance criteria as diffused light from more and nearer sources. If you get more umoles cast on a smaller footprint (or reduced umules because of your high-bay height compromise) that should be directly comparable to GG's compromises to have light sources closer and casting wider angles.
You keep saying you've demonstrated things on video, but that always seems to be one off-hand measurement which seems to be "outcome oriented" (worst case to best case comparison). For example, your "What's Different About Our Light?" you have an unreflected LED at 24" compared to your reflected LED at 24", claiming a *huge* difference in power. A single reading obscuring footprint, obscuring how the unreflected LED is intended to be at 8-10" from the canopy. Obscuring how, by definition, an unreflected array of LEDs mounted in 1.5 sq ft will cover more space than a COB-like concentration of LEDs in a 4" space and bounded by a reflector.
This is the stuff which makes us skeptical (and concerned for consumers will be more or less informed after coming in contact with you). If you have LM79 data showing performance, post it. If your waiting for that, then GG is correct: you haven't posted anything that can be considered demonstrative of your claims. To me, almost everything you've posted is contradictory. COBs are bad because you can't "cram" a bunch of power into a small space -- and then you proceed to cram
far more power into a
smaller space. Individual diodes are supposed to *double* performance of COBs, and then you use XB-D diodes which are certainly far from that performance, and probably less than the best COBs. Datasheets aren't honest -- then you use press releases from Cree's PR department to prove a point.
Whenever we point these things out, your response is that we're twisting your words.
Let's just stick to observable measurements. Why don't you and GG agree upon the criteria to make a PAR grid of your respective lights? What would be fair to each (the sweet spot of intensity and useable coverage?) *and* comparable through extrapolation (the sum of umoles? averaging umoles?).
Independent lab info may be useful. But, it won't be easily comparable to the DIY fixtures, will it? Maybe someone would be willing to send a DIY fixture for independent testing. But, seems like two PAR grid charts would be much closer to the context under discussion?
. Someone put a seed into a pot and lets see what it can do. No discussion necessary. Sheeze 
