Here is the article and below are my adjustments to this from our planned permanent perspective. csemag/single-article/top-five-questions-to-ask-when-specifying-leds/308af3197e7a4dc0d6a0857794ce0520.html A rebuttal to Mark Hand, vice president of engineering - indoor for Acuity Brands Lighting. He has been entrenched for 9 years in the lighting industry in the research, conceptualization, development, and commercialization of LED luminaires. By Tim Gravert Entrenched for more years in all that stuff, but in another type of LED we call ActiveLED 1. Does the value outweigh the cost? Short answer: Yes. I agree, but want to point out that the word, ”Value”, has many levels to consider when it comes to solid-state. An LED lighting solution, when properly applied, can achieve better illumination for everyday living by delivering superior performance and significant energy savings. However, the perception of better illumination is that it comes at a high cost. While some LEDs are more costly, there is typically a reason. Long lifetimes, high color rendering index (CRI), tight binning, extreme ambients, lots of control, and serviceability are often the reasons for elevated prices. This assumption is made based upon how they do it and have done things for the past 100 years. Man made light has always been a consumable based business model and is where, “planned obsolesces” actually comes from. REF: youtube/watch?v=vfbbF3oxf-E After you watch this well-known documentary, they all hate for you to watch you need to consider their point of view before you take their assumptions as the suggestion to take. Their bias has created a consumable version of the LED that fits how they want the LED work. Our ActiveLEDs have been designed simply because we knew they, “The mainstream” would never make what is possible. To do so would be a decision to become a company like us. The important point about these features is that engineers can choose what types of opportunities LED lighting provides. Since LEDs typically cost more than luminaires with traditional sources, customers often expect a longer life, better color quality, better distribution, reduced energy usage, and more control. And this is where the rubber hits the road, Expectations. What we are always expecting is never what we can ever get from the lighting industry as it is currently defined. We are going to get into the lifetime as the next step, but let me plant a seed here that affects that directly and applies their assumptions to this. This snap shot is from a customer of ours in Canada that bought Cree fixtures as you can see. They were promised a light loss warranty of 50,000hours which they asked Cree for because of our own 90,000 hour no light loss warranty. Read the notes and you see the strings the bigger companies making these systems in china all have attached to their warranty and lifetime claims. 2. What is a reasonable lifetime? The lifetime of LED luminaires matters greatly to end users because LEDs offer unprecedented levels of energy efficiency and have an exceptional lifetime. But what exactly is considered a reasonable lifetime, given that published lifetimes are frequently exaggerated? Frequently is an understatement. We can say with confidence that the lighting companies and their IESNA sustaining members testing methods, over estimates lifetime, always, every time, and all the time. Just look a the CFL curly cue blubs we have been forced feed and you will see 7 to 10 years right on the package. Have any of you ever had one of those making that grade? Look at the new LEDs and this gets exaggerated even more. Why do we let them lie to us and continue to let them get away with it? One might say we are just well trained consumers. Have any of you ever heard about the 5 monkeys training program? Well we all have fallen victim to this concept and most of us have never known. Here is a fun diagram to explain how the concept is working. Lifetimes are often inflated because LEDs are assembled in fixtures and are subject to many adverse conditions. These conditions include but are not limited to a wide range of ambient temperatures, drive current variations (i.e. inrush, surge, dimming), being turned on and off several times a day, thermal shock, and a variety of vibrations. On this point we can agree. Everything after we find the compromise. With that said, quality LED products can last 25 times longer than incandescent products and use 75% less energy. A quality lifetime for LED lighting is based on the application. For example, for applications where lighting is on for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is likely that 50,000 to 60,000 hours would be a reasonable lifetime. Understanding the laws of physics will unlock this potential the author here is talking about. What he does not understand is that by the way our mainstream as applied the means of testing make all of these assumption impossible. The others including us are rendered blind by the test methods we are all forcefully asked to look at things. Our product is only better because we know better to look deeper than anyone else is looking in the LED industry. If you want the expectation you have to do thing in a very specific way. These ways are so specific we have patents upon our process and method from the driver to the way the fixtures are designed. We are 2 to 3 times cooler than all other LED light makers in the world exactly where it counts. 3. How important is a high CRI? It’s important, but before we let the expert talk about CRI, we need to point out that this test all along has had major flaws that bring its own accuracy into question. This problem was resolved by the NIST, and this resolution was even endorsed by Dr. James Brodrick, lighting program manager for the U.S. Department of Energy. Have any of you ever heard about the CQS test? A quote from the NIST,” The CRI has a number of problems, particularly when applied to LEDs or when used as an indicator of color quality. The uniform color space used to calculate color difference is outdated and no longer recommended for use.” If anyone is interested in seeing these documents, please contact me directly at tgravert@ringdale and I will send them your way and you can draw your own conclusions. CRI is a measure of a light sources ability to show object colors. But when specifying LED luminaires, just how important is specifying a high CRI? Not all applications have a high CRI for existing lighting, and even if applications do have a high CRI that does not mean it is needed when replacing lighting with LEDs. A lower CRI often means a higher lumen per watt (Lm/W). It all comes down to considering price requirements. A higher Lm/W provides a lower cost. The lower cost is affiliated with fewer LEDs, less energy used, and better total cost of ownership. While a decent price for LEDs with a high CRI is not unheard of, lower CRI readings typically provide a better cost for projects. Engineers should specify only what they need and not what used to exist for the CRI. Additionally, high Lm/W does not guarantee quality illumination. The argument here from our perspective, is going to go deeper in order to get to those raised expectations again. I think, the industry out of necessity has us all on the chase for more and more lumens per watt to get the LED they want and need to sustain their business model in the market’s main demand. They want high lumen organic consumable LEDs that fit back into the old incandescent timelines. This is why I argue the main reason they need this is because they all have always had light loss factored Lights. If you are selling the same problem which is that you start out bright on day one, with a ticking loss right out of the gate, you need to have the same characteristics no matter what technology you are selling. In this articles case, they are giving the engineer leeway, and I think we can argue this is necessary because we all should be using the CQS test developed by the NIST instead of the CRI, but they made this broken and well accepted flaw in testing standards acceptable again. Again, we come back to the five monkeys. If you pin the IESNA experts down as to why they even bucked a fellow college, James’s recommendation to keep the CRI, they will say, it is because that’s what we have always done. In my opinion, that is never a good reason. 4. What does the project really need? When specifying a new project, a number of factors must be considered to align the lighting solution with the project’s needs. For example, when considering ways to mitigate prices of LED lighting, consider how important energy savings is versus a high Lm/W. While both options are available and can exist in one fixture, the end user may not need both. Also, prioritize the need for extreme ambients. Projects seldom need extreme ambients unless the temperatures are dramatically hot or cold. Having extreme ambients could provide additional costs for specialized components as higher ratings require more thermal control. Ambients? Did they just make up a new word? The reference here is heat and the heat they are refereeing is the ambient air temps you are planning on running your new LEDs in. To ask this question implies that they have not planned for reality and as absurd as that may sound, that is the truth. Most engineers specifying light don’t understand how easy the LED testing really is. The warmest air we are even allowed to test in is 25c or 77f, but most of the long lifetime rating the others post on their packages are based upon test ran in air 5c or 41f. The reason why this is so important is because the manufacturers which the ones in control of these test are all IESNA sustaining member are all planning on running their engineered LEDs in a refrigerator or freezer. We are the only LED manufacturer in the world that has planned for you to run our systems in the cold side -60c and on the hot side to +60c or 140f environments. We have literally planned for a worse case situation that you can’t possible encounter. Because each application is different, make sure each application is specified individually instead of just measuring to equivalent projects. There is typically more than one option for Lm/W to meet required specs, so consider the options and select the one that is best for the application. The conclusion here is if you need to ask about “ambient” than you need to reconsider who is making the LEDs your engineer has decided to specify for you. If you don’t think about this then you are going to get an LED that will fail and well before their published lifetime rating. 5. Does more control mean more money? Initially, the use of controls with LED luminaires does mean an additional cost. However, simple controls can pay for themselves very quickly and, throughout time, produce a dramatic return on investment. The initial increase in energy savings provides a quick financial return on investing in LED luminaires with controls. Then, over time, those same controls allow LED luminaires to have even longer life, which saves money that would have been spent replacing traditional luminaires. LEDs are critical, as are controls. Pairing LED lighting with controls allows luminaires to perform at their highest ability. Dimming LED luminaires does not damage them, and turning the luminaire on and off does not affect their life. Therefore, LED lighting integrated with controls is a simple solution to save additional energy and to create a convenient user experience. From the cost to the opportunity to pair LED lighting with controls, there are a wide range of choices for engineers to consider when specifying lighting. The right solution for the application can deliver energy and maintenance savings, and enhance the quality of light. On this point I can only agree. Controls need to be simple and self sustaining. The bigger companies are creating control methods that render the entire point of being maintenance free and any energy saving you find moot. They become moot because these complex control methods come with their own maintenance issues and new maintenance contracts. Don’t believe me; just ask yourself why you are paying for an IT guy to be on your staff. It’s because digital control protocols require daily attention, or they get way out of control. This rebuttal was provided to you by your humble G2 and ActiveLED expert. TWillyG2 on Twitter or tim @g2led Tim Gravert 970-690-7568
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:28:37 +0000