It wasn't that long ago when some were suggesting that 200 lm/watt would be close to all we could expect out of a power LED source, and I remember charts showing LED efficacy showing a real asymptote kicking in around that 200 lm/w. The DOE's LED lighting roadmap has actually been adjusted at least once to reflect the efficacy growth curve exceeding the time frames that the industry originally expected. When asked for some thoughts on "the barrier", Cree's New Business Development Director, Mark McClear commented that, "By hitting that mark, I think it has been pretty clearly demonstrated that there is still more room to grow. Breaking this 'barrier' clearly establishes LEDs as the most energy-efficient artificial light source." Cree has been very reliable about turning "lab results" into production-available products in a12 to 18-month time frame.

The second recent accomplishment was breaking that 100 lm/w "barrier" at the luminaire level. I suspect that Beta isn't the first to claim the accomplishment, but I do know that they have been one of the consistent performers in the exterior SSL lighting space, and are probably the most visible brand in that segment. And if they said it, that we can expect it is true. While 100 lm/w doesn't suddenly shift the business case in comparison to 96 or 98, it is easy to recognize that "more than 100" is something that the industry can latch onto in order to stake claim to offering the highest efficacy solutions. “Our achievement of reaching over 100 lumens-per-watt delivered in outdoor LED luminaires demonstrates the advantages of LED technology over HID,” said Christopher Ruud, president of BetaLED, a division of Ruud Lighting. 

Hopefully what will be memorable here is that the 100 lm/w mark is being achieved 'on the target'. As Ruud explained, “Lumen-per-watt ratings on traditional lamp sources are misleading because they don’t account for inefficiencies of the ballast, reflector or lens. Lamp manufacturers have claimed 100 lumens-per-watt with conventional light sources but this was not a measure of total lumens exiting the product.  While HID technologies reached the 100 lumens-per-watt mark at the lamp, i.e. bare source, the light output was not directed in a useable fashion.  Up to 40 percent of the bare lamp’s output can be lost to ballast, reflector and lens inefficiencies. BetaLED integrates LED chip technology with optical performance and an optimized fixture design to maximize light output at the source and on target. This delivered, targeted-lumen output is the most efficacious luminaire to date, and further proof that an LED is the most efficient light source in the industry."

I think Mark summed it up nicely with a thought on the ultimate relevance, outside of this or that number. "Raising the performance bar in brightness and efficacy is really about economics. Each advance in LED performance lowers LED lighting product costs, opens new markets and applications and brings the LED Lighting Revolution to more and more people." The performance continues to march forward regardless, but I believe the fact that these 'barriers' have been broken will really lock into people's minds that "LED lighting can do it".

Time to start calling out the violators?

In my marketing life, I have never been one to focus others' attention too much on what the competition is doing, generally preferring to simply "outperform and ignore them" rather than make more direct accusations of their exaggerations or 'specsmanship'. That admittedly colors my thinking to create some distaste on those that might take a different approach. But things have changed, I believe. For the LED lighting market, as LED efficacies come up, new entrants are better able to claim that their luminaire, or their "integral replacement lamp" if it is an LED bulb or LED tube type of design, is a cost effective replacement for an incandescent, fluorescent or HID source. The specs make the case, and while in the past, if a company was claiming 50 lm/w but only putting out 40, it didn't really matter all that much since no rational decision maker was going to choose their solution compared to a fluorescent or HID incumbent except in a few specialized cases. Generally, when you have a specialized case, extra diligence is required and the truth will be uncovered in short order. A bad apple doesn't have to ruin the whole bushel in most of those real-world circumstances.

But as LEDs really do become recognized as the most efficacious source out there, the risk to the industry is increasing. The decision maker sees enough luminaires from reliable suppliers to be putting out 80 lm/w and more, so it starts to sink in that such performance isn't the special case that it once was. As their guard comes down, so does their risk aversion and skepticism. They test a few top notch suppliers, and find those suppliers are meeting the specs they claim. "Looks like the claims are reliable," they say to themselves. Then along comes a supplier whose name has been out there, and who is claiming a spec along the lines of what the decision maker has seen, with the addition that the "new guy" is showing a substantial cost savings. Makes sense... the two progress curves are "increased performance at the same price" and "similar performance at a lower price" especially from lower-overhead and potentially more agile new entrants. Problem is, the manufacture is lying, or using inferior materials, and with the decision maker's guard down, it may not be discovered until hundreds of units are installed (especially if they are replacement lamps). The industry gets a black eye.