Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: LED shop light install and results

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    southwest Missouri
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Electric-Light View Post
    Unsupportable claim of drastic and immediate outcome from a typical of lip moving LED sales affiliate who failed to take relevant measurements and swearing by a customer comment or own thoughts that the light level went up by double.

    Top it off with discovering reduction of monthly power bill from $385/mo power bill went to $120/mo after just two weeks.
    Wow, unreal. Showed your character. Really was always taught never to explain as there is a reason for it. ----------The electricity usage went down enough that a power company rep showed up half way in. Bills were previous 3 years versus 9 months now as that is vast majority of his load. And as far as LEDs go I have changed out our homes and will statistically never change another bulb. Additionally, when one studies the facts concerning fluorescent lighting, one can quickly see that repairing or replacing these is for the ignorant. LED=directional light, no cycling effect, huge temperature operating range, long life. So whatever.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    southwest Missouri
    Posts
    82
    And for the record I am not any kind of salesman, I'm an inside wireman. I managed large projects in Chicago for a large part of my career and I always kept an open mind with new products and methods. LED lights have been around for a very long time and the price-point only recently became economical. At that point, having done my shopping and research,I changed over. It's simple a 60 watt equal LED bulb consumes 9 watts with 50,000 hour life, 5,000K color, 800 lumens. There are many bulbs out there to cause a debate--these are the bulbs I used.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Kansas Cty, Mo, USA
    Posts
    412
    I'm a big fan of l.e.d. lighting, and have seen dramatic energy savings at my son's school where I'm still in the process of experimenting. FTR, I asked if I could have the liberty of lighting experimentation if I donate all materials and labor, and they agreed.

    I've gotta say, the dollar figures given in the OP sound a little hard to swallow. I can tell you a little of where I'm at with the school. Some results seem much better than others.....

    Exterior: previously there were (2) 175w hps barn lights, (2) 300w halogen floods, (2) double 90w incandescent floods for a total of around 1,340w

    Currently there are l.e.d. floods - (2) 100w, (2) 75w, (1) 50w, (1) 30w, (2) 20w for a total of around 470w

    That's about 65% less usage outside. I've calculated savings of around $20 per mo.

    Classrooms: each has (6) 4-lamp t8 tandem strips, so 24 lamps per room, around 840w. All changed to 18w l.e.d. bypass tubes totaling around 430w and saving 49%. I've calculated savings of around $4.00-7.00 per room depending on usage, which varies. There are 10 classrooms, so around $50 per mo savings.

    Gymnasium had (12) 300w incandescent warehouse lights. I replaced with 68w cfl. That's around 77% savings, which I calculated at around $65 per mo. I am looking into switching to 35w l.e.d. floods to save another $12 per mo.

    There are other rooms and halls, etc, where savings have varied. Such as a chandelier which had (5) 60w torpedo incandescents and I changed to 3.5w l.e.d. and savings around $7.00 per mo there.


    Before I started, their bill was right at $1,300 per mo. What I've done with the lighting is saving them around $160 per mo.

    Additionally, I am changing all their hvac from electric furnace/heat pump combos to mini splits. I've changed 6 units out of 13, and each unit is saving around $50 per mo.

    Total bill has gone from around $1,300 per mo to around $850 per mo, but only 1/3 of the savings is from lighting. 2/3 is from hvac

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    I'm a big fan of l.e.d. lighting, and have seen dramatic energy savings at my son's school where I'm still in the process of experimenting.
    You're not testing alike. You can expect to save energy by reducing light output.

    Classrooms: each has (6) 4-lamp t8 tandem strips, so 24 lamps per room, around 840w. All changed to 18w l.e.d. bypass tubes totaling around 430w and saving 49%. I've calculated savings of around $4.00-7.00 per room depending on usage, which varies. There are 10 classrooms, so around $50 per mo savings.
    The wattage values are quite off. Too high by 25%. A 4 lamp T8 standard output ballast uses about 112W. Data is for VEL-4P32-SC with four full wattage lamps. A baseline ballast from early 2000s. The existing system would be around 672W. (645W with the latest prem ballasts) https://www.platt.com/CutSheets/Phil...L1P32SC35I.pdf

    If you're using average RE80 lamps rated at 2950 initial 2800 design lumens deliver 2485 maintained lm on a 88% common ballast. (this is not lumen loss, this is ballast factor) 112W/10000 lm (89 lm/W) <-- this is your current baseline. The base RE70 lamps are no longer made.

    The 18W integral ballast LED lamps are not all the same and output can be anything from 1700-2200 with varying durability. the highest standard like 70,000hr (to 30% degradation) DLC qualified and 2,200 lumen output are extremely costly. If you start at 2,200 lumen new, you can expect it to be at 1,785 lumen per lamp or 72W/7,140 lumen per.

    That common ballast from early 2000s will run 4 lamps at 88% as well as 3 lamps at 1.0 BF for 94W. Simply remove any one lamp.
    Instead of LEDs, use super premium T8 like Advantage 841 which is 3100 new, 2950 design(without expectation of further degradation). The utility power to lamp ratio is now:
    94W input/ 8,850 maintained lumens.

    So, the LEDs will produce the same number of lumens new as super T8 RE80 that's half way into its life while using 24% less watts.. but this is initial lumen. After half way into LED's life, you can expect it to drop from 8800 lumens to 7,140 lumens. Since delamping one makse it much closer to LEDs output wise, the base line should be 564W... what the fixtures draw if you were to delamp 1 lamp per fixture.

    You could go around and replace all the 100W A-bulbs with 43W A-halogen and claim 57% savings. What you end up with is compromising performance to 60w normal bulb equivalent. This kind of approach is often unacceptable as many somewhat modern systems are considerably leaner than systems that were over engineered for lighting performance when energy was dirt cheap.

    What you have now is a 35% reduction in input wattage without any regard for light output since all you're doing is matching socket for socket with inferior output product.

    HPT8 maintains 90-92% for the life of lamp and the depreciation curve is like a shallow lipped pie plate. LED products are marketed at initial lumens and aside from quartz Metal Halide, LEDs have the highest lumen loss of currently used light sources with 30% loss over their rated life. To maintain target level until the rated life, you need a 43% upsize. In other words, LEDs must produce 1,430 lumens per 1,000 lumens needed to achieve target level to design for long term performance.


    Anyone can swap light bulbs around and change wattage, but human eyes do not respond linearly and we tend to easily overlook losses on the output side. For example, if fixtures were wired 4=3+1, shutting one off would be perceived as 15% reduction in output even though the output is actually 25% reduced. The first step is to not turn on the second switch if the excuse is "why does it matter if you don't really notice it?" and that should be the baseline used for energy upgrades. Savings accomplished through reduction in output can't be credited to another technology.
    You also have to consider the calculated useful life of the existing system. The material cost, environmental impact, and labor cost.

    A routine energy retrofit calculation error is the over estimation of existing power usage, under estimation of performance. Over estimation of output performance of the new system.


    Total bill has gone from around $1,300 per mo to around $850 per mo, but only 1/3 of the savings is from lighting. 2/3 is from hvac
    But load shedding through lumen shedding is not really efficiency improvement.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Electric-Light View Post

    But load shedding through lumen shedding is not really efficiency improvement.

    One could contend that if the tasks being performed (and those performing them) are not adversely affected, it is an improvement in efficiency even with reduced lumens.
    The lumens are not there just to be lumens....they are there to facilitate the work being performed.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Kansas Cty, Mo, USA
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Electric-Light View Post
    You're not testing alike. You can expect to save energy by reducing light output.
    I agree with that statement. but it's not simply lumen versus lumen. beam angle is taken into consideration also. With the 360 degree radius of a fluorescent tube, installed into tandem strips, creates an effective illumination radius of probably 240°

    Contrasted against that are the LED tubes with a beam angle of around 150 degrees. there isn't near as much light on the ceiling, but there's a whole lot more on the desks and on the floor.

    I haven't done any pre and post upgrade readings with my lumen meter, but visibly, perceptually (which is what really matters to the user) there is substantially more light on the desks and floor.


    But load shedding through lumen shedding is not really efficiency improvement.
    I agree. My aim was to experiment with the various styles of lighting in and around the building, to ascertain a general feel for where the best results are, and compare my cost of the supplies with the savings

    and in those fixtures where and omni-directional bulb is semi or fully enclosed, the results were ridiculous.

    outside is perceptually twice as bright with only one third of the wattage

    In the gymnasium, which has warehouse style fixtures, we are already at 2/3 savings just changing to CFL. and if I change to the LED floods I'm considering, it will cut that 1/3 in half.

    I have said before that led is not the best technology for every scenario. In the stairwells, which have a ceiling height of a round 17 ft Above the landings, I'm using t5 ho, changed from T12. but that was not part of this upgrade, as I changed those fixtures out of necessity about 5 years ago. I haven't even considered trying to upgrade those to LED because the light output is fantastic,

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (19 Hrs. 22 Min. from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    5,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Little Bill View Post
    I saw no mention of an LED salesman form the OP.


    Lotta
    Envy
    Displayed
    +11
    that.... was good.
    however, we need to move away from these volatile technologies here.

    A kerosene lamp producing 37 lumens for 4 hours per day
    will consume about 3 litres of kerosene per month. we need
    to figure out a way to put an occupancy sensor and full range
    dimming on this, and we are good to go.

    once we accomplish that, we can argue about the round wick versus
    the flat wick dilemma.
    ~New signature under construction.~
    ~~~~Please excuse the mess.~~~~

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA (19 Hrs. 22 Min. from Winged Horses)
    Posts
    5,993
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmalone1 View Post
    Wow, unreal. Showed your character.
    he's a fixture on here. might even be called a lighting
    fixture. however, there is no off switch. be forewarned.

    when i saw your original post, my first thought was
    "ohoh, here we go again...." wonder how long it'll take...

    when the moon's in the last quarter, and someone types
    in the letters L . E . D . too closely together, he appears.

    nobody's really sure why. it just happens.

    he's heavily armed with facts, and i'm quite sure they are correct.
    attempts to defend yourself against the onslaught have proven futile for the
    few attempting it.

    btw, it was a fun story. you customer is happy. you are happy. i am happy.

    most of what i do for a living any more is go around and measure
    how much power luminaries consume. yesterday, i was in a pizza
    parlor in a place called cucamonga, measuring the power consumed
    by eight pendant fixtures near the windows. according to the manufacturers
    cut sheets, they consume 18 watts each. should be 144 watts, measured
    with the insanely accurate Fluke 345 power meter.

    the most i could make them consume was 103 watts. another case of
    false misrepresentation of LED savings.

    Little
    Electricity
    Dissapated

    ~New signature under construction.~
    ~~~~Please excuse the mess.~~~~

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by retirede View Post
    One could contend that if the tasks being performed (and those performing them) are not adversely affected, it is an improvement in efficiency even with reduced lumens.
    The lumens are not there just to be lumens....they are there to facilitate the work being performed.
    The contrast level needed to see clearly increases as light level goes down and this needs to account for everyone. Children and senior citizen teachers will have different light level needs. That's why we have things like target level and standards. When lumens were extremely expensive for LEDs to produce, advocacy for directional light was to cover up for LED limitations. We go out of our way and spend a lot of money and sacrifice output to avoid undesirable glare and shadows. Many stem mounted fixtures INTENTIONALLY directs some light upward, say half directly into the ceiling and the lower half through diffuser. This is why general purpose lighting are not designed like a flashlight or automotive headlights. LED street lamps are criticized for glare because they're built like a whole bunch of tiny flashlights mounted on a plate and leveraging "scotopically enhanced". We could have leveraged these things using 4100 or 5000K pencil CMH in a specular parabolic reflector or a lensed projector without LEDs. It was not done because of glare.

    Opal (cloud) diffuser on a fixture is nothing but filter that takes away 30-50% of light and removing the diffuser instant boosts the light output by 40% to double and this kind of trick is all too common with LED marketing... only that TLEDs are fitted and diffuser bypassed and savings attributed to LED. This kind of thing ignores glare and light quality consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by James L View Post
    I agree with that statement. but it's not simply lumen versus lumen. beam angle is taken into consideration also. With the 360 degree radius of a fluorescent tube, installed into tandem strips, creates an effective illumination radius of probably 240°

    Contrasted against that are the LED tubes with a beam angle of around 150 degrees. there isn't near as much light on the ceiling, but there's a whole lot more on the desks and on the floor.
    These days diffuse wide angle is increasingly promoted now that LED bulk lumens is not prohibitively expensive as they once were but when LED lumens were extremely expensive, LED marketing strongly pushed the directional light agenda. Fluorescent fixtures with a bat wing Miro reflector is not used for low ceiling because it's not desirable light quality. However, directional tube lamps in simple bottom mount strips can substitute bat wing reflectors for lighting over a conveyor and such. Diffused light that produces as little shadow as possible is highly desirable for indoor lighting and it is important for visual comfort especially if you're looking at glossy printed materials. The best indoor lighting is something that provides effect very similar to overcast day lit up by the entire sky. Not something that casts a stark shadow.

    A few years ago, Philips Lighting made absurd claim that a pair of 32W T8 in-situ used 72W and their TLED that depletes to 1,000 lumens over the lifespan is equivalent to 32W T8. The absurd claim was essentially comparing F32T8/7xx vs TLED in a plain strip light in a large space and measuring foot candle below the fixture under test. Well, if you take it out into the middle of the parking lot at night, you have 0% reflectivity for ceiling and walls.

    I haven't done any pre and post upgrade readings with my lumen meter, but visibly, perceptually (which is what really matters to the user) there is substantially more light on the desks and floor.
    Well, iridium spark plugs cost many times that of standard plugs. If you're starting out with plugs that are in poor enough conditions to have misfires, any replacement makes a huge difference. However the difference between standard and expensive plugs do not show up in before/after test. They perform the same. The difference is life. Components that hold the rated performance is usually preferred over things that evaporate performance with time in energy efficiency applications. The LED type degradation is preferred for indicator lamps where gradual decline in brightness is not significant. Do you prefer to have plugs that steadily increase in misfire with use and have a 30% mileage loss rating of 100,000 miles that require more gas to compensate for wasted fuel? or do you prefer plugs that do not suffer mileage loss but expected to start malfunctioning around 75,000 and call for replacement at 60,000 to avoid problems?

    LEDs are very much like mercury vapor lamps in that they're unlikely to quit making light, but lose significant output. "L-Prize" shown in Dr. Royer's presentation is an anomaly, because, that lamp is built with external phosphor panels bombarded by remotely mounted blue LEDs. That lamp was extremely expensive (~$50) and like normal fluorescent lamp, the phosphor is not driven hard. The "bulb" shell is the phosphor with LED elements shining at it from a distance. Normal LED products use phosphors applied directly on the chip which stresses the phosphor and rubber filler a lot harder.

    There's no current technology other than quartz MH that has as much lumen loss as LEDs and it's really too bad L70 has become the industry standard. T8 lamps hold 90%+ of original all the way until they burn out and HPT8 can use 0.95 as the lumen maintenance factor for the lamp-ballast system, or calculate based on "mean lumen" and simply ignore it as the loss is only a few percent beyond mean lumen.

    You can see this LightFair 2014 presentation by Dr. Royer : https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildin...htfair2014.pdf

    In the gymnasium, which has warehouse style fixtures, we are already at 2/3 savings just changing to CFL. and if I change to the LED floods I'm considering, it will cut that 1/3 in half.
    The specs for builder's grade LED A bulb from Philips is 10,950 hr L70 and 8.5W 800 lm. item# 9290011350(this lamp is not Energy Star rated)
    This means the lamp only makes 560 lumens on the tail end or 680 lumen mid way through. You need 800 lm minimum to meet Energy Star standard as "60W equivalent". Normal 60W A19 120v lamps are 850 lm. Normal 40W A19 120v makes 480 lm.

    Tolerating retrofit practice of using something like this and not encourage scaling down the output only encourages low durability garbage. For this reason, I propose use of 85%(half-way) and 70%(tail end of life) transmission sunglasses be used to get a feel for how they will be down the road due to high degradation factor associated with LEDs and multiple light measurements by 0.7 for results validation.

    The graphs show initial lumens need to be 43% higher just to account for LED degradation to ensure minimum target level is met throughout the useful life whie HPT8 only needs a few percent which is often ignored. Burn the lamps for 100 hours to stabilize the initial output. Have the fixtures on and take the readings hot. Multiply light meter (make sure it is calibrated for LEDs. You will likely have to apply a correction factor if it is designed for incandescent or daylight only. Use 70% transmission glasses to get an idea of what they feel like when LEDs are near end of life. Apply x 0.7 to light meter reading in addition. The reading is displayed value x correction factor x 0.7.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	decay2.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	11.8 KB 
ID:	18340   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	decay1.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	11.5 KB 
ID:	18341  
    Last edited by Electric-Light; 08-25-17 at 08:47 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Fulthrotl View Post
    yesterday, i was in a pizza
    parlor in a place called cucamonga, measuring the power consumed
    by eight pendant fixtures near the windows. according to the manufacturers
    cut sheets, they consume 18 watts each. should be 144 watts, measured
    with the insanely accurate Fluke 345 power meter.
    Many LED luminaires are made by fixture assemblers by cramming off the shelf light engine into a shell. Previously, light engines overheated and failed prematurely due to inadequate thermal design by the assembling company. Recognizing this, light engine suppliers started including thermal fold back to take over the ballast dimming to reduce warranty claims and perception of low quality. This is like plugging the air intake on your computer and causing it to clock down. if it clocks down without plugging up the airflow within normal temperature range in specifications, it is due to poor design. Although fine for consumer stuff or decorative novelty fixtures, I'd like to see specification fixtures include a red 5mm LED that lights up to indicate ballast burn-out protection has activated.

    You have enough fixtures together to cancel out variations between each fixture. If the combined total of 8 fixtures are reading 30% under, I suspect fixtures are poorly designed and it is hitting the governor assuming you didn't miscount or made some silly calculation errors. Did these fixtures come with specs and were they written as "up to xx watts" or "up to xx lumens"? This is the way sloppy fixture builders cobble parts together and ship products with unknown performance.

    You could get the same result substituting 18W CFLs with 13W CFLs. But you will also trade down the light output too.

    If they consume close to the rated wattage on cold start and creep down as they warm up, then bounce back up if you blow air to it with a fan, you're bouncing on the thermal limiter.
    Last edited by Electric-Light; 08-25-17 at 09:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •