What Is Most Important for SSL?

A think piece by Jan Kemeling, chief sales and marketing officer at Ledzworld, served its purpose for me -- it got me thinking.

Ledzworld prides itself on making LED lamps that have maximal compatibility with the legacy infrastructure of fixtures, transformers, and dimmers present in the built environment. Kemeling, unsurprisingly, argues in his piece that compatibility is the top priority around which the LED industry needs to rally right now. (Guess who would be the logical candidate to lead the charge?)

Let's take a look at Kemeling's argument in some detail. He begins by positing that solid-state lighting (SSL) -- only the fourth great technology wave to occur in the history of artificial light -- cannot live up to its undeniable potential unless it works. So far, so tautological. Kemeling defines "works" as "achieving what it promises" as judged by end users, specifiers, designers, utilities, and regulatory agencies. He contends that there often is no guarantee that LED-based lighting will work by this standard. "Sometimes that fixture works with the LED bulb's mechanical, electric, and thermal requirements; sometimes it doesn't; and sometimes there are mixed results. The effect? Consumer uncertainty."

I believe he is right, by the way.

"Any new technology only has a small window to prove its value," Kemeling wrote. "Second chances with first impressions do not exist." Most of the industry agrees with him, as evidenced by the acute awareness of the market bellyflop that CFLs executed and the sharp desire not to repeat it.

Ledzworld's CMO goes on to break down the compatibility problem into electrical, mechanical, and thermal components and to reiterate his insistence on the primacy of the compatibility issue for the entire SSL industry.

Deep breath now

Ledzworld's interest in sharpening the focus on compatibility is evident. But is that actually the most pressing priority the industry faces? The poll over there on the right asks us to consider what is most important.

• Education: We need to bring both the industry and consumers along (don't we?) so that CCT, CRI, and spectral composition don't result in so many glazed eyes.


• Energy efficiency: It's the main selling point for SSL (isn't it?) and we need to continue pushing onward toward the maximum efficacy physically possible.


• Better color rendering: We have been impoverished for decades (haven't we?) by the lousy color rendering of fluorescent and sodium vapor. LEDs can do a far better job of this, and they must.


• Lower cost: Nobody will adopt SSL en masse (will they?) as long as its price is a nontrivial multiple of that of legacy solutions.

These are all important issues, and certainly compatibility is, too. Let us know what you consider most crucial -- in the comments below and in the poll.

Kemeling's piece ran on KiwiLighting.com (as linked above) and was picked up by LEDinside.com, where I found it.

— Keith Dawson , Editor-in-Chief, All LED Lighting