heard back when that the tetrapod qd prevented aggregation, of course lava dots also had benefits, then there's the benefits from the giant qds.......
Yes, back in the day, one of the scientests mentioned the superiority of the TQDs at that time.
.....of course CdSe TQDs were to be the flagship product at that time too, (if I rem correctly).
Is there anything that disproves that opinion?
Yes, some companies have contracts, but does that prove or disprove anything,....other than being considered good enough
for current perception of need(s).
Considering that tqds were discovered using ingredient(s) used in some shampoos, do you know of one that would be more environmentally friendly? Could it be considered a superior product in that respect?
Do you know of any other company that can produce qds in mass production with a higher heat tolerance, that has equal or better oxidation and moisture resistance? If not, could QDX tm be considered a superior product, (until proven otherwise)? Didn't Nanoco imply that their cfqd red qds were better for grow lights? Are you upset with them or just peeps that have an opinion that QMC's qds are superior?
It seems some have an opinion that tqds are in fact superior, (while others are being sarcastic). So which are you upset with, the peep(s) that believe in their opinion or the peep(s) that are being sarcastic?
It seems given the speculative nature of buying into any stock that one would start with a positive bias. Some have maintained that bias, while others are frustrated that things haven't happened the way they wanted or expected sooner. I've always maintained that: "it takes the time it takes".
Time will tell the rest of the story.
