LED Lighting Retrofit

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lmcgill

Member
Hello all, first time post,
I was wondering if anyone has ever performed or been involved with an LED lighting retrofit. I think the the intention of the job I am working on is to replace the lamps in various types of existing fixtures with LED retrofit types (See http://www.seesmartled.com/). I will be replacing PAR38 halogens, F32W linear fluorescents, etc.. I guess I was just wonering if anyone has any experience with this type of retrofit. There aren't a lot of manufactures of these LED lamps with reputable names.

If you have had experience with these products can anyone recommend any reputable manufacturers?

Thanks,
 
lmcgill said:
Hello all, first time post,
I was wondering if anyone has ever performed or been involved with an LED lighting retrofit. I think the the intention of the job I am working on is to replace the lamps in various types of existing fixtures with LED retrofit types (See http://www.seesmartled.com/). I will be replacing PAR38 halogens, F32W linear fluorescents, etc.. I guess I was just wonering if anyone has any experience with this type of retrofit. There aren't a lot of manufactures of these LED lamps with reputable names.

If you have had experience with these products can anyone recommend any reputable manufacturers?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

What are you trying to accomplish with LED retrofit? Electronically ballasted, rare-earth phosphor lamp fluorescent systems almost always offer superior efficacy and life over LED drop in garbage.
 
lmcgill,

Electric-Light is extremely biased against LEDs and will always push florescent lighting. I suggest you take his posts with a grain of salt.
 
Electric-Light said:
What are you trying to accomplish with LED retrofit?
Click to expand...
The client received a grant to perform an energy upgrade and part of that upgrade includes an LED lighting retrofit. Ultimately, the goal of the project is lower energy costs.

Electronically ballasted, rare-earth phsphor lamp fluorescent systems almost always offer superior efficacy and life over LED drop in garbage
Click to expand...
So I take it you feel drop in retrofit LED lamps like the ones shown on http://www.seesmartled.com do not perform well? I guess that is the point of this thread -- to get input on the perfomrance of this type of product. I guess I question the performance because the big three in the lamp industry, GE, Sylvania and Philips are not offering LED lamps for PL and linear fluorescent retrofit opportunities.
 
lmcgill said:
The client received a grant to perform an energy upgrade and part of that upgrade includes an LED lighting retrofit. Ultimately, the goal of the project
Click to expand...
Then, I recommend you remove the ballast cover, get the model number and check the manufacturers site or contact them to see if it supports less lamps.

If so, remove some lamps. 2 to 1, 3 to 2, or 4 to 2. You just REMOVE the lamps. You will get reduction in power along with output, just as you would with the linear tube LEDs sold on that site.

Some reflector style LED lamps and permanent LED fixtures are decent, albeit costly.

Tube type retrofit lamps are particularly bad.

Look at the performance. You quickly see it right away.
http://www.seesmartled.com/product/200007
15W 900 lumen initial. Undisclosed lumen depreciation data. It claims to replace 32-45W T8. No way in hell.

A 32W T8 lamp is rated around 2900 lumens, each. A two lamp fixture typically operate them to 88% output and the input power is around 54W.

When you pull a lamp, you'll go to 2550lm and 31W, but reduction in efficacy to 83lm/W, but this depends on the ballast. Some have the same lamp driving factor in one or two lamp. Some will run the lamp a bit harder in one lamp configuration.

If you go to the LED tube thing,
You'll be going from 5100 lm to 1800 lm and from 91 lm/W to 60lm/W.
So, you cut the power by 45%, but you lose the light by 65%.
32W lamps rated below 2850 lm are not legal past July 2012. Look at this thing. 900 lm and it claims to replace 32 to 45W T8.

If that's acceptable to you, there is no better alternative than just setting up your maintenance personnel to go to each fixture and start pulling lamps out in quantity no more than allowed by ballast manufacturer.

For spot light replacements, if you're going with LED, go with CREE brand.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
lmcgill,

Electric-Light is extremely biased against LEDs and will always push florescent lighting. I suggest you take his posts with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that the claim of 900 lm 15W lamp is a comparable replacement for 2900 lm 32W lamp is BS is a matter of bias?
 
Well when I think retrofit - I don't think any one manufactures of leds sell support harware, except for thier own product and don't have any contractural agreements with flourscent fixtures manufactures.

Check out Cree Architectural Troffers, the blue text has the individual cut sheets that one can read about their products.
 
cadpoint said:
Well when I think retrofit - I don't think any one manufactures of leds sell support harware, except for thier own product and don't have any contractural agreements with flourscent fixtures manufactures.

Check out Cree Architectural Troffers, the blue text has the individual cut sheets that one can read about their products.
Click to expand...

Those have about the same efficacy as Lithonia ES8 fluorescent system, but they're extremely expensive.
 
I would agree with the negative views of electric light as regards LED retrofits for flourescent tubes.
The efficiency is normally less than a good qaulity modern flourescent tube on electronic control gear.
The energy saving is achieved not by greater efficiency, but by reduced light output.
As others point out, if a reduced light output is acceptable, it would be simpler and cheaper to remove some lamps from flourescent fixtures.

These LED retrofits are perhaps justified in extremely cold conditions when flourescents perform poorly, such as outdoors in arctic countries, or in walk in freezers.
For general lighting I can not recomend them.

Replacing incandescent or halogen lamps with LEDs is much more worthwhile, since the original lamps have a much lower efficiency than good LEDs.
I have achieved good results in replacing 35 watt halogens MR16s with 5 watt LEDs.
GOOD QAULITY LED lamps should outlast numerous halogen lamps.
The flourescent retrofits are unlikely to outlast premium make long life flourescents.
 
broadgage said:
I would agree with the negative views of electric light as regards LED retrofits for flourescent tubes.
Click to expand...
Those are not good design to begin with. They're using a bunch of small white LEDs meant for indicator lamps that aren't really meant to be used congregated together and they do not have a means of bonding to heat sink.

The efficiency is normally less than a good qaulity modern flourescent tube on electronic control gear.
Click to expand...
CREE troffers, though extremely expensive, use LEDs that are attached to heat sink which can properly dissipate heat to ensure high efficacy and reasonable long term lumen maintenance, though not quite up to that of fluorescent lamps.

The energy saving is achieved not by greater efficiency, but by reduced light output.
As others point out, if a reduced light output is acceptable, it would be simpler and cheaper to remove some lamps from flourescent fixtures.

These LED retrofits are perhaps justified in extremely cold conditions when flourescents perform poorly, such as outdoors in arctic countries, or in walk in freezers.
Click to expand...
I don't recommend them anywhere. These applications should use permanent LED fixtures, not retrofit. LED lighting is fairly good when run time is short and requires instant full output. They're quite popular in refrigerated trucks. If you look at people unloading trucks, you'll spot them pretty often. Fluorescent lamps perform just fine as long as you do not go below minimum starting temperature for ballast-lamp combination and you jacket them or place them in a enclosed fixture so that they can warm up. The jacket isolates the lamps from wind chill.


Replacing incandescent or halogen lamps with LEDs is much more worthwhile, since the original lamps have a much lower efficiency than good LEDs.
I have achieved good results in replacing 35 watt halogens MR16s with 5 watt LEDs.
Click to expand...
Low voltage halogens are fairly efficacious, in the range of 20-30 lumens per watt. I believe high end ones such as CREE can compete with ceramic metal halide, but all the China made generic junk do not.
 
Last edited:
Electric-Light said:
Then, I recommend you remove the ballast cover, get the model number and check the manufacturers site or contact them to see if it supports less lamps.

If so, remove some lamps. 2 to 1, 3 to 2, or 4 to 2. You just REMOVE the lamps. You will get reduction in power along with output, just as you would with the linear tube LEDs sold on that site.
Click to expand...

I doubt removing a few lamps is going to compy with any energy efficency grant.

The maintenance guy will just reinstall these lamps at some point in the near future.
 
steve66 said:
I doubt removing a few lamps is going to compy with any energy efficency grant.
Click to expand...
Even if the grant paid for say 80% of the cost, you're going down in efficacy and losing light output by 2/3. You'd still be pedaling backward. If they're going to pay for substantial portion of CREE CR troffers, then that's a different ball game.

The maintenance guy will just reinstall these lamps at some point in the near future.
Click to expand...
So, fill the sockets with RTV.
 
Electric-Light said:
Are you telling me that the claim of 900 lm 15W lamp is a comparable replacement for 2900 lm 32W lamp is BS is a matter of bias?
Click to expand...

No.

I am telling you exactly what I said, you are bias and if I was the OP I would read your posts and contemplate your views but I would do so knowing you have an agenda.

No different then when I read an article from 'Copper.org', there will be some good information but at the same time their goal is to promote the use of copper above any other concerns.
 
Electric-Light said:
Even if the grant paid for say 80% of the cost, you're going down in efficacy and losing light output by 2/3. You'd still be pedaling backward. If they're going to pay for substantial portion of CREE CR troffers, then that's a different ball game.


So, fill the sockets with RTV.
Click to expand...

Most retrofit contracts that include de-lamping require that the unused components be removed from the fixture.
 
Electric-Light said:
Are you telling me that the claim of 900 lm 15W lamp is a comparable replacement for 2900 lm 32W lamp is BS is a matter of bias?
Click to expand...


I see what you are saying, and you've made me a little more skeptical about LED.

However, you are comparing the output of a fixture to the output of a lamp. Not quite apples to apples. And there are other things to consider - like average maintained lumens. These make LED's better than the look at first blush.
 
BullsnPyrs said:
Most retrofit contracts that include de-lamping require that the unused components be removed from the fixture.
Click to expand...
Usually ballasts that support less than maximum number lamps say "cap unused leads", so this can be done by clipping ballast leads, then removing sockets.

steve66 said:
I see what you are saying, and you've made me a little more skeptical about LED.

However, you are comparing the output of a fixture to the output of a lamp. Not quite apples to apples.
Click to expand...
Huh? The TS was considering cram-in fluorescent look-a-like to be used in existing fixtures, so that is an apple to apple comparison.

And there are other things to consider - like average maintained lumens. These make LED's better than the look at first blush.
Click to expand...
Actually lumen maintenance makes LED worse than they look at first.

Better LED products are rated to LM-79 for output and LM-80 for life, so the lifetime is based on depreciation to 70% of new output. Only metal halide lamps and LEDs depreciate this bad.

Those that do not adopt the LM-80 standards are known to lose as much as 50% in the first thousand hours or so, which is why LM-79 and 80 standards were established to begin with.

LLD (lamp lumen depreciation) is single digit percent on today's good T8 lamps over the lifetime, which depending on lamps and applications, range from 20,000 to 55,000 hours, which means that lamps themselves are holding over 90% of new output when they burn out. LEDs on the other hand only hold 70% at rated life.

You're encouraged to research LM-80, which IES designated specifically for solid state lamps, as well as datasheet for 32W T8 fluorescent lamps with initial lumen of 2850 or more. Those below 2850 will no longer be made after July 2012.

LDD (luminaire dirt depreciation) occurs regardless of light source and its dependent on the cleanliness of environment. It'll be more in a cement factory than a library.
 
I gotta agree with Electric Light on this one. Going from T8 to LED is certainly a step in the wrong direction. Even replacing PAR38 lamps or BR30 lamps in an indoor situation is touchy. I use a wide variety of LED incandescent replacement lamps every day and my experience tells me that they create an immense amount of glare. If any LED lamp is pointing AT something, like a painting or creating a wall wash effect, I may opt to use them. But if they are in track lighting or downlighting and pointing at people, I avoid them at all costs.

I do use LED for outdoor situations at times. Syracuse gets mighty cold in January. So for the right application I like them. But their efficiency is worse than F32's. If you want to use less power get 25 watt T8 Lamps with a low power ballast and you'll use about 40 watts in a 2 lamp system.

Lastly, I hate to see grant money go to such a worthless project.
 
TNBaer said:
I gotta agree with Electric Light on this one. Going from T8 to LED is certainly a step in the wrong direction. Even replacing PAR38 lamps or BR30 lamps in an indoor situation is touchy. I use a wide variety of LED incandescent replacement lamps every day and my experience tells me that they create an immense amount of glare. If any LED lamp is pointing AT something, like a painting or creating a wall wash effect, I may opt to use them. But if they are in track lighting or downlighting and pointing at people, I avoid them at all costs.

I do use LED for outdoor situations at times. Syracuse gets mighty cold in January. So for the right application I like them. But their efficiency is worse than F32's. If you want to use less power get 25 watt T8 Lamps with a low power ballast and you'll use about 40 watts in a 2 lamp system.

Lastly, I hate to see grant money go to such a worthless project.
Click to expand...

I'm not denouncing LEDs entirely per se. The problem is when they're sold as the almighty everything replacement.

Electric vehicles are great in a warehouse. You don't really want gasoline burning forklift running about in a cold storage designed with minimal ventilation to prevent heat entry.

At the same time, you don't really want a electric powered jet aircraft.

Jet engines have their place. Electric drive has their place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top