Archive for the ‘General SSL Commentary’ Category

There is a great deal of marketing noise professing the use of CCT white light tuning to enhance circadian function in work environments. The real question is whether this approach actually has any real-world effect on human response to light in the spaces it is being applied to.

Theoretically, the proposition is that by changing the CCT of light, one can affect circadian reaction – specifically increase or decrease melatonin suppression. The proponents of CCT tuning profess that, with no consideration of illuminance levels, cooler CCT’s will produce greater melatonin suppression, resulting in a more wakeful state, while warmer CCT’s will produce significantly less melatonin suppression, creating a more restful state that does not disrupt sleep cycles. The assumption is that illuminance levels required for proper task performance can be maintained, relying solely on a CCT change alone to impart the desired “Human Centric” benefit.

To test this, I created a test box that houses 5 different high CRI LEDs, with a dimmer. The CCT’s I chose are the popular 2700, 3000, 3500, 4000, and 5000K. All had >88CRI and >90Rf/94Rg (using TM30). The first test was to set illuminance at 50Fc, and measure the difference in Circadian Stimulus (RPI/LRC method), and Melanopic Lux (Well Buildings Standard). (more…)

Before we get into this topic, let’s remember that history is filled to overflowing with cries of lighting technology destroying human health. When the incandescent lamp emerged, the gas light industry flooded the market with baloney about its harmful effects (including claims that electric lights caused women to get the vapors), in support of the healthful glow of gas lighting (gag). Fluorescent and HID technologies have been under attack from their very first introduction. It’s quite funny to see now the defense of HPS by LED detractors, as it has been the target for criticism for decades. My advise for the apoplectic LED detractors… take a very deep breath and get over it. Every light source carries with it a compromise, including daylight, with undesirable effects we must do our best to mitigate. I suggest to anyone interested in the processes of new lighting technology: An interesting read on the 60 years it took to get lighting off the gas. That said… (more…)

The Mythical Imagery of an Irrelevant and Laggardly Lighting Designer Singularity

The scuttlebutt among select vocal SSL technologists and aggressive LED lighting marketeers derides the “Lighting Design” community as a singularity, and a lot of plonkers, that know nothing about technology, who are so focused on lighting surfaces they ignore the needs of human occupants. Some go as far as accusing Lighting Professionals of gross negligence and malpractice. A few others proffer a theory that conventional lamp manufacturers and their simple technology have propped designers up – that the emergence of LED has exposed them as technical posers, who know nothing of photo-metrics, glare, and visual comfort. Others point to statistics showing “Lighting Designers” are involved in just 5-10% of product decisions to prove them irrelevant. To these antagonists, it must seem a mystery how Lighting Designers have escaped exposure for so many years. (more…)

Bridgelux has announced the End of Life for the BXRA product. This is the product that put this company on the map, and has been very popular. The company is now hawking its me-too product platforms, along with its proprietary Vero product. I for one will never again consider a proprietary platform from Bridgelux. I am also sure they will experience a significant number of defections as customers find their way resolving the disruption the end of the BXRA platform will cause. I know this, as I intend to help every customer of mine, and anyone else interested, to find a path to other provider products.


While the proponents of LED technology in the US market have felt safe under the House Bill HR6 (see prior discussion – the supposed incandescent lamp ban) since 2007, much of the power of the federal government to enforce the law has been stripped. This month was yet another blow to the cause, with the latest budget compromise for 2015 “Cromnibus” continuing a ban of more critical import: The continued ban on federal funding for enforcement of the efficiency standards set out in HR6. A summary of the latest inclusions in the budget bill can be found at Reuters. The relevant summation is as follows:

It also prohibits funding of the Energy Department’s enforcement of controversial light bulb efficiency standards, which ban higher-wattage incandescent bulbs.

Other summaries can be found elsewhere, like the Washington Post:

The bill once again prohibits new standards that would ban the use of cheaper, less energy-efficient incandescent bulbs. The proposal was first introduced and set in motion by the Bush administration, but the Obama White House allowed the change to continue, despite sustained consumer demand for older bulbs.

… and the National Priorities Project:

Energy & Environment
  • Continues a trend of declining funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, which will lead to the lowest staffing levels at the agency since 1989.
  • Prohibits the use of funds to require manufacturers to phase out production of incandescent light bulbs.
  • Prohibits President Obama’s requested increase in funding for renewable energy research.
  • Prohibits funding for the Green Climate Fund, an international effort to address climate change.
  • Increases funding for nuclear energy programs, especially research.
  • Increases funding for fossil energy research and development.

Note that when it comes to energy, the Federal Government is not a progressive body in any form of the word or concept.

What’s my point? Simple… When one depends on a Federal action to ram through change, or to back ones project, marketing scheme or pipe dream, one must be aware that, when it comes to energy policies, the Federal Government has a bad habit of reversing itself, or saying one thing and doing the opposite with a straight face. My arguments against prioritizing SSL deployment on a massive effort into the headlong rush to retrofit incandescent sockets, founded primarily on the advertised claim that the incandescent lamp was being outlawed, were not laggardly, they were realistic and pragmatic. Consumers are not buying the energy efficiency saving money story (they spend more on smart phone service each week than electrical energy costs over a month),  they don’t get $9.00 light bulbs that look goofy, they are extremely resistant when feeling forced to change by a government they distrust – while the laws attempting to cut incandescent lamp use are essentially just words on paper, with zero backing to enforce.

For this reason, we come back once again to the need – no mandate – that for SSL to succeed, it must stand on its own two feet, it must deliver new value, and it must deliver as promised. I covered this in the post about quality being critical to success in Without Quality – LED Retroifts Will Fail . I also covered the HR6 issue and it not being the free ride at its core. I have also shared my view on retrofit lamps to the point of being a bore on this topic.

So, how do we deploy a technology many of us know is the future? the first step is to ween the entire industry from its ties to any federal mandates or programs. If you have to rely on a government to ram your products down customers throats, your product is garbage, and will never be accepted beyond compliance with a law. This is not how you build a revolution in any market. Lighting being a low enough priority on the general populace, all that being achieved in the current trend of marketing for solid-state lighting is impressing upon customers who know little of the real potential of lighting in their lives is this:

  • Lighting sucks energy from the power grid – which is bad. We must stop this parasitic draw on our national resources before it destroys the environment.
  • The incandescent lamp you love for its light and low-cost is the enemy and is being taken away from you by law, since you are too stupid to choose better for yourself.
  • While replacements to incandescent lamps are expensive by a factor of 9, produce poorer light quality, are strange-looking, don’t fit into your fixtures, don’t dim when you want them to, and flicker… you’re just going to have to live with it, because they are the future.

While commercial customers must live with energy code demands causing uncomfortable compromises, the consumer market is not as motivated. In fact, every architect, interior designer, lighting designer, building owner, decision maker, comes home as a consumer. While they are obligated by law to comply with energy use codes and accept the impact of this on their commercial spaces, when they go home, they don’t feel the same pressure to comply. In fact, they may act at home in ways opposing what they are forced to accept in business. The general consuming public only knows that laws forcing them to do anything against their own will are to be complied with under duress. When those laws have no teeth, they are ignored.

For these reasons, the success of SSL in the consumer market comes down to adding value and selling the technology without connecting it with a federal mandate or law. I am of the personal belief that the surest way to end or significantly delay the deployment of a technology is to make it law. The best and only real foundation on which to base the deployment of a technology like SSL, is to deliver value so compelling that consumers flock to it by choice. That has not been the case with LED retrofit lamps, which have been horrific in quality, extremely high in price, and poor substitutes for the low-cost lamps they propose to replace. In Europe, reputed to be far ahead of the US market, has been revealed to be avoiding LED and CFL lamps, preferring the halogen based replacements to their disappearing incandescent lamps. Makes perfect sense to those who know lighting. Halogen lamps deliver the same qualities as incandescent, some improvement in efficiency, and a way around adopting the less attractive higher technology alternatives. And the response to this revelation in the EU? More call to action to force consumer behavior. No demand that alternative products be made to deliver higher quality light, add value to support their existence.. just more demands for mandates and laws to force something the market is naturally rejecting into existence.

So, with the Federal Government once again failing to back its play on the lamp ban, including de-funding enforcement of manufacturing bans, it comes down to the very essence of marketing products. Sell value. While energy efficiency is a value, it is not the reason we buy lamps. energy consumption is a by-product of what we want when we buy lighting. We buy light fixtures and lamps to deliver light, of a quality we find acceptable, that serves our visual need to see when no other natural source is adequate or available. We accept that we must put energy into them to get light out. The same can be said of lamp life, another byproduct of extracting light from the product over time. So, basing value on reducing the by-products of realizing the core values being sought is simply bad marketing. It’s how the US auto industry failed when it attempted to sell junk cars that got great mileage, while the Japanese and Germans sold cars that were reliable and fun to drive, that also got great mileage and were cheap to maintain. A more robust program for lighting products would be able to state:

  • Delivers a higher quality of light than you have ever experienced in comfort, color appearance, and enhanced visual performance.
  • Reduces eye strain and associated headache, dryness, and discomfort caused by flicker and glare.
  • Produces a smooth, beautiful light beam pattern with no hot spots, rings or glare.
  • Fits into any fixture designed around a standard lamp, open or enclosed, with improved overall appearance without compromise – or replaces an outdated fixture with something new and fresh, delivering an attractive product that delivers light that is exceptionally attractive.
  • Dims smoothly from full to nothing, with no flicker, stutter, or cutoff, using familiar dimmer controls.

That will get SSL place at the table to then press the case of less energy use and longer service life to justify a small price premium. But, reading through the list, how many current LED retrofit lamps can make this collection of claims? Missing one or two means compromise, as halogen replacements are available that can nail all of these claims, at a very small premium, delivering a level of energy-saving and longer life.

With the Federal Government once again demonstrating its lack of support for its own force feeding program, and a conservative agenda almost assured to whittle that down further in the next few years – for those in the business of deploying SSL technology and product, it is time to truly engage value delivery beyond dependence on the dope of legal compliance. The technology is capable of delivering all of the real values being sought by lighting customers, and more. Let’s build the future on those values, and leave the government to its dysfunctional self. The sooner we can make lighting an industry of self-sustaining excellence, the sooner we can be free of impotent legislation that only creates negativity as its sole contribution.

There remains an issue of flicker and its issues that has been drawn out by a lack of action on the part of our standards and professional organizations. The topic of flicker has been turned into years of discussion, consternation, regurgitation of old information, tests to prove what has already been known for years, and avoidance of conflict. One of my best selling products from the Lumenique Product Center is the Flicker Machine, as simple device for visually detecting and confirming that visible flicker exists within a space or from a source, indicating there is a desire of individuals to know more. I presented a bit on this device and its use here some time ago.

This little spinning wheel tells the story. If you see banding and colorful rainbows, the lights are a flickerin'

This little spinning wheel tells the story. If you see banding and colorful rainbows, the lights are a flickerin’

I have invested my personal time exploring this topic, including participation in the IEEE 1789 committee addressing the risks of flicker, presentations at DOE and other conferences, working with various manufacturers on their line voltage, non-driver products, and personal testing, experimentation and actively living with and under AC LED products.  After more than 6 years of this, one simple question surfaced for me.

If DC and high frequency (>2,000Hz) PWM driven constant current LED solutions produce no visible flicker, why consider a source with greater flicker presence? (more…)

There are many subjects in lighting, specifically in the universe of solid-state lighting, that need to be actively discussed and openly debated. Issues such as qualitative issues (color, color accuracy, glare, brightness, illuminance levels, etc..) over quantitative (lumens per watt), or the discussion of blue light content, or scotopic v. photopic, or supplier issues, or even the problems of being a small fish in a pond filled with big bloated corporate fish and a governmental agency who believes itself now a lighting expert… These all require active dialog to be resolved and grow understanding.  Too many times, the discussion of important topics are held in little rooms, hidden from view, with conclusions drawn, recommendations and regulations written – to be handed down like tablets from the mount, for us all to simply step in line and accept as fact. We have far too many instances of white paper writing scientists issuing their narrowly focused findings through their myopic peer groups, to be used as swords and weapons against the unwashed and unknowing masses. I find the creeping movement of lighting away from its roots as a human experience enhancing art-form into the hands of marketing zealots, narrow minded PhD’s working in their corporate labs, and federal or state agencies with agendas to follow outside our need to know… well, disheartening and disgusting. (more…)