NEMA Currents - All Comments

re: Green in color only, sometimes. Concerns over advertising claims for Photoluminescent exit signage

Markus Thrun — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:31:30 GMT

As the chairman PSPA. a non-profit association, founded in 1991, I would like to voice my concern about the ongoing comparison of electric and non-electric (phosphorescent) signage or markers. This discussion is a s old as both technologies and never comes to a serious conclusion. However, it has been proven by several studies that PL installations provide best performance in egress markings. The purpose of photoluminescent directional safety way guidance sign markings is two-fold: First, during times of evacuation under full or emergency lighting, the directional safety way guidance sign information communicated by the markings will identify the egress path. The goal is to have uniform, consistent markings in buildings to give occupants a greater level of confidence concerning the direction of movement, which, in turn, can result in achieving faster egress speed to the final exit with less risk of injury. The second purpose is to be a supplement to the normal and/or emergency lighting systems should they fail; especially under the influence of smoke. In this situations the photoluminescent markings will communicate the visual information necessary for egress during a crisis. It is wrong that it is some kind of agreed charging time of 1 hour for PL products. The charging time is always a result of light source, illumination, temperature, duration and last but not least the product. I may take only a few seconds to charge a PL sign sufficiently, or even hours, depending on the in situ lighting fixtures. This is part of the installition plan and has to be considered prior installations. Nobody would take an electric sign to a place with unsufficient voltage. Nevertheless there is no need to fully charge a high class PL product, because it will provide its visibility long before the full charge. It is agreed in many codes and standards that 0,3 mcd/sqm is the minimum luminance to realize a marking. And I totally agree with Mr Charles Barlow that in a building under normal conditions a sign will never totally discharge.

Again, both systems have advantages and disadvantages and result into an omproved safety level if provided properly.

re: Green in color only, sometimes. Concerns over advertising claims for Photoluminescent exit signage

Charles V. Barlow — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:10:13 GMT

Mr. Bosenberg raises several concerns about (non-electrical) photoluminescent emergency lighting - specifically code compliant photoluminescent exit signs.

I am the operations manager for EverGlow, a manufacturer of code compliant photoluminescent exit signs and exit path markings.

I believe it is naive for Mr. Bosenberg to assign questionable advertising claims for exit signs to manufacturers & suppliers of photoluminescent signs & markings without also considering questionable claims made by manufacturers and suppliers of LED exit signs.

Suppliers of both products have been guilty of exaggerating the advantages and benefits of their exit signs. There is room for both lighting technologies in the emergency lighting market. Life safety can be improved when both electrical and non-electrical lighting are used appropriately.

There have been problems at installation and with maintenance after installation. Photoluminescent exit signs have been installed in locations where there was insufficient ambient lighting. LED exit signs have been installed without connection to an electrical circuit. Electrical exit signs of all types- LED, Fluorescent & Incandescent- have often been poorly maintained so they could not operate properly during emergency conditions.

There have been misleading claims of longevity for electrical exit signs. Even the best LED exit signs with battery or generator backup power supplies do not last the 20,000 - 50,000 hrs that some suppliers claim.

For all the energy efficiency advantages that LEDs offer, for the lower maintenance requirements of LED exit signs, there is no practical way to determine if an LED has dimmed to the point of being unsafe. Incandescent and fluorescent lamps failed in noticeable and predictable ways; LEDs dim as they fail. Is this a safe failure mode for emergency lighting?

To assume that a code compliant photoluminescent exit sign only provides the necessary luminance 60 minutes after the interior lights are turned on is as silly as saying that electrical signs with battery backup power are only safe after 7 days of charging. Both phrases are taken from the performance standard UL924 and assume that, once installed, the signs have somehow reached a state of complete discharge. It is rare that a building is ever so dark for several days- the time it takes for a photoluminescent sign to completely discharge and the time it takes for an electrical sign battery to lose any charge it was storing.

There is only one performance standard in the US for exit signs- Underwriter Laboratories 924. UL924 governs both electrical and non-electrical exit signs. Canada is moving toward a similar standard. Testing of both sign technologies requires submission of samples with completely discharged batteries (for electrical signs) and photoluminescent signs that have been stored in the dark for at least 72 hours.

If the ambient lighting where a photoluminescent exit sign is installed is only 5 ft-candles on the sign face (very dim), then the completely discharged sign will perform properly after 60 minutes. Once installed, the sign is unlikely to ever be completely discharged again because buildings are rarely ever fully dark for long periods of time. For new installations of electrical exit signs, or replacement batteries, the initial charging time of 2-168 hrs is not likely to be repeated during the life of the sign or the battery.

Actual lighting in corridors where exit signs are typically installed usually exceeds 5 ft-candles (above the door). This dim lighting would result in only the code required minimum of 1-2 ft-candles of illumination at floor level. Many building occupants would consider this an unacceptably low lighting level; some might consider it unsafe. EverGlow always asks any potential customer of photoluminescent exit signs about ambient lighting and approval by their code inspector.

There is no question that photoluminescent exit signs are green. EverGlow aluminum signs & markings consume ZERO energy (yes, they do require minimum ambient lighting), and contain ZERO radioactive, toxic or vinyl components. We think that less lighting in the corridors is a good energy saving move; that photoluminescent exit signs should not be installed where there is not sufficient normal lighting to properly charge our signs. From a practical standpoint, most building occupants demand 20-40 ft-candles of illumination on the desk tops and work areas; they feel most comfortable, safe and secure with a minimum 10-20 ft-candles of illumination in the corridors. We think it is necessary to illuminate the corridors in the built environment and wise to use that same lighting to charge reliable and effective photoluminescent exit signs.

Finally, sales of photoluminescent exit signs and exit path markings are increasing as life safety, fire safety and code officials recognize that these passive lighting systems can replace or supplement electrical emergency lighting systems. We can all do a better job increasing life safety and reducing maintenance costs in the built environment.

re: Will Manufacturing Czar Actually Help Manufacturers?

Graham Rankin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:51:42 GMT

The decision of Evergreen Solar to take $58 million in state aid, and then relocate most production jobs from Devens, Mass to China, having lost $167m in just 9 months, must surely be in the in-tray of the manufacturing czar today (11/05). It short-circuits a lot of the hopes for a green revival of manufacturing in one blow.

re: Running the Public Option

leibowitzm — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:51:02 GMT

They can give the states an "opt out" or they can create a "trigger" or give whatever name they want it. All routes lead to their goal of a single payer system, because as a participant in private market insurance, the government topples the level playing field. The government can run the public option at a loss indefinitely and they make the rules. This will eventually drive private insurers out of business.

Giving an "opt out" is not really an option at all because even if a state were to opt out, the tax payers of that state would still be subsidizing the health care of the people in the other 49 states, in addition to their own policies.

Health insurance needs to be truly reformed by increasing competition, with the government's role limited to enforcement of laws (at the state level) against unfair or predatory practices in the industry. We can start by removing limitations on where policies can be offered, allowing them to be sold across state lines, and by eliminating state mandated provisions. This would give everyone immediate access to more than 1300 plans and allow them to choose what's right for them.

We can eliminate health insurance as an employer benefit, and make people shop around. This will drastically lower costs. Employers however can establish saving/spending accounts that make people responsible for what they pay for prescriptions and non-catastrophic care. We do all of this now when shopping for life insurance and auto insurance. The same should be done for health insurance.

Will Manufacturing Czar Actually Help Manufacturers?

NEMA Currents — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:41:57 GMT

" Bloom vows to boost manufacturing ," shouted the headline in the Detroit News last week.

re: Let There Be (Incandescent) Light: A Different View

peter in dublin — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:06:37 GMT

Setting efficiency standards is in effect banning products not meeting those standards.

Unfortunately inefficient products - or product versions - have many advantages too, or they would not exist on the market.

Performance, appearance, construction as well as cost and indeed savings can be affected by imposing efficiency regulations

http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards

While I broadly agree with David Henderson,

The ban is wrong not just because CFLs aren't popular:

it is wrong in itself,

also for the energy and emissions arguments behind it.

Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)

Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights - or improved incandescents etc - are good,

people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).

If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?

Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...

ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.

There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -

and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,

then

1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise

2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,

for many reasons:

ceolas.net/#li13x onwards

= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:

If electricity use does fall, power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn't compensate much in overall costs).

As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Power companies may like increased use of CFLs to maximize customers per utility used, but it doesn't necessarily work out that much greater in savings for customers.

Also see about rebound effects (what effectively is cheaper energy use can increase usage etc,

ceolas.net/#cc214x )

Emissions?

Does a light bulb give out any gases?

Power stations might not either:

Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?

Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions,

with a focus on transport and electricity:

ceolas.net/#cc1x

reorganizing electricity generation and distribution

ceolas.net/#em1x

The Taxation alternative

A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.

We are not talking about banning lead paint here.

This is simply a ban to (supposedly) <b>reduce electricity consumption</b>.

For those who favour bans, taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense,

also as governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few dollars/euros/pounds tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)

raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.

It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.

When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted

ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

re: Roadblocks to energy efficiency, mercury, and a tunafish sandwich

Roberto — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:57:26 GMT

cool blog

re: Will Washington Take Manufacturing's Loss Seriously?

Globals — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:09:08 GMT

all good things

re: Will Washington Take Manufacturing's Loss Seriously?

lilikindsli — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:07:29 GMT

JgiwFT I want to say - thank you for this!

re: Another "Baby Bottle" finding . . . . Whom do you believe?

Tony Phillips — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:42:57 GMT

That is really very good article. I am glad to know. Thanks!