Electrician Talk banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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!
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
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.
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
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.
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
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.
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
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".
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
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.
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Then I guess every recognizable landmark in the US & across the world is in for a rude awakening...even the Hoover Dam which Rab just upgraded.
Light emitting architectural decorations are not general purpose lighting.

You can dog on LED's all you want, they're here to stay for the long run.

There is a reason you see manufacturers backing their products with 5-10 year warranties. They know "if" by the time those LED's happen to burn out before warranty technology will be 1,000 times advanced by then & production costs come down so much where they don't lose a dime giving you new fixtures.

New fixtures every 5 years? Sounds like a deal to me.
"burn out" is obviously bad, but not including other conditions is a failure in specification requirement writing. Guarantee is only as good as the guarantor. Replacing a fixture is much more involved than a ballast replacement. Who's going to cover the cost of labor?

How do you know that (insert name LED brand) is going to be around to walk the talk 9 years later like Osram Sylvania, Advance-Philips and GE?

Fluorescent lamps are parts only, but ballasts generally include parts + limited labor(pre-approved or customary rate)

Can't get that with florescent or metal halide. Most I've seen is 3 years tops. Majority being 1 year or less.

Embrace it or fall by the wayside.
That's just incorrect.
 

·
Light Emitting Decoration
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Its the cost of doing big business & progression of a new technology we don't fully understand yet. The lower energy costs, rebates, & tax incentives
Who do you think funds municipal spending, the war department and such?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top