Missing data = Obfuscation ?

As a young pigtailed ‘un I had a pretty clear understanding that physics and chemistry were all about real true things. Things that could be measured, monitored and tested. Certainly science lessons with Mrs Barry and Mrs Brandt didn’t allow for much creative interpretation. Turns out that there are many ways to be creative with measuring, monitoring and testing. And one of the easiest ways is by simply not including data.

My train of thought was sharpened by a recent editorial in the BMJ “Missing Clinical Trial Data” (BMJ 2012; 344: d8158). It appears some drug trials are overlooked, especially where the results don’t entirely show the latest groovy drug in best light. Unpublished evidence; an absence of data; failure to ensure proper regulation and registration of clinical trials – a catalogue of bad science to make Mrs Barry quite upset.

In LED lighting the outcome of trial and tests may not be as life threatening – but the consequences of not having clear regulation, consistency of product specification and obfuscation leads to very muddy waters.

Let’s try beam angle, for example.  Quite often manufacturers advertise the lumen output for a range of lights without clearly indicating that they are referring to the lumen output from the model with the narrowest beam. Wider beam – lower lux at 2m compared to a more narrow beam can all too often be the unstated case. Another popular confusion is created by describing light output in lumens for some products and candelas for others.  While there may well be historic reasons for this, it doesn’t help the customer.

And, while I’m on a roll, there’s another couple of areas rich in obfuscation. First up is lumen output and delivered lumens. Even in the Old Testament they didn’t condone hiding lights under bushels – and still most specifications don’t differentiate between lumen output from the light unit and lumens delivered. Finally there’s energy consumption. I anticipate that this is an area that we will be coming back to again in the future. LED power consumption is so very much less than traditional lighting that people don’t yet much question the amount of energy used for the light engine, or the entire system Wattage.

For professional specifiers and designers this stuff is old hat – and questions keep being asked of the manufacturers until the “apples and pears” conundrum as described by CELMA is untangled.

However, if LED technology is genuinely to be embraced by all the different kinds of people that buy lamps we need to be doing better than this.

Perhaps the industry could learn something from the wine producers and merchants. Over the years they have developed clear labelling regulations.  It is compulsory for each bottle to clearly show country and appellation of origin, bottle and alcohol content, name and address of producer/brand owner. Optionally you could mention the grape variety. People like wine and, over and beyond the whole wine snob thing, they know what they are getting and what it is worth.

Less high – faluting as an example might be Ronseal – “IT DOES WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN”. That’s what lighting packaging should deliver – if we can all just agree on what the criteria should be....