Help! My office building just switched to hideous LED (not fluorescent) lighting

[Paul_in_Maryland]

I think you're correct. That's what it looks like. As the photo shows, the reflector is brightest where it's close to the lamp.

It seems as though the LEDs are directional, and seem to be aimed as to provide indirect reflected light off the curved reflectors?

 

[Anders Hoveland]

This may sound completely stupid, but are you absolutely sure those lights are LED ?
That picture does not look like an LED fixture to me. Maybe take a CD disc and hold it up to the light, using it as an improvised diffraction grating so you can see the spectral lines.

 

[Paul_in_Maryland]

It's a legitimate question, Anders. In fact, I thought it was fluorescent until someone reminded me that we had received this memo:

This may sound completely stupid, but are you absolutely sure those lights are LED ?
That picture does not look like an LED fixture to me. Maybe take a CD disc and hold it up to the light, using it as an improvised diffraction grating so you can see the spectral lines.

 

[dc38]

This may sound completely stupid, but are you absolutely sure those lights are LED ?
That picture does not look like an LED fixture to me. Maybe take a CD disc and hold it up to the light, using it as an improvised diffraction grating so you can see the spectral lines.

That fixture was designed for flourescent lighting, and is likely retrofitted with led light tubes. While more "cost effective" than buying luminaires certified for LED, they end up producing undesireable results...where flourescents have a 360 lighting pattern, led light tubes have in general 3-5 dots over a length of 4 feet, so the light is directional and not very evenly dispersed. I have one sitting on workstation right now, and it isn't pretty...nor will it likely find its way into another fixture again.

 

[Paul_in_Maryland]

I've directed our HR chief to this thread so he could understand why the new lighting is an issue. Hi, Tom! :wave:

 

[SemiMan]

led light tubes have in general 3-5 dots over a length of 4 feet, so the light is directional and not very evenly dispersed.

HUH?

Most LED tube lights have 100-200 LEDs in them evenly spaced. Some have clear diffusers, some have translucent diffusers. The light from either after it hits a reflector is quite even. The issue is that many (not all) only have about a 120-160 degree emission pattern which is not such a good thing for a fixture designed for a 360 degree pattern.

With an indirect fixture such as this, if the tubes are pointed upwards, the light quality may be tolerable .... but one never knows.

 

[dc38]

HUH?

Most LED tube lights have 100-200 LEDs in them evenly spaced. Some have clear diffusers, some have translucent diffusers. The light from either after it hits a reflector is quite even. The issue is that many (not all) only have about a 120-160 degree emission pattern which is not such a good thing for a fixture designed for a 360 degree pattern.

With an indirect fixture such as this, if the tubes are pointed upwards, the light quality may be tolerable .... but one never knows.

There are older iterations of flourescent led conversion tube lights with uch fewer dots, favoring individual dot brightness vs. Light quality. I'm not sure which kind of tube was used in Paul's office, but the older tubes were even worse. The newere tubes (the ones you are referencing and probably the ones installed) seem to be designed for direct lighting ppurposes and likely have not passed photometry test for all fixtures.

 

[SemiMan]

Likely have not passed photometry tests for any fixtures beyond the basic 85 lumens/watt with the standard DLC listed fixture.

I am going to go on a limb and say they are DLC and may be 5000k and 80CRI. If you are not used to it indoors even 5000K 95CRI is "stark". Once used to it you will never go back. Everything gets blurry ... Literally.

You may have had 3500K before. 5000K is quite a change.

I have not seen a tube with a few high powered emitters in ages except one specifically with optics as a high bay replacement which makes sense.

Virtually all of them now are low power LEDs.

 

[dc38]

Likely have not passed photometry tests for any fixtures beyond the basic 85 lumens/watt with the standard DLC listed fixture.

I am going to go on a limb and say they are DLC and may be 5000k and 80CRI. If you are not used to it indoors even 5000K 95CRI is "stark". Once used to it you will never go back. Everything gets blurry ... Literally.

You may have had 3500K before. 5000K is quite a change.

I have not seen a tube with a few high powered emitters in ages except one specifically with optics as a high bay replacement which makes sense.

Virtually all of them now are low power LEDs.

Yessir, mostly nichias and samsungs, with a few osrams thrown in.

 

[Anders Hoveland]

If you are not used to it indoors even 5000K 95CRI is "stark". Once used to it you will never go back. Everything gets blurry ... Literally.
You may have had 3500K before. 5000K is quite a change.

4500K is about the coolest white you want to go in an office- and even that can feel a little sterile. I'm not disrespecting 5000K, but LED and regular fluorescent tubes just have trouble putting out good light quality at these very high color temperatures (in my opinion). If anyone really does want to go 5000K, they make special "full spectrum" fluorescent tubes that look okay. Generally they're not used in offices though, because they're more expensive, a little less efficient, and have poorer lumen maintenance over their lifespan.

4000-4200K is generally regarded as "normal" office lighting. 4000K is more of a "sunny" white, while 4200K is more of a neutral white, just a little more cool.
Most of the people who like higher color temperature lighting indoors are men.

 

[Qship1996]

One would never notice a difference between 4000K and 4200K in use.

 

[Anders Hoveland]

One would never notice a difference between 4000K and 4200K in use.

That's not true. I notice a difference. It's not extremely obvious, but 4000K just looks a little more "sunny" and very slightly yellowish. It does create a different feel in the office.

 

[FRITZHID]

That's not true. I notice a difference. It's not extremely obvious, but 4000K just looks a little more "sunny" and very slightly yellowish. It does create a different feel in the office.

You just never give up, do you?
O.O

 

[SemiMan]

Yessir, mostly nichias and samsungs, with a few osrams thrown in.

And Lite-On and LG and Lextar and APT and Sunon and ...

 

[SemiMan]

4500K is about the coolest white you want to go in an office- and even that can feel a little sterile. I'm not disrespecting 5000K, but LED and regular fluorescent tubes just have trouble putting out good light quality at these very high color temperatures (in my opinion). If anyone really does want to go 5000K, they make special "full spectrum" fluorescent tubes that look okay. Generally they're not used in offices though, because they're more expensive, a little less efficient, and have poorer lumen maintenance over their lifespan.

4000-4200K is generally regarded as "normal" office lighting. 4000K is more of a "sunny" white, while 4200K is more of a neutral white, just a little more cool.
Most of the people who like higher color temperature lighting indoors are men.

And Asians .... And people forced at least initially to try it ...

 

[subwoofer]

This thread has caught my eye as one of the offices I visit (a customer) has recently had the landlord change all the ceiling lights for LED panels. The quality of light is terrible. Cold white glarey and I cannot be in that office unless I wear sunglasses. Many of the poor people who work there have had to do the same, only gradually getting a bit more used to it. It turned a pleasant working environment into an uncomfortable one.

I can't quantify anything only say that the experience is stark and unpleasant. The people working there everyday have also considered getting a yellow filter gel fitted over these panels to soften the light.

Not only is the colour horrible, but the output is actually much higher. It might even not be too bad if they were not so bright. If you are going for energy savings you could at least save even more energy by going for lower output (like the old lights).

Some coin counter somewhere is given the figures (by the LED light salesman) which says 'these lights will pay for themselves in 6 months, then you keep saving after that' so instead of considering the working environment or at least trialling them, in one night a building with 300 employees in it gets terrible lighting installed.

A similar thing has started to happen with street lights round my way as well.

 

[SemiMan]

This thread has caught my eye as one of the offices I visit (a customer) has recently had the landlord change all the ceiling lights for LED panels. The quality of light is terrible. Cold white glarey and I cannot be in that office unless I wear sunglasses. Many of the poor people who work there have had to do the same, only gradually getting a bit more used to it. It turned a pleasant working environment into an uncomfortable one.

I can't quantify anything only say that the experience is stark and unpleasant. The people working there everyday have also considered getting a yellow filter gel fitted over these panels to soften the light.

Not only is the colour horrible, but the output is actually much higher. It might even not be too bad if they were not so bright. If you are going for energy savings you could at least save even more energy by going for lower output (like the old lights).

Some coin counter somewhere is given the figures (by the LED light salesman) which says 'these lights will pay for themselves in 6 months, then you keep saving after that' so instead of considering the working environment or at least trialling them, in one night a building with 300 employees in it gets terrible lighting installed.

A similar thing has started to happen with street lights round my way as well.

When you say LED "panels" do you mean LED flat-panels? There is a misconception they have no glare, but that is simply not true. Many emit light on much wider angles than parabolic, volumetric or simple lenses troffers. They look "cool" though.

Are they truly too bright? A $30 meter will tell you that. It is quite possible, though higher CCT light does appear brighter even though it is not because it stimulates iPRG cells which tells your brain "bright" or not. Of course that telling your brain that it is bright is actually a good thing. By telling your brain that it is bright, your pupil closes, and you have improved depth of focus and hence improved vision, higher visual acuity, and less eye-strain.

Adding yellow GEL would be a great way to create eye strain ......

An office is not a living room. Lighting levels are not meant to be low, CCT low, and subdued so people can "relax" ... they should be somewhat bright and higher CCT so people are aware, alert and functional ... more like sunlight.

You have made the comment that people are "getting used to it" ... change can be difficult.

What is unacceptable is glare .... either through direct viewing or on computer monitors, though not quite the issue it was in the past with curved CRTs.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

The company here got bought by a conglomerate who owns an LED subsidiary. Our carefully-planned upgrade in the factory from high-bay MH lights to HO-T5 fixtures with parabolic reflectors went right out. Those did a great job putting light on the ground. The "new" LED high-bay lights make pretty good working light out on the floor. We had about 10 of 300 go bad and be RMA'd immediately.

The office LED panels are trouble though. In each place they were put, they changed the lighting characteristics for the worse. These aren't even especially bad ones, but everyone sitting under them has asked me about:

*Sunglasses
*Covering with paper to reduce output
*Re-wiring the 10V dimmer input
*Disabling half the fixtures in the room

6 months and the same feelings about the lights: Too bright, too hard to see computer screens, and painful to be under. What's the payoff?

 

[alpg88]

office buildings now do it now, to comply with some new regulations, yes they use cheapest option available, and not everyone likes it, i have like 4 buidings that my company has offices at, replce lights. im pretty sure there is nothing you do about it, legalwise. you can complain all you want, and if building finds out someone installed some dimmer, and it was not their union electrical shop, they will have legal ground to make you pay their union electrician to put everything back, and fire inspector can easy write a fine to the tenant. you messing with electrical wiring, unauthorised, you create fire hazard.

 

[alpg88]

One would never notice a difference between 4000K and 4200K in use.

yes you can, to some degree, but only if you have 2 different bulbs next to each other, but if you walk into the space and look up, prbly wont notice. that is if the lights are led. if they are flourecent tubes, they may be 4200k new, but after few month become 4000k, they lose brightnes over time and usually get yellower.