[Electric_Light]

For having sloppy specification requirements that allow functionally unacceptable lighting results to slip through.

High quality lighting:
A privately owned facility using F54T5HO high quality semi-indirect FLUORESCENT system.

A recent Public Works installation of energy saving, "LEDs are so great, because they're directional" but resulted in what I consider as unacceptable outcome Who thought it would be a good idea to install special effects lights in an office space, funded by public monies?

You might fool a poor set of performance evaluation criteria, but the fitness of application is quite objectionable.

No, there is no camera or object blurring. It's a lighting flaw.
Highly directional, mulihead, multi-faceted shadow producing lights of the "LED" type.

Three images of pencil aren't enough!

The shadows just ain't sharp enough!

 

[Southeast Power]

I see what you mean.
The first one looks dark. The second two pictures look like they have better contrast.

 

[chicken steve]

Interesting Light dude....

I've been asked to bid on a school retro by a larger New England energy efficiency company, 650 LED drop ins.

Inasmuch as THEY sell the product, and simply want a licensed installer , it sounds prudent to contract out of any functionality grievances

~C(not proud when hungry)S~

 

[Southeast Power]

If they are two lamp fixtures, they are using about 110 watts
I would assume the LED retrofit would be under 40 watts.
Almost irresistible to a bean counter.

 

[chicken steve]

It seems the entire market orbits ROI....

~CS~

 

[Southeast Power]

It's a rare time in history where we can install high dollar consumable items and then get to do it all over in 5 years or so.
It is going to hit us not having those slow dying ballast and lamp changes though.

 

[Electric_Light]

Interesting Light dude....

I've been asked to bid on a school retro by a larger New England energy efficiency company, 650 LED drop ins.

Inasmuch as THEY sell the product, and simply want a licensed installer , it sounds prudent to contract out of any functionality grievances

~C(not proud when hungry)S~

It's disconcerting that a serious functionality issue like this slips through due to vagueness in the spec reqs like "comparable" and "equivalent".

4+4+4 =12
6+2+4 = 12
"average" fc of "4" is satisfied either way and lack of specificity means that it leaves way too much room for vendors to make argument of equivalency using numbers, but failing to satisfy functional needs.

Light meter sees it like how you see behind a snow covered windshield. It doesn't recognize glare, uniformity issues, etc in the way that affects real life use. Sharp edged shadows appearing on the work surface is not good.

If they are two lamp fixtures, they are using about 110 watts
I would assume the LED retrofit would be under 40 watts.
Almost irresistible to a bean counter.

Before and after pictures are not good for "light level" comparison, because the automatic exposure re-adjusts, but well documented absence of shadows prior to downgrade and after downgrade and a well articulated presentation can go a long way in challenging claims of equivalency that while watts were reduced, it did so at the cost of cutting corners.

 

[wildleg]

....

Before and after pictures are not good for "light level" comparison, because the automatic exposure re-adjusts, but well documented absence of shadows prior to downgrade and after downgrade and a well articulated presentation can go a long way in challenging claims of equivalency that while watts were reduced, it did so at the cost of cutting corners.

I don't believe that automatic anything would be wise when trying to compare photos. you need reliable calibrated results. probably should have taken a full bracketed set at a set white degree with a set exposure and set iso at a set distance etc so you could compare apples to apples, otherwise the photos are useless.

 

[daveEM]

I feel for ya Electric_Light. You are just beating the sh!t out of a very dead horse.

It's money. That's why Edmonton can light up a 750 meter bridge with 60,000 LEDs and not be to concerned about operating costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tq1if7ANpw

Same with Stadiums around the free world.

In Super Bowl first, host stadium will be illuminated by LED lighting...
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/in-super-bowl-first-host-stadium-will-be-illuminated-by-led

The LEDs consume a mere 310,000 watts compared to the energy-guzzling 1.24 million watts required by the previous lighting system. In total, the University of Phoenix Stadium, home to the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, will enjoy a 75 percent reduction in lighting energy consumption. And because they don't emit heat as their predecessors did, the LEDs will help lower the stadium's reliance on air conditioning.

Embrace the new stuff my boy else you will go crazy.

 

[Southeast Power]

Decorations, the tube sales guy calls them decorations.
No one believes they would try to light up a nighttime Super Bowl with novelty style decorative lighting

 

[Electric_Light]

I don't believe that automatic anything would be wise when trying to compare photos. you need reliable calibrated results. probably should have taken a full bracketed set at a set white degree with a set exposure and set iso at a set distance etc so you could compare apples to apples, otherwise the photos are useless.

I am not using pictures to quantify lighting level here. I am using them to as a visual aid in showing the problem of unacceptable shadows that affects the ability to comfortably perform tasks the lighting is intended to assist. I strongly suspect that this was not taken into consideration at the planning phase.

At this point, I am not sure how to quantify the shadow casting issues, however, a specific requirement that stipulates something shadow projection would remove the one of the most lucrative trick from the Energy Retrofit Sales service which is to maintain the same surface foot candle level with substantially lower wattage by using a highly focused spotlight when it is not appropriate.

A picture amplifies words when applied correctly. It's not automatically worth a thousand words.

Decorations, the tube sales guy calls them decorations.
No one believes they would try to light up a nighttime Super Bowl with novelty style decorative lighting

There was a car with illuminated grille. A fluorescent lamp would work well in such an application and I would call it decorative in that application. Fluorescent tubes would be useless for car headlights. Using a flashlight like LED to raise the work surface FC to credit LEDs is a sales tactic.

And because they don't emit heat as their predecessors did, the LEDs will help lower the stadium's reliance on air conditioning.

This had to have been written by a reporter or a public relations person.

 

[Southeast Power]

On the flip side is using 3X the energy necessary to illuminate a work space and basing that unnecessary cost chasing shadows.

 

[Electric_Light]

On the flip side is using 3X the energy necessary to illuminate a work space and basing that unnecessary cost chasing shadows.

If shadows weren't a concern, they wouldn't have used semi-indirect fixtures in the first place.

If you're strictly talking about work surface foot candle, you could do better with a halogen. You know, like the personal spot lights they have in airplanes.

 

[MTW]

I'll be laughing at all of you pro-LED guys a few years from now when they have dwindled to 60-70% of their initial lumen output.

 

[Southeast Power]

I'll be laughing at all of you pro-LED guys a few years from now when they have dwindled to 60-70% of their initial lumen output.

The same as any discharge lighting but at a fraction of the operating cost.

 

[MTW]

The same as any discharge lighting but at a fraction of the operating cost.

Yeah except when it happens with discharge lighting, you just change the lamp.

 

[Electric_Light]

When LEDs are used where the general public is affected and they're purchased with public monies, anyone is allowed to present their argument that they fail to meet "equivalent" and "comparable" required in specifications, but if they included the shadow concerns in the list of criteria relevant to end users, this likely wouldn't have happened. If it did, you wouldn't need to come up with the very thorough opposing argument that you would need to challenge something that can be so broadly interpreted as "equivalent" and "comparable".

 

[chicken steve]

Pun Intended......

Methinks one does not need to be in this trade long to realize the functionality is not apples/apples.

And that this is overshadowed by bean counters .....

~CS~

 

[wendon]

Methinks one does not need to be in this trade long to realize the functionality is not apples/apples.

And that this is overshadowed by bean counters .....

~CS~

The same thing could be said for wind turbines. Not a cheap source of energy but it's "green". LED's are continuously improving compared to what they used to be and the price is coming down. I don't see that happening much with fluorescent technology. I've used a lot of LED's in residential and love the results. It does make a difference on the color you use. Don't rely on pictures and specs etc. It's best to try it for yourself and see what works the best.

 

[Electric_Light]

The same thing could be said for wind turbines. Not a cheap source of energy but it's "green".

Let's suppose that it maintains nominal +/- 5% range voltage, but it jumps around abruptly. If the specifications didn't require flicker or change in voltage over time, it would be "within specs" even though it's realistically unacceptable.

LED's are continuously improving compared to what they used to be and the price is coming down. I don't see that happening much with fluorescent technology. I've used a lot of LED's in residential and love the results. It does make a difference on the color you use. Don't rely on pictures and specs etc. It's best to try it for yourself and see what works the best.

Most LEDs are *fluorescent technology* and phosphor decay is a major part of their degradation.

If you're talking about traditional gas discharge fluorescent lamps, I can confidently say that they have made major improvements in the past few years, such as 90,000 hr (12 hr per start) rated 32W T8 with lumen maintenance performance generally surpassing most LEDs.

You're referring to "for household use only" grade blender like LED apparatus rated on the L70 scale with degradation allowance that far exceeds 32W T8.

What we're talking about here is how lighting that should only be suitable for a gas station was applied in an office lighting.