 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Engineering - Lighting Forum » Why Are High CCT LEDs Being Used in Outdoor Lighting?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| TKM... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Designers of the test and demonstration installations for outdoor lighting
and, particularly, roadway lighting seem to be in love with
high-chromaticity LEDs (5,000 K and higher). Why? O.K. so the lumen
output/watt of such LEDs is somewhat greater at the moment because of the
type of blue-light driven white-light phosphors being used, but phosphors
change and improve all the time. Blue-rich light is more glaring, scatters
more in the atmosphere which leads to greater light pollution and, from a
color standpoint, harks back to the days of clear mercury light sources.
What's the attraction?
Terry McGowan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JB... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"TKM" <nomail at (no spam) no.net> wrote in message
news:haimnv$6k8$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote:1e264f906c]Designers of the test and demonstration installations for outdoor lighting
and, particularly, roadway lighting seem to be in love with
high-chromaticity LEDs (5,000 K and higher). Why? O.K. so the lumen
output/watt of such LEDs is somewhat greater at the moment because of the
type of blue-light driven white-light phosphors being used, but phosphors
change and improve all the time. Blue-rich light is more glaring,
scatters more in the atmosphere which leads to greater light pollution
and, from a color standpoint, harks back to the days of clear mercury
light sources. What's the attraction?
You said it yourself....Lumens. Or more specifically, Lm/$![/quote:1e264f906c]
JB |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| boxman... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
TKM wrote:
[quote:f6c071e856]Designers of the test and demonstration installations for outdoor lighting
and, particularly, roadway lighting seem to be in love with
high-chromaticity LEDs (5,000 K and higher). Why? O.K. so the lumen
output/watt of such LEDs is somewhat greater at the moment because of the
type of blue-light driven white-light phosphors being used, but phosphors
change and improve all the time. Blue-rich light is more glaring, scatters
more in the atmosphere which leads to greater light pollution and, from a
color standpoint, harks back to the days of clear mercury light sources.
What's the attraction?
Terry McGowan
[/quote:f6c071e856]
My experience has been that it is mostly driven by what you already
referenced and that is that the higher CCT LEDs have the higher efficacy
(lumens per watt). The LED makers I have dealt with all indicated that
the gap in lumens/watt between higher CCT blue light and lower CCT light
will remain that way for the foreseeable future regardless of phosphor
development (the claim is the conversion to red light to lower the CCT
is more inefficient and represents a physical barrier to getting the
lower CCT efficiencies to match the higher CCT efficiencies. I'm no
expert on phosphor so I can't evaluate their claim FWIW).
A small change in efficacy of the LED even by a few percent can mean a
large change in fixture cost depending on the design. So even though
the gap seems small, it can make a big difference to the bottom line.
If you need 10,000 lumens for a particular application, you might use
100 100 lumen/watt leds, but you only need 91 110 lumen/watt leds.
Depending on circuit layouts etc. this could translate into a lower
rated power supply, less heat sink, less optical components etc. to get
the same function. They guy using 100 leds to get the same function
would be at a potentially large cost disadvantage to the guy with only
91 leds.
One other potential driver for high CCT light is that there has been
some talk by some manufacturers and application personnel of considering
scotopic lumens when dealing with outdoor lighting. The higher CCT
lighting then offers a huge advantage in scotopic output. Not sure
whether considering scotopic lumens has any merit in outdoor lighting
applications or not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Don Klipstein... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In <7jmrc5h2rct90lln04lf7a74bljgh4obkm at (no spam) 4ax.com>, V. Roberts wrote in part:
[quote:ec38bf27d6]On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:03:13 -0500, boxman <boxman at (no spam) voyager.net> wrote:
[/quote:ec38bf27d6]
<SNIP to scotopic vision related material>
[quote:ec38bf27d6]One other potential driver for high CCT light is that there has been
some talk by some manufacturers and application personnel of considering
scotopic lumens when dealing with outdoor lighting. The higher CCT
lighting then offers a huge advantage in scotopic output. Not sure
whether considering scotopic lumens has any merit in outdoor lighting
applications or not.
It's obvious that the LED community has become interested in
scotopic efficacy ONLY because LEDs are photopically
challenged.
[/quote:ec38bf27d6]
My experience with outdoor lighting is that scotopic lumens count for
something. For example, for equal lux readings according to my light
meter, metal halide illumination appears to me brighter than high pressure
sodium illumination. I find this somewhat true even illuminating gray and
white surfaces where sodium's color-darkening spectrum does not reduce
apparent illumination of most colored illuminated objects.
Of course, scotopic lumens alone don't tell the whole story; visible
illumination efect is from some combination - where scotopic counts less
when photopic illuminance is greater.
- Don Klipstein (don at (no spam) misty.com) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Victor Roberts... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:03:13 -0500, boxman
<boxman at (no spam) voyager.net> wrote:
[quote:018f31010b]TKM wrote:
Designers of the test and demonstration installations for outdoor lighting
and, particularly, roadway lighting seem to be in love with
high-chromaticity LEDs (5,000 K and higher). Why? O.K. so the lumen
output/watt of such LEDs is somewhat greater at the moment because of the
type of blue-light driven white-light phosphors being used, but phosphors
change and improve all the time. Blue-rich light is more glaring, scatters
more in the atmosphere which leads to greater light pollution and, from a
color standpoint, harks back to the days of clear mercury light sources.
What's the attraction?
Terry McGowan
My experience has been that it is mostly driven by what you already
referenced and that is that the higher CCT LEDs have the higher efficacy
(lumens per watt). The LED makers I have dealt with all indicated that
the gap in lumens/watt between higher CCT blue light and lower CCT light
will remain that way for the foreseeable future regardless of phosphor
development (the claim is the conversion to red light to lower the CCT
is more inefficient and represents a physical barrier to getting the
lower CCT efficiencies to match the higher CCT efficiencies. I'm no
expert on phosphor so I can't evaluate their claim FWIW).
[/quote:018f31010b]
The fact that lower CCT phosphor-based white LEDs have lower
efficacy than high CCT phosphor-based LEDs is not a question
of phosphor development; at least not until quantum
splitting phosphors are developed, which is unlikely. This
lower efficacy is driven by basic physics, namely an energy
loss mechanism known as the Stokes Shift.
There is a fundamental energy loss when one blue photon is
converted into one longer wavelength photon in the phosphor.
(The "lost" energy gets converted into heat in the phosphor,
so it is really not lost, just "lost" from the visible
output since it is not radiated as visible light.)
For a fixed wavelength excitation photon, the energy loss
goes up as the wavelength of the output photon gets longer.
In addition, once we move past the peak of the eye
sensitivity curve, each mW of energy produces fewer lumens,
and that gap also increases as we move toward the red.
These limitations are reduced when the white light is
produced using a mixture of LEDs, each producing light at
different wavelengths, instead of one wavelength plus a
phosphor. In this case we do not have to deal with the
Stokes Shift, but do have to deal with the lower sensitivity
of the human eye at the red end of the spectrum.
[quote:018f31010b]A small change in efficacy of the LED even by a few percent can mean a
large change in fixture cost depending on the design. So even though
the gap seems small, it can make a big difference to the bottom line.
If you need 10,000 lumens for a particular application, you might use
100 100 lumen/watt leds, but you only need 91 110 lumen/watt leds.
Depending on circuit layouts etc. this could translate into a lower
rated power supply, less heat sink, less optical components etc. to get
the same function. They guy using 100 leds to get the same function
would be at a potentially large cost disadvantage to the guy with only
91 leds.
One other potential driver for high CCT light is that there has been
some talk by some manufacturers and application personnel of considering
scotopic lumens when dealing with outdoor lighting. The higher CCT
lighting then offers a huge advantage in scotopic output. Not sure
whether considering scotopic lumens has any merit in outdoor lighting
applications or not.
[/quote:018f31010b]
It's obvious that the LED community has become interested in
scotopic efficacy ONLY because LEDs are photopically
challenged.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
http://www.cflfacts.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| boxman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
TKM wrote:
[quote:2cce18ea31]Designers of the test and demonstration installations for outdoor lighting
and, particularly, roadway lighting seem to be in love with
high-chromaticity LEDs (5,000 K and higher). Why? O.K. so the lumen
output/watt of such LEDs is somewhat greater at the moment because of the
type of blue-light driven white-light phosphors being used, but phosphors
change and improve all the time. Blue-rich light is more glaring, scatters
more in the atmosphere which leads to greater light pollution and, from a
color standpoint, harks back to the days of clear mercury light sources.
What's the attraction?
Terry McGowan
Terry,[/quote:2cce18ea31]
Does your inquiry relate to this press release from the IDA?
http://docs.darksky.org/PR/PR_Blue_White_Light.pdf
I was vaguely aware of the issues with circadian rhythm regarding blue
light, but did not know the environmental impact was as strong as the
IDA release seems to imply. I would be interested in reading studies
that address the issue if you (or anybody else reading) know of any.
Just thinking off the top of my head, perhaps a more judicious use of
blue light would be a better solution than trying to restrict it's usage
altogether. Dimming when the space is not in use or limiting it's hours
of usage. It's not inconceivable for LEDs in particular to have a high
CCT source mixed with low CCT sources or other colors that could be
activated to lower the CCT during the night time to minimize circadian
rhythm impact etc. Obviously that's more expensive and more
complicated, but could be an option. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:19 pm
|
|