I recently viewed a webinar titled, “Light and Color Measurement of Today’s LED Technology.” The presenters were from Konica Minolta Sensing Americas. While I wasn’t part of their intended target audience of measurement equipment purchasers, I wanted to take the opportunity to learn more about the color-related complexities of the light emitted by LEDs. To start with, “complexities” is probably not a strong enough word. I’m not going to get into anywhere near the technical detail that these gentlemen presented. My head still hurts from just the parts I tried to understand, and don’t even ask me why “y10 is not the same as y or V(λ)” as it said on one of their charts. With apologies to people who really do understand this stuff in detail, here goes.

In the good old days, the color properties of a light source were described by color temperature and Color Rendering Index (CRI). Color temperature, as it relates to the appearance of the light, is based on the principle that when an object is heated to a high enough temperature, it will emit light. The measurement, then, is based on the colored light a “black body” will emit as it is heated. As the temperature increases, the emitted colors shift from red to orange to yellow to “white hot.” The color temperature of a light source is the temperature at which the heated black body is emitting the same color as the light source.

The purpose of the CRI is to describe how colors will appear under a light source. The Index is based on how a set of eight specific colors appear when illuminated by the light as compared to a reference source at the same color temperature. If the specific colors appear the same, the light source is assigned a CRI of 100. The classic incandescent bulb has a CRI very close to 100 because it renders those eight reference colors very well. This is one of the reasons it is sometimes difficult to replace incandescent bulbs with more energy efficient light sources that have lower CRIs. People are used to the way things, and they themselves, look under incandescent lights. That doesn’t mean that incandescent lighting is perfect, though. Incandescent bulbs tend to be weak in the amount of blue light they emit. For example, do you have a problem telling the difference between dark blue and black socks in a space lit with just a bulb, like in a closet?

And that’s one of the difficulties with light color. Even light sources with high CRIs don’t necessarily give off “perfect” light. In fact, the traditional CRI is pretty much an irrelevant measure for LEDs because the typical spectrum that makes up white LED light doesn’t work well with the eight reference colors. The National Institute of Standard and Technology is developing a new Color Quality Scale (CQS). The method for calculating the CQS is based on modifications to the method used for the CRI, starting with a more representative set of 15 reference colors. The CQS is being proposed to the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Technical Committee that is working on “Colour Rendering of White Light Sources” (TC 1-69).

The illustration below shows that light from different sources, even light that looks “white,” can be comprised of very different combinations of wavelengths. (The “Tungsten Lamp” is the representation for an incandescent bulb.)

Here is a more specific illustration of the difference between daylight and white LED light.

Color temperature also doesn’t exactly apply to LED sources since their light cannot be matched by a heated black body. There is a standard approach for computing color temperature. Suffice it to say that it involves equations that represent a two-dimensional plot of the component colors emitted by the source. Unfortunately, the emittance of LEDs does not follow the standard curves this approach assumes. So, while people are trying to use the familiar terms related to color temperature, LEDs with the same computed color temperatures can still have perceptibly different colors.

Most light sources used to date radiate their light in many directions. Think of the standard bulb, a CFL, or a fluorescent tube. The light is often directed with reflectors and lenses, but that’s outside of the source itself. LEDs are point source emitters that give off light in a much more directed manner. However, measuring the brightness of the emitted light gets complicated and the fact that the component colors of the white light might not all exactly “line up” adds another dimension of complexity.

First of all, there are differences between the mechanical center line of the LED (the “shaft construction” in the illustration below), the Optical Axis (sort of the “weighted average” center line), and the Axis of Maximum Brightness (the direction of the brightest emittance). And remember, the diagram below is just a two dimensional representation of a three-dimensional situation.

So, to measure the brightness of an LED requires carefully defined, standardized methods. (Here’s where the Konica Minolta guys described the different types of equipment they provide.) The diagram below with representations of different LED emission patterns shows why measuring the color characteristics is even more difficult.

My head is hurting again, so I’d better stop here for now. I didn’t even get to all of the factors that influence the color and color rendering characteristics of LEDs. There is also an LED’s color stability, the influence of junction temperature, and the difference between color temperature and correlated color temperature (CCT – which doesn’t strictly apply to LEDs, either).

The bottom line is that light color is a complicated topic and it gets even more complicated when LEDs are involved. If you’re purchasing LED lighting and color is important, make sure you get the results of tests that really will describe product performance. What test methods were used? Who did the testing? Above all, probably, try before you buy.

We’re often warned that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. This is certainly good advice. In this day and age, we need to be wary. What happens, though, when something really is good? When someone is offering something that isn’t snake oil or a scam, but really is capable of providing solid benefits at an attractive price? For one thing, entrepreneurs face a tough slog to get their solutions recognized, appreciated, and purchased.

I recently received a thorough introduction to the CATALYST Efficiency Enhancing Controller which has been developed by Transformative Wave Technologies (TWT). TWT is a division of Performance Mechanical Group, a well-established HVAC systems and service provider in the Seattle, Washington area. According to TWT, CATALYST is a combination of “proven hardware that has been utilized in industrial and commercial sectors for decades,” and “the latest technological advances in HVAC system control.” The TWT team says that CATALYST can lead to total energy savings of 30% to 40% when connected to existing constant volume HVAC systems and they have huge amounts of data to back up this claim.

In most larger and newer commercial HVAC systems, the fan speed and compressor adjust to the demand for conditioned air within the building. Constant volume systems are either ON or OFF. There is no variable frequency drive on the indoor blower motor. Constant volume systems also don’t efficiently use the capabilities of “economizers.” Economizers enable the system to bring cooler outside air into the building instead of chilling recirculated warm air from within the building. According to TWT, approximately half of the commercial space in the United States is conditioned by such minimally controlled, constant volume units. CATALYST is targeted at this retrofit opportunity, since it could be 15 to 20 years until these units are replaced.

CATALYST helps achieve energy savings in the following areas:

• Reducing energy to run the fan through use of enhanced control logic.
• Optimizing use of outside air versus mechanically cooled air.
• Avoiding conditioning air for unoccupied spaces.
• Bringing in less fresh air that needs to be conditioned by basing the intake amount on readings from CO2 sensors instead of a static rule pegged to maximum occupancy.

TWT also offers its e-IQ Energy Intelligence Platform, which brings along advanced management and reporting capabilities through connections to web-based monitoring, notification, and control applications.

The hour long presentation I saw was filled not with detailed information on esoteric breakthroughs in HVAC technology, but with basic HVAC concepts and charts demonstrating savings that actual customers have already achieved. I joked that it seemed like they had made that presentation before, which they certainly have, many, many times.

TWT has been explaining their solution for over a year to utilities, major retailers, and other property owners, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) members and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In fact, the DOE invited TWT to participate in the recent HVAC, Refrigeration, and Controls Supplier’s Summit in Las Vegas. This event was sponsored by the DOE’s Commercial Building Energy Alliances and ASHRAE in order to bring together owners, operators, and selected suppliers to the commercial building industry to discuss energy efficiency and the newest market-ready technologies that meet HVAC demands.

While I’m very aware of the types of barriers that a new solution like CATALYST faces, I asked the TWT team why they’ve still had to do so much explaining rather than being able to sit back and take orders. I wanted to hear them discuss the top challenges they’ve been facing.

• They frequently hear the question, “If this solution is so good and so straightforward, why hasn’t someone thought of it before?” In other words, why hasn’t Siemens or Trane or some similar huge player in HVAC and controls already put this kind of package together and sold it? That’s a tough one to answer, but part of the reason is probably that the primary application for CATALYST is existing, small HVAC units. The buildings where these smaller and older units are installed haven’t been the target for advanced control systems.

• They need to convince utilities that CATALYST is a good energy efficiency solution in order to get approved for rebate programs and included in the promotional efforts that many utilities run. Utilities aren’t the fastest moving of organizations and often need a whole lot of explanation and data based proof before adopting an approach. (Those are my words, not TWT’s. I don’t want to get any potential partners annoyed at them.)
• Even with demonstrated payback periods of two to three years, some companies still can’t commit to making this relatively modest investment. This is a common barrier across the energy efficiency industry. TWT is investigating financing options for its solution.
• TWT needs to train sales channels and installers in parts of the United States and Canada outside of the Pacific Northwest. Quality installation and training will absolutely be critical to the overall success of CATALYST and e-IQ.

Transformative Wave Technologies and the CATALYST Efficiency Enhancing Controller – another company and energy efficiency solution on my watch list.

In a recent post to this blog, I pointed out that competitors in the lighting controls market include very different types of companies in both size and overall business scope. I decided to create a graphic view of the situation using everyone’s friend from elementary school math, the Venn diagram.

To examine the business scope angle, I have identified three major businesses that are all directly building-related and have at least some significant connection to lighting controls. Companies that develop lighting control products and systems may be in all, some, or none of these other businesses:

• Lighting: Especially luminaires and integrated LED based products.
• Building Management Systems: Energy management, such as HVAC, and other systems including fire, alarm, and access control.
• Electrical Products: Electrical panels, switch gear, circuit breakers, power meters, wiring systems, etc.

Each of these three businesses is represented by a colored circle in the diagram below. I haven’t tried to include all of the companies that participate in the lighting controls market on this chart. Rather, I have selected some that illustrate the many combinations of businesses that exist out there. The companies outside of the circles are primarily focused on lighting controls. Most of the companies named in the diagram are profiled in Pike Research’s upcoming report on Intelligent Lighting Controls.

My number one conclusion from the above diagram and the status of the lighting controls market is that there is no particular combination of businesses that has so far determined success in lighting controls. In fact, while there are a few industry leaders in terms of revenue, including Lutron and WattStopper, the market for lighting controls is actually quite fragmented. Given the traditional distribution channels for lighting controls, this shouldn’t be surprising.

Lighting controls have largely been sold in much the same way as lighting products and systems, and there are hundreds of companies that participate in that business around the world. Lighting specifications are established by architects and/or lighting engineers and/or lighting designers. If not explicit in the design, specific product decisions are usually made by general or electrical contractors or system integrators. The products are then most often sold through distributors. This type of distribution has made it difficult for lighting or lighting control vendors to establish dominant positions in multiple geographic regions.

Unlike lighting products, however, the market for lighting controls is far from saturated. It is theoretically possible for any company or companies to significantly expand their revenues without having to steal market share from other vendors. Of course, earning revenue comes down to winning each deal and plenty of factors influence those outcomes.

Going forward, I don’t think that synergy among a company’s businesses will have a decisive impact on determining which companies are most successful. Siemens, the only company there in the center of the diagram, is a global leader in all three of the related businesses. This won’t necessarily result in leadership in lighting controls, though. GE is a global giant in lighting, Schneider Electric is a force in building controls, and both are major players in electrical products. However, neither should assume that these positions will automatically provide a special boost to their lighting control businesses. Beneficial synergy is certainly possible, but achieving that takes concerted effort around product coordination and integration. Even more important is a focus on high levels of integration in the distribution and installation aspects of the business.

Many of the companies named in the diagram and some others, no doubt, will go on to be winners in lighting controls. Some companies will not fare so well and may exit the business. Some companies with unique offerings may be purchased by others. I can’t specifically say what the future holds for any of these companies. I’m pretty sure, however, that when the view in my crystal ball becomes clearer, it won’t be the color of the related business circle(s) each company is in that will have determined success in the lighting controls market.

The last material I worked on for my upcoming report on Intelligent Lighting Controls was the profiles of companies in the industry. As with most businesses, there’s a tremendous breadth of competitors in the lighting controls market, from global technology giants to smaller, established vendors to startups with new approaches trying to break in. One aspect of the competitive landscape that I noticed, though, was the great variance among these companies regarding how much each of them participates in related businesses.

Lighting controls, even in the form of more advanced networked systems, have traditionally had a scope that remains within the confines of a building. There are campus wide systems, too, but for this look at cross business interaction, that’s not an important distinction. Building energy management systems (BEMS) are now being connected to the developing Smart Grid for applications such as demand response, but that’s the subject of another article.

So, what are the other types of in-building products and systems that I’m talking about? First, of course, is the lighting system itself. Second are the other control systems in the building. These would include heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), fire and alarm, and security and access. Third are the electrical distribution and control products. These include electrical panels, switch gear, circuit breakers, power meters, wiring systems, and more.

Some companies are able to bundle products from among these categories to provide more extensive product solutions to building owners, especially in new construction situations. For retrofits, the electrical products don’t participate as much, but all of the other energy management systems can certainly be coordinated for a more complete solution.

My hypothesis is that while participation in more than one of these businesses is helpful in supporting the sale of lighting controls, the business synergies may not be as significant as some might expect, or as some companies might hope. In an overwhelming majority of building projects, it isn’t the vendor that is directly influencing product purchase decisions. In addition, the vendors aren’t usually the ones installing the products. The building systems are commonly specified by engineers and, if necessary, put together and installed by system integrators. Electrical products have even less of a connection to the other systems during the design and construction process. Lighting and lighting controls are probably the most closely linked, but as I discuss in my report, relatively few lighting and electrical contractors are capable of taking full responsibility for the lighting controls, yet it rarely makes sense for them to cede overall responsibility for the electrical and lighting systems to the controls vendor.

Where can company size and business breadth help? When one of the business units is a system integrator that helps the decision makers design and specify the building control systems. This is one reason for the ever dwindling number of independent Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) in the United States. System vendors have been among the acquirers of these integrators in recent years.

Another thought is that for a larger company that participates across these categories, its size doesn’t necessarily provide an advantage. Business units could be too far removed from each other, from an organizational perspective, to effectively work together. The common solution to this situation is some type of overlay organization that focuses on integrating separate products for specific end user markets. This, however, adds organizational complexity and cost. Smaller companies may be able to coordinate their business units better.

So which type of organization works better? Well, at least two huge global companies are taking opposite approaches. Panasonic Electric Works (PEW) is a $15.7 billion unit of the $90 billion Panasonic Corporation of Japan. Lighting controls are not situated within PEW’s Lighting Products business group. They are within the Information Equipment and Wiring business group. So, PEW’s lighting controls are organizationally closer to its building electrical products than to its lighting systems. At GE, on the other hand, lighting controls were recently moved from a business that focuses on industrial systems into the Lighting business. Plenty of other companies line up on each side of that organizational decision.

And, where does all of this leave the lighting controls specialists without direct in-company ties to potentially related products or systems? Unfortunately, I don’t currently have the information with which to prove or disprove the above hypotheses. This is an area I plan to investigate in the future. Your thoughts on this are welcomed.