Zibb

Margery Conner Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies. Follow Margery on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/margeryc.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Some real-world adventures in LED lighting design

May 5 2009 10:05PM | Permalink |Comments (17) |


Ron Wilson, EDN’s executive editor, whose regular beat is Practical Chip Design, covered the morning keynote at EDN’s Designing with LEDs Workshop.

Keynoting the EDN Designing with LEDs workshop last week, Cary Eskow, director of Lightspeed-Avnet Electronics Marketing, conducted a quick, edge-of-the-chair tour through the world of LED lighting. Surveying issues and applications, Eskow began in a light socket and ended in a colon.

Cary EskowEskow started by describing series of interlocking dilemmas. On one hand, he said, US Title 24 regulations require efficient lighting in new structures. And regulations are even stricter in much of the rest of the world—Eskow described the US as almost the last refuge of the incandescent lamp. But while compact florescent lamps (CFLs) have rushed to meet Title 24 requirements, they have run directly into Title 22: a separate regulation that states anything with Mercury content—including CFLs—must be treated as hazardous waste when they are dumped. This Catch-22, Eskow said, opened the door for LED lighting in many applications for which it might otherwise be too expensive.

But then comes another dilemma. Eskow observed that most lighting fixture vendors are basically metal-benders. They are not sophisticated in electronics, and they are used to thinking outside the box in terms of interior design, not electronics design. The speaker worried that these vendors might not see the real opportunities in LED technology, and so would be reduced to differentiating their products on price, not features.

But what features can a light bulb have? On this point Eskow had many ideas. What, for instance, about networked, microcontroller-managed lamps with programmable features, he asked. Dimming is an obvious example of what designers could do with an intelligent lamp controller. A Zigbee-hopping network could detect the presence of people and control lamp intensity to just what is needed in a particular part of a room. But Eskow had more interesting things in mind. He cited, for example, using multi-colored LED clusters with independently-controlled intensity to vary the tint of light.

Then Eskow went into an interesting discussion about color temperature and its influence on human psychology. He pointed out that while light at a color temperature of about 10,000 Kelvin stimulated the hypothalamus and increased productivity in most people, retailers used much warmer light—about 3200 K in the US—to make products attractive, and many people found that 1700 K light promoted sensuality. Eskow suggested as an application example that the Hilton hotel chain, which advertises their dual-use as business hotels in during the week and recreation hotels on the weekend could actually encourage such moods by altering the color-temperature of their lighting—an easy manipulation for a well-designed LED controller. Another example would be a programmable system that would allow retailers to experiment with the impact of color temperature on buying behavior.

Moving on from psychological to more biological applications, Eskow suggested that since it was known that intense light at 472 nm stimulated the opsins in the retina, in turn stimulating the hypothalamus, tuned LED light might act as an artificial version of strong coffee. Perhaps more seriously, he described work in which endoscopists are using narrow-band imaging to examine colon walls for traces of tumors. By varying the wavelength of light, Eskow said, the researchers were able to control the depth below the surface of the colon lining they were examining. So it was possible to develop nearly a 3D image of the interior of the colon wall. Finally, he cited work that suggests that intense blue light can increase blood delivery to a local area, perhaps accelerating healing.

Lest the talk be entirely without warnings, during the Q/A period Eskow warned that in their fascination with the ability of LEDs to produce intense light in very narrow beams, vendors may be moving to very bright light sources too quickly. "Light in the range from UV through blue is known to cause corneal damage," he warned, and intense IR can cause retinal damage. This is not an issue in a proper setting. But the intense narrow-beam LEDs in some devices like flashlights, combined with unsupervised children, could be real trouble."


Related entries in: Power Sources/Controllers | 


Reader Comments



at 5/6/2009 7:43:34 AM, Pradeep V said:
The opportunity to hear Mr. Eskow speak was the main reason I attended your EDN Workshop. Thank you for making that possible. He has quite an amazing knowledge and a true passion.



at 5/6/2009 3:07:52 PM, Concerned said:
High color temperature of light sources have been linked to cataracts in the eye. One has to be wary of LED advocates in pushing adoption of LED as a ubiquitous illumination source. Public health does not rank high on their priorities list.

LED lumens is also a lot lower than the plain vanilla incandescent light bulb. It''s highly unlikely LEDs would be a practical replacement unless a "break-through" occurs. It''s always amusing to hear CFL evangelists claming mercury laced fluorescent tubes as green.



at 5/6/2009 6:12:40 PM, Unenlightened said:
To the previous comment which stated that LED lumens is "a lot lower" than incandescent bulb, an array of several high power LED''s will have a total output that exceeds that of a typical 60W-100W lamp even after factoring in elevated die temperatures. In fact, as a practical replacement, not only is it likely, it''s already being done (see Cree''s LLF residential and commercial products). While it is a bit pricey today, costs will inevitably come down with volume. LED efficacy continues to increase and there will be a point in the near future where LED''s will replace CFL''s



at 5/6/2009 10:29:16 PM, Bill31 said:
To "Concerned" - With all respect, you are wrong on a few points. My colleague and I were in the audience at the EDN keynote address, along with a couple hundred other engineers. The speaker closed with a discussion on eye safety. He talked about specific hazards of IR, blue and UV light. He explained why using intense small white emitters in certain types of designs can be an eye risk. We work with high intensity leds every day, and this was the first time I heard anyone discuss these hazards. So much for "..health not ranking high on a priorities list". Secondly, lumens are a unit of light output, not efficiency. It does not mean anything to say "..led lumens are lower than incandescent bulbs.". How many leds? Being driven at what power level? Compared to what size of bulb? Leds generate 80 or more lumens for every watt of input power, compared to 15 or so lumens per watt for old incandescents. Think of the energy crisis a few years ago. Incandescent bulbs are like humvees on the freeway. CFLs are the Volkswagons. Leds are the hybrid vehicles. What would you drive? If you were there, you''''''''''''''''d be impressed. We certainly were.



at 5/7/2009 12:31:37 PM, PaulMmn said:
Once the issues of high cost are addressed, the advantages of LED lamps should be lower power usage and ability to choose the color of light you want.
.
It''''s similar to the switch made from great big incandescent lamps for spotlights &c to halogen lamps-- there were replacement bulbs with honking big screw-in bases for use in existing sockets, and then there were tiny bulbs designed for the new tiny sockets that were all that a halogen bulb needs!
.
With LEDs it would make sense to wire houses with a non-110v lighting circuit designed for LEDs... wouldn't it? Assuming all the manufacturers could agree.




at 5/7/2009 2:38:32 PM, Concerned said:
To Bill31,

Let''s keep the discussion at a civil level please.

Cataracts don''t develop overnight from high color temperature light sources. It is developed over long exposure periods. Are you willing to be the human guinea pig? If you are, feel free to stare at high color temp sources and pray you vision won''t be impaired at old age. FDA wouldn''t come to your rescue because no one is accountable at FDA.

All I''m suggesting is that all view points need to be discussed, not only those espoused by LED vendors - obviously not disinterested parties.



at 5/7/2009 2:48:05 PM, Concerned said:
To Unenlightened,

I advocate the KISS principle. To replace a simple incandescent light bulb with arrays of cryogenically cool arrays of LEDs does not make a lot of sense. LEDs are purported to be energy efficient, yet it generates huge amount of heat that needs a huge chunk of metal to cool it. What is the evironmental cost to make that humongous heat sink?

On top of this, the ever wise Congress will mandate the humble but effective incandescent light bulb to be replaced with "green" LED and "CFL". I think someone is trying to pull a fast one over the US tax payers.



at 5/7/2009 4:17:12 PM, William Ketel said:
"Concerned" is one of those terribly fearful people who believes that "others" are responsible for his well being. So IGNORE HIM. The challenge of adequate heat removal with LEDs is certainly something to contend with, it will be up to the engineers to take care of it. The very worst possible scenario would be for congress to do anything except demand truth in marketing. The durability of LED lighting will sell it for many applications where price would not have a chance. As for wiring houses for other than 120Volts AC? Would it be that much effort to have a series string of LED chips that would run on it with a relatively simple power controller? Most of the IC manufacturers want that market, so they are already motivated. So perhaps the fear-mongerers should step away and let the engineers save the day.



at 5/7/2009 8:12:35 PM, Krusty said:
To Concerned
Studies show that a regular bulb, powered by a coal plant, emits many times more mercury over the same number of hours as a CFL.

This mercury is unsolicited and not controlled. The CFL mercury can be recovered.

It _is_ green.



at 5/8/2009 12:00:53 AM, Sandy said:
I just want to thank EDN for an excellent seminar. I was in both of Cary Eskos presentations, and they were definitely the highlight of the day. How unusual to hear someone with that much knowledge who is an equally skilled presenter. Learned a lot, but now I have a lot more questions. Really great day--- thanks again!



at 5/8/2009 8:34:27 AM, Charles said:
I`ll echo Pradeep`s comments. Outstanding seminar!! Great to be able to ask Cary questions in person. We enjoy reading his articles. A lot to think about on an LED systems level, from the semiconductor material to the eyeball and everything in between.



at 5/9/2009 1:48:29 AM, Tiamation said:
Cryogenic lampage everywhere. Let the user be the diffuser! Illume the retina from the back and take the color temp from Cryogenic lampage everywhere. Let the user be the diffuser! Illume the retina from the back and take the color temp from in front; that is the intimate setting retailers need to look for. You wondered why some lamps looked a bit blue, and this was why.



at 5/15/2009 7:35:35 AM, cat said:
be entertained




at 5/20/2009 7:08:30 AM, Roger said:
On Eskow idea for LEDs, my company, Renaissance Lighting had for several years made networked, microcontroller-managed lamps with programmable features and dimming in both 0-10 and Triac. We also have remote programming via blue tooth. Also we have RGB so we can virtually produce any color at a large range of intensities.



at 6/23/2009 2:07:17 PM, The real concern said:
I've never heard LEDs to be linked to cataract, but I can see a potential concern, but a quantification must be made before I hear any of that. What wavelength blue light and how much....and what CCT?

The most relavant concern would be that of macular degeneration....which is primarily the cause of people saying "it was known that intense light at 472 nm stimulated the opsins in the retina". Intense being the operative word there. The science isn't there yet. What IS known is that it is a combination of melanopsin WITH the visual photoreceptors that trigger the hypothalamus. We all know that the visual system is immensely dynamic as is the circadian rhythm. What we don't know is how this response changes over the course of the day because all studies are down in the wee hours of the night when melatonin is abundant.

I work in direct relationship with several of the research camps, and the major problem is that manufacturers are taking the idea of "blue light = coffee" and running with it, without really understanding what is really going on. I thought we learned our lesson with Tobacco!



at 7/2/2009 4:44:30 PM, Curt said:
How about a hybrid lamp that is incandescent in cold weather (when the lamp-generated heat would be beneficial to warming a building) and LED or CFL in hot weather when the goal is to reduce a building's heat load?



at 7/13/2009 6:04:43 PM, lighthouse10 said:
@Krusty
Why CFL mercury is worse than Coal mercury =

Greater coal power mercury problem was only ever true where untreated coal power dominated,
and is not true any longer.
New injection and photochemical techniques along with conventional gasification and wet scrubber use have -and will- dramatically reduce all coal power mercury emissions:
USA Government EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): 90% mercury emission reduction by 2018, (phase 1 = 21% reduction by 2010, phase 2 = 69% further reduction by 2018):
"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from utilities."
(new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson early 2009 confirmed the vigorous reduction policy).

About mercury and CFLs and emissions including EPA links and other references:
www.ceolas.net/#li19x

In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights are, and so we can't do anything about them.


Also if LEDs are so good, people might actually want to buy them, unlike CFLs:

Again, no need to ban ordinary light bulbs in that case, radio tubes weren't banned just cause transistors arrived!
(also little benefit in banning a product not sold as much - and conversely, highly questionable today to ban a popular product safe to use, light bulbs don't give out any gases, power stations might, so power stations should be dealt with, perhaps more for other emissions -like mercury, sulphur - than for CO2, though that is seemingly a benefut too these days).



Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites