Lightimes Online News and Resources for the LED and Solid State Lighting Industry and its Supply Chain

February 2, 2010...Kermit the Frog's famous one-liner was, "It isn't easy being green..." inspires us to suggest that, "It isn't easy being tween" here in the solid state lighting world. By 'tween' we mean sitting in the nether-world of purpose-built lighting that is conveniently enabled by LED lighting. A big opportunity for the LED lighting world is to put light, or particular kinds of light, in places and form factors where it didn't work (easily or cost-effectively) before. Examples could include the world of color changing, as well as "flat" lights, glowing panels, multi-directional and semi-omnidirectional bulbs and luminaires.

Color changing, and even fixed color RGB sources, are very understandable in what they do and why they work well. If you can generate a 'native' light color, instead of filtering a wider spectrum source, you'd expect to get a lot more efficient solution. Present a source with a full or nearly full spectrum (think halogen or metal-halide) and then throw a blue colored lens in front of it, and I've been told that you're effectively disposing of 90% of the lumens that you started with. Feed a current to a blue LED, and you get 100% blue photons from start to finish, and at efficiencies that are as good or better than the full spectrum source was for generating all its light. It's a no-brainer to understand why Hollywood, theater and entertainment lighting leaped onto LED-based sources from early on. We all know red-green-blue generates what our eyes perceive as "white" since true white is simply a real healthy mix of the full spectrum. The funny thing is that an RGB solution is still a little "peaky", and while our eyes appreciate the rich color it returns, the instruments do not. That shows up as a penalty when you compare RGB-generated white-lumens to incandescent, or in the case of fluorescents, phosphor-generated lumens. This isn't about the "CRI" thing (an important ongoing discussion on its own), but about the "white energy" in my layman's terms.

A good example of this comes to mind in the projector applications. About a year and half ago, we reported on our subjective experience with a Samsung pocket-projector powered by one of Luminus Devices PhlatLight LEDs. In case you're not familiar with it, the Luminus chips are around half a business card sized monsters that contain big red, green and blue LED die that are about a quarter of an inch square. They scale up and down from there, and also have phosphor converted white solutions as well, but the RGB family made it's mark in the DLP television wave as the source that provided much richer colors, and a 50,000 to 100,000 hour life, instead of the optimistic 5000 that your standard metal-halide through a color wheel solution did. What my eyes saw from this 200-ish lumen RGB LED projector was overall brightness perception that came a good way towards matching our 2000 lumen conference projector. When it came to color quality, there was no contest at all. The movie on the LED projector didn't have that washed out color look, and it just 'felt' better. Mark McClear of Cree, in a talk at last summer's DOE meet in Chicago, posed the question, "Why can't the standards acknowledge what we see with our eyes?" Namely that LED light can provide a higher quality that currently isn't reflected in the numbers.

There are other interesting "tweens" that we're having to come to grips with now. Most recently, we've seen several new Edison-based A-lamp designs hit the market. When we think A-lamp, we picture our very familiar 60, 75 or 100w incandescents, with the visible addition of the heat sink there between the base and 'globe' in the designs of most LED challengers. With the virtual completion of the DOE-generated "Integral LED Lamp" Energy Star specification, there is finally a reference point on what a "replacement" for a number of standard incandescent Edison-based bulbs should do. The spec is pretty comprehensive, and places the emphasis in the right places. For PAR/R replacements, generally recognized as the easiest 'replacement bulb' challenge for LEDs to tackle, the standards are about smoothness in the distribution, the width of the beam angle, and the brightness (center beam candle power) on the target. The MR specs follow the same approach, and since you can measure those characteristics for the 'average' incandescent solution, the bar was set to meet the distribution and output, and do it at X number of lumens per watt or better. PAR/R/MR lamps need to beat 40-45 lm/watt (the lower number for the smaller lamps), decorative/candelabra base need to beat 40 lm/watt, and A-lamps need to beat 50 lm/watt for less 10w of LED power, or 55 lm/watt for those greater than 10w. (You can see PDF slide copies of the presentation that Marc Ledbetter of the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory gave at the January 2010 LA SSL Summit here).

Then there's the tweens. They have the same efficacy requirements as the A-lamps, but drop the requirement for a particular distribution which allows things like A-lamp shaped directional lamps, as a very specific 'for instance'. Why would you want one of those? For one big reason, to replace standard incandescent A-lamps, and CFLs in the zillions of pendants and cans that they have found themselves in. Would R's work as well? Seems like they would, but for whatever reason, whether for looks or cost, or because the fixture had an attractive way to leak some of the light out in other directions, omnidirectional lamps are in there, and mostly being asked to send light in one direction. What an ideal fit for LEDs, since they really do like to send light out directionally, and those sockets are being served by 10-40lm/watt omnidirectional solutions right now (I'm guessing the light loss is likely on the order of 25-50%, so consider the range to be 5-30lm/watt out of the fixture). Here's the part that's not easy when being tween... describing it.

Humans seem to have gotten really used to the whole "Watt" thing, and the Energy Star specs acknowledge that by setting guidelines for what you can claim as an equivalent to incandescents of different wattages. And they have clearly set them with the intention that a consumer is not disappointed by the amount of brightness that they observe from the equivalent. Challenge number one comes in the form of potentially more perceived brightness coming from the higher quality LED solutions. There's already anecdotal evidence of people needing to "step down" in what they thought would be an equivalent in order to get the same overall impression of light and color. Challenge number two comes when you're a tween, such as the A-lamp form factor that is tailored to downlights. Or similarly, the one that will result from "a bulb really optimized for use in a table lamp" as Marc Ledbetter put it. (That would be one which cast the majority of its light downward towards the floor or book reader, with correct doses of side lighting to illuminate the shade and up lighting to give a nice ambiance to the room... in other words, "smart design"). But how do you describe the equivalence. If you say, "equivalent to a 75w incandescent in downlight applications" you an expect a knock at the door from the Energy Star police (not yet elevated to czar status) because you don't have a PAR/R or A-omnidirectional type of distribution. "Don't make the comparisons if you're 'other'," says the spec. Oh my. Do you not worry about being Energy Star, or not make the comparison? Tough choice. As an industry, let's keep giving it deep thought for ways to both draw the comparisons, as well as educate the coming masses that it's not about the watts anymore. Lumens and efficacy... lumens and efficacy... lumens and efficacy. Once we get that, hopefully we'll be ready to re-flash their programming to cover the whole "perceived brightness" thing. (Sigh).

Panasonic Introduces Company's First LED-backlit TV
LIGHTimes News Staff

Carmanah's Solar LED Aviation Lighting Illuminates World Cup Supply Site
LIGHTimes News Staff

QD Vision Quantum Light Optic is Finalist for Edison Best New Product Award
LIGHTimes News Staff

Toshiba Introduces Tiny High-power White LEDs
LIGHTimes News Staff

Philips Lumileds Receives ISO/TS16949 Certification
LIGHTimes News Staff

Cree Raises Performance Levels for Certain XLamp XP LEDs
LIGHTimes News Staff

Lite-On Technology to Begin Shipping LED Chips Used in LCD TVs in 2Q10

NSF Awards Sensor Electronic Technologies Phase II SBIR Grant to Develop Deep UV LEDs
LIGHTimes News Staff

Lighthouse Unveils New LED Display at Rose Bowl
LIGHTimes News Staff

Digi-Key Corporation and Avago Technologies Expand Partnership, Offer Products in Europe
LIGHTimes News Staff

Cree Breaks 200 Lumen Per Watt Barrier
LIGHTimes News Staff

The Challenge of the 'Tween' LED Lights
Tom Griffiths - Publisher

Panasonic Introduces Company's First LED-backlit TVLIGHTimes News Staff

Carmanah's Solar LED Aviation Lighting Illuminates World Cup Supply SiteLIGHTimes News Staff

QD Vision Quantum Light Optic is Finalist for Edison Best New Product AwardLIGHTimes News Staff

Toshiba Introduces Tiny High-power White LEDsLIGHTimes News Staff

Philips Lumileds Receives ISO/TS16949 CertificationLIGHTimes News Staff

Cree Raises Performance Levels for Certain XLamp XP LEDsLIGHTimes News Staff