# Questionable LED application. This deserves a grievance with contract administration



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

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


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

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 (Jan 18, 2009)

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 (Mar 22, 2011)

It seems the entire market orbits ROI....

~CS~


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

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 (Apr 6, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.




jrannis said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> ....
> 
> 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 (Nov 18, 2012)

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 (Jan 18, 2009)

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 (Apr 6, 2010)

wildleg said:


> 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.



jrannis said:


> 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 (Jan 18, 2009)

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


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

jrannis said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2013)

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 (Jan 18, 2009)

MTW said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2013)

jrannis said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2010)

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 (Mar 22, 2011)

*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 (Sep 27, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2010)

wendon said:


> 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. 



wendon said:


> 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.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


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


I installed LED trims in a home office and it worked great! Probably helps it you use the correct light for the job. Same thing goes for fluorescents. It's important to install the correct CRI bulbs for the application. Can I get written guarantee that those bulbs will last 90,000 hours??? Show me a CFL that will last as long as the package tells you. Show me a HO that will keep track of the operating hours of a CFL lamp and return it for replacement.


----------



## Texas_LED_Guru (Mar 1, 2013)

MTW said:


> 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.


We've had our LED stop lights running 24/7/365 for at least 10 years & they're just now starting to lose diodes.

Keep in mind I live in Texas where surface temperatures on those stop lights can fry an egg in under under a minute in July & August.

They won't use them up north because there isn't enough wasted energy produced by the LED's to melt snow.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Texas_LED_Guru said:


> We've had our LED stop lights running 24/7/365 for at least 10 years & they're just now starting to lose diodes.
> 
> Keep in mind I live in Texas where surface temperatures on those stop lights can fry an egg in under under a minute in July & August.
> 
> They won't use them up north because there isn't enough wasted energy produced by the LED's to melt snow.


The majority of high power LED's (the kind used in commercial lighting being pushed now) will be dead long before the 10 year mark.


----------



## Texas_LED_Guru (Mar 1, 2013)

MTW said:


> The majority of high power LED's (the kind used in commercial lighting being pushed now) will be dead long before the 10 year mark.


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.

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.

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.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Texas_LED_Guru said:


> Then I guess every recognizable major landmark in the US & across the world is in for a rude awakening...even the Hoover Dam which Rab just upgraded.


No doubt, many property owners and managers will be incurring big maintenance costs to repair and replace failed drivers and LED modules.


----------



## Texas_LED_Guru (Mar 1, 2013)

MTW said:


> No doubt, many property owners and managers will be incurring big maintenance costs to repair and replace failed drivers and LED modules.


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 now days are greater than the cost of the fixtures & maintenance its almost laughable not to go LED from what I understand.

In the meantime I guess you can keep polluting our air, water, & soil with spent HID bulbs & florescent tubes, unless, of course you are among the 1% who recycles them.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Texas_LED_Guru said:


> 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. 



Texas_LED_Guru said:


> 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) 



Texas_LED_Guru said:


> 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.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Texas_LED_Guru said:


> 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?


----------

