FT-NIR market potential Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

NIR Discussion Forum » Bruce Campbell's List » I need help » FT-NIR market potential « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Mark (hlmark)
Senior Member
Username: hlmark

Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 9:08 am:   

Urs - Tony mentioned one of the points I was going to make, that there are already instruments on the market that cover the range you mention, although, as he said, at a considerably higher price.

Partly, that comes from the fact that a "solution" has to include both software and calibrations, both of which can be correspondingly costly to develop as the hardware. Currently, many small instrument manufacturers develop only the minimum software needed to operate their instrument and save the data in a compatible format, then use one of the available third-party software packages to do the calibration calculations, etc.; this allows them to concentrate their efforts and resources on their "core competencies" (as its called), while not reinventing some complicated wheels.

Tony's suggestion of a joint venture with an existing manufacturer isn't a bad one from your point of view, but you'll have to think of a way to make it beneficial to the manufacturer. Having been on both sides of the fence, I can testify that there's a lot of "NIH" (Not Invented Here) syndrome to overcome. In addition, it's not likely that calibrations developed on the manufacturer's instruments will be easily transferable to yours, so one of the potential benefits that you hope to gain may never be realized.

As for the software, if you use the MVACDF or other open source software, then you will in any case have to abide by their license agreement. There are other public-domain data formats that are supported by virtually all spectrometer manufacturers and third-party software vendors; the most prominent of these is JCAMP-DX, the specifications for which have been published in Applied Spectroscopy, and which is currently under the aegis of IUPAC. If you use that as your data format, you can write your own code and not have to worry about the security or legal issues.

If you send me your e-mail address (mine is [email protected]) I also have some other ideas that you might want to consider.

Howard

\o/
/_\
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony Ainscough (tony_ainscough)
Junior Member
Username: tony_ainscough

Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 8:34 am:   

Hello Urs,

The advent of MEMS (micro eletro-mechanical sytems) made such devices possible some time ago. The target cost you talk about has to be based upon an estimated production quantity I guess. To reach such a target cost would require significant volume sales. This would involve massive financial investment and high risk.
The advantages of covering the visible range as well as the Near infra red is not that great. Most of the major application areas for NIR, Food and Feed/Pharma/Chemical have no requirement for visible information although in a few cases it can be useful. Existing NIR equipment that can cover the extended range you speak of does exist of course but you could expect to pay in excess of $100K for it. In my opinion this type of device would do well in process applications. It would be easy to house, use little power and generate minimal heat. They could be bolted to process equipment directly which would make the instrument/sample interface much less complicated.
This is were the real problems would begin though!! Several of todays NIR spectrometers are sold as out of the box solutions. In many cases end users only have to switch the equipment on select an application present the sample and press the run button and out come the predictions. The development of calibrations for such a device is typically were a great investment will be required (time and money). One possibility may be to get backing from one of the NIR instrument vendors. This maybe the only way forward for such a project. The instrument vendors have amassed data and calibrations for many different applications. With some of the very clever calibration transfer programs available this maybe the solution to that particular problem.
I wish you well and look forward to any future development.

regards

Tony
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Urs Wittwer (uersel222)
New member
Username: uersel222

Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2009
Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 7:24 am:   

Dear Michel and Karl,
I thank you very much for your inputs and thoughts. Since I got adviced by someone someone's concern I will be very cautious when it comes to commercial aspects. There is a thin line between commercialise a product and promote a product - but there still is - I don't know how I should promote a product where neither a name nor the company behind is known...someone seems to be threatened by those specifications and prices....

But anyway - I'd like to refer to your remarks and hope to take it a little bit further.

Karl - you mentioned that the full specifications would be needed to make an evaluation. Let's presume the full specifications are at least the same like the devices in the regions of 400 - 1000nm and the other instruments in the region of 1000nm - 2500nm. Just by difference, that all signals could be measured in one single device. Wouldn't it make it faster, more reliable and of course cheaper because of just one calibration in one instruments compared to two instruments (near visible and near IR)? And second thought - because of the fundamental, overtone and combination bands discussed by Charles Miller and colleagues some days ago, wouldn't there be gathered more information because the symmetry properties of an overtone do not necesserily match those of the corresponding fundamental for any kind of simultaneous vibrations like C=O or C-N or N-H bonds? In just one instrument and for specific applications (processes) where different bands of the same functional groups are detected in the lower (600-800) and higher (2000-2500nm)spectra - there should an advantage in just one instrument able to perform an analysis over the whole range. What I wonder is, if there are specific market applications, where at the moment have to be done two different measurements in two different instruments to cover a whole process analysis. A single instrument must be an advantage in certain applications. Not just for price reasons.

Thank you Michel for your inputs. I agree it is important to offer a solution not just an instrument. But first you have to realize, what are the markets and analysis as well as applications for your kind of instrument and technology. And of course nobody would like to struggle against the big boys and is better of to find a niche market - either in an existing field or in a new segment. That's why I bring up those technical issues related with application needs. I think this is exactly what this forum is designed for - not just to discuss theoretical aspects of possible physical events but also to put it in relation to practical needs.

The software side is of course decisive. It's good to know that a binary data format compatible with everything for free would be of interest. A open source application could be quite interesting... How would you keep some security and property rights in your own hands?

Hope for some further participation! XUrs
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michel Coene (michel)
Senior Member
Username: michel

Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2002
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 5:47 pm:   

Also how are you going to market it? Every Pittcon there are several suppliers with some kind of instrument, but people tend to buy a solution, not an instrument. If you sell it as an all purpose lab-analyser, you are going up against some big boys with years of experience and a huge customer base. It might be smarter to find a niche where your instrument excels, build up experience and sell worldwide to that specific industry. Karl made some good points about the optics, but software and sample presentation will also come into play. Selling in the Pharma industry requires some serious investment in CFR part 11 software, and even more in regulatory paperwork.
Oh, and if you are still working on the software: do the world a pleasure and save us from yet another homemade dataformat. Google "MVACDF" and get a binary dataformat with rock-solid drivers and dataviewers, compatible with everything from Matlab to Unscrambler, completely for free!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Karl Norris (knnirs)
New member
Username: knnirs

Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2009
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 3:32 pm:   

The advantage of the broad range is that the user can measure changes in that region for useful purposes. However there are many spectrometers for the 400-1000nm region. The disadvantage is that the user may be collecting and storing spectral regions of no value.
If you can provide an instrument with matching specifications at one-fifth the cost, every user will buy the low-cost instrument.
The full specifications are needed to make an evaluation. Important parameters are signal to noise. spectral resolution, reproducibility, environmental sensitivity, and instrument matching.
good luck,
Karl
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Urs Wittwer (uersel222)
New member
Username: uersel222

Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2009
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 7:43 am:   

Dear members, I want to challenge you by some questions referring to the market potential and
some technical aspects when it comes to a new and exciting FT-NIR device.

1. Device specifics: FT-NIR, size: 150mm x 100mm x 50 mm. Range covered: 400nm - 2800nm., wavelength accuracy: <0.5nm, speed comparable to existing devices, target cost range: $3000 - $5000.

2. Because of the broad range covered, are there any advantages/disadvantages compared to excisting devices to anticipate?

3. Market potential and applications: How do you think the market would react to a device like this (existing devices covering range of 1200nm - 2500nm and priced by $15k - $25k. What kind of application would be favourable for this kind of device?

4. Would there be a market segment which could be subtituted by this kind of device? What market region would be considered as high potential?

Thank you very much for your thoughts in advance. Best regards Urs

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.