Evaluating The Potential of Halogen Technologies, European Ecodesign and Labelling Requirements For Directional Lamps, 3-2011

Evaluating the potential of halogen technologies
European ecodesign and labelling requirements for directional lamps
Prepared for the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee) with funding from the European Climate Foundation, Defra, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK) and the Swedish Energy Agency. Prepared by Luke Mason, Chris Calwell and Laura Moorefield, Ecos, Durango, CO, USA
7 March 2011
March 2011 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Peter M. Fisher/SCANPIX
Introductory remarks
This research was commissioned and published by eceee with funding from the European Climate Foundation, the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Swedish Energy Agency, and is part of a series of reports on directional lighting requirements available at eceee's ecodesign portal (http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/ products/directional_lighting/). The report was prepared by Luke Mason, Chris Calwell and Laura Moorefield, Ecos, Durango, Colorado, USA. The research is presented on a best-efforts basis and the views expressed herein are solely those of the authors, who makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied. The views do not necessarily reflect those of Defra, the Swedish Energy Agency or eceee. Acknowledgements Kathryn M. Conway, Conway & Silver, Energy Associates LLC provided scientific review and copy editing. eceee and authors also wish to thank the following people for their contributions to and review of this report: Peter Bennich, Swedish Energy Agency Norm Boling, Deposition Sciences, Inc. Rachel Buckle, Defra Steve Coyne, Light Naturally Jenni Donato, AEA, for the UK MTP Bob Gray, Deposition Sciences, Inc. Noah Horowitz, Natural Resources Defense Council Paul Littlefair, BRE, for the UK MTP Andre Mehrtens, Auer Lighting Davide Minotti, Defra Steve Stockdale, Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. Paul van Tichelen, VITO
March 2011 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3 Lamp Test Results............................................................................................... 5
Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamps ............................................................................. 5 Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamps ........................................................................ 6 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 6 Comparison of Test Data to Previous Studies ................................................................ 8 Factors Influencing the Luminous Efficacy of Halogen Lamps ................................... 11 Infrared Reflective Coatings (IRC) .................................................................................. 12
Preliminary Investigation of Relevant Intellectual Property .......................... 13

Potential Expansion of Global or EU IRC Capacity ....................................................... 14
Data Analysis and Policy Recommendations ................................................. 15

Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) ....................................................... 16 EU mandatory energy labelling levels ............................................................................ 20
APPENDIX A. Technical Notes ......................................................................... 24 APPENDIX B. Non-directional Lamp and Capsule Data ................................ 26 APPENDIX C. IRC-Related Patents .................................................................. 28
Prepared for eceee | Performance Standards for Directional Lamps: Halogen Technologies | March 7, 2011
Executive Summary
The European Commission is evaluating ecodesign requirements, i.e., minimum efficiency performance standards (MEPS), and energy labeling proposals for directional lamps as the second part of Lot 19: Domestic Lighting; Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of Energy Using Products. This study analyzes the potential of halogen incandescent technologies to contribute to energy savings through ecodesign requirements (MEPS). The European Commission is also proposing mandatory energy labeling criteria for directional lamps, for which there are currently no energy label. The performance requirements and the strategies chosen to phase out inefficient technologies from the EU market are closely followed by policy makers in other regions, and the outcomes of the EU process will have an impact on the work done elsewhere in the world. Evidence presented in the report includes descriptions of manufacturing processes, the results of lamp testing conducted by Ecos (USA), summaries of data from tests conducted in Australia by Light Naturally, and comparisons of these new data sets with previously published data from the VITO preparatory study. The authors offer alternative MEPS and suggest improved EU energy labelling levels (and to some degree different labelling algorithms) for directional lamps, based generally upon the proposal originally made by VITO in 2008. However, advances in lamp technology in the past two years make it possible to clearly define a wider range of achievable performance, and to set more stringent MEPS that could save significant lighting energy for Europe. The authors of the report have not attempted to quantify the additional energy savings beyond the savings potential of 23.6 - 35.6 TWh electricity per year (by 2020) in the EU alone that VITO has already estimated. The analysis concludes that there is a wide range of efficiency of current models. The authors employ a concept of functional lumens, where losses from the reflector are taken into account and where only the light falling within a 90 degree cone is considered useful.
Proposed minimum performance standard levels

For mains voltage (230V) halogen lamp technologies, the minimum performance of lamps on the EU market could be more than doubled by removing the worst technologies from the EU market in a two-tiered approach. The least efficient mains voltage lamps are conventional halogens, which only deliver 5 8 lm/W. These are the logical products to phase out of the European market in the near term via a Tier 1 MEPS level. The most efficacious of the conventional mains voltage halogens deliver 8 12 lm/W. These are the products most likely to comply in the near term with a proposed Tier 1 MEPS. They are not efficacious enough to meet the proposed Tier 2 MEPS, which would take effect approximately 18 to 24 months later. It is estimated that IRC technologies should deliver approximately 13 20 lm/W. These products are the most likely to comply with Tier 2 MEPS. Some manufacturers would move straight to the Tier 2 incandescent technology to avoid a second redesign, while others would move to light emitting diode (LED) lamps, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), Electron-stimulated luminescence lamps (ESL), or ceramic metal halide (CMH) lamps to achieve performance significantly beyond Tier 2. For low voltage lamps, a similar opportunity exists to more than double the efficiency of the least efficient products currently on the EU market, again with a two-tiered approach. The least efficient conventional halogen models currently produce about 5 to 13 lm/W, depending on light output level. The Tier 1 MEPS level proposed in this report would phase out such products in the near term, shifting sales to improved versions of conventional halogen lamps and IRC models. A second group of current products fall between 10 and 18 lm/W, depending on light output level, and employ a wide variety of fill gasses and optical films. These products would continue to meet the proposed Tier 1 MEPS, but are not efficacious enough to meet the proposed Tier 2 MEPS, which would take effect approximately 18 to 24 months later.
The products that would comply with Tier 2 represent a third group of models that employ a variety of IRC design strategies and can deliver 13 to 23 lm/W, depending on light output. Some manufacturers would move straight to the Tier 2 incandescent technology to avoid a second redesign, while others would move to LEDs or other technologies already able to operate at low voltage and provide significantly higher efficiency levels. All the proposed MEPS would leave lamps providing the same quality of light, ambience etc., as those lamps proposed to be phased out. Halogen technologies would also be priced attractively for consumers. They would thus serve as a bridging technology until LED and other technologies could become more affordable and perform satisfactorily, especially in the higher lumen output packages.
Patent research
The research on patents and production capacity concludes that a wide variety of lamp coating technologies have been patented by numerous inventors, not all of which are individually capable of achieving the efficacy levels proposed here for MEPS. In combination with changes to filaments, fill gasses, and optics, however, they collectively represent a panoply of permutations for compliance, diverse enough to prevent any one inventor or company from monopolizing the available solutions. The authors explored whether patents regarding halogen lamps that are currently held by some manufacturers may limit the ability of other manufacturers to achieve more stringent energy efficiency levels. The authors investigated currently-held patents in the following areas: Mechanical or technical processes used to produce IRC coatings, IRC coating layer compositions, and halogen capsule design Ownership of patents associated with IRC technology and halogen lamps is spread among manufacturers. No singular patent was discovered that would act as a barrier to any manufacturer intending to produce IRC lamps. The authors did not correlate specific patents to particular efficacy levels because many other factors, in combination, also affect overall halogen lamp efficiency. Thus it has not been possible to specify a highlyspecific efficacy level recommendation that would prevent potential patent infringements.
Labelling levels
The report recommends creating evenly distributed distances between mandatory labelling levels. It is further proposed to spread out the labelling levels from A to A+++ at progressively greater distances beyond level B. This approach recognizes and differentiates among the significantly greater efficacies achievable with nonincandescent technologies. It also acknowledges that each additional lumen per watt gain correponds to eversmaller absolute wattage (input power demand) savings. For EU consumers to achieve meaningful financial savings from buying up to the next higher level, the levels need to be an ever-greater distance apart at the top end of the scale. The authors propose that the most efficacious incandescent lamps presently available earn a B grade initially, clearly distinguishing them from any non-incandescent technologies that could achieve an A or higher level. It is argued that the next generation of incandescent technologies could migrate into the A level range presently occupied by CFLs and the forthcoming ESL lamps. The A+ level would recognize the most efficient of todays CFLs, LED and CMH lamps and encourages CFL manufacturers to improve their present designs to gain distinction from the majority of A-rated products. The A++ level would recognize the most efficacious of todays LED products (currently only available in low lumen output packages). The A+++ level would be reserved for future technologies (likely, LEDs) believed to be introduced within two to four years. Note that for these proposed labeling levels, the shape of the curves, though well-suited to incandescent lamp technologies, is poorly suited to LED technologies. For now, it is easier for LED manufacturers to achieve high efficiencies for low lumen output lamps than it is for higher lumen output lamps, due to thermal management challenges. Therefore, the Commission may consider developing a different equation for the A++ and A+++ labels one that creates a flatter line rather than the present equation that accomodates lower efficacy in lower wattage incandescent lamps.
Introduction
Starting in 2006, the European Commission (Commission) initiated a study of domestic lighting products titled, Lot 19: Domestic Lighting; Preparatory Studies for Eco-design Requirements of Energy Using Products. Originally slated to cover all domestic lighting products, the analysis is now in two parts: non-directional general service domestic lamps (part one) and directional lamps combined with household luminaires (part two). The Preparatory Study for Lot 19 part one was finalized in October 2008. In March 2009, the 1 Commission adopted regulations to begin the phase-out of inefficient incandescent general service lamps, to 2 be complete by 2012 . The Commission is now evaluating directional lamps under Lot 19, part two. Research efforts commissioned by the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (eceee), the Swedish Energy Agency and the UKs Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are supporting the Commission during this round. 3 Resulting publications include : Task 1: International Directional Lamp Regulatory Review. (Navigant, May 2010) Task 2: Beam Angles and Directional Lamps. (Navigant, May 2010) Task 3: Review of Sales and Shipments. (Navigant, June 2010) Task 4: Domestic and Tertiary Sectors in the Preparatory Study. (Navigant, July 2010) Task 5: Technology Prospects for Directional Lighting. (Conway, July 2010)
An extensive preparatory study on Lot 19 part two was performed by VITO and associates and has been available for public viewing since its publication date of October 20094. In this study of the potential for halogen technologies we propose minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) and modified labeling levels for directional lighting, based on those proposed originally by VITO. The modified labeling levels are intended to be similar to those already in effect for general lighting service (GLS) lamps. To provide more details on performance and intellectual property issues surrounding directional lamps, and halogen and halogen infrared-reflecting coating (IRC) technologies, eceee contracted with Ecos to: Purchase and test samples of 12 V and 220 to 240 V halogen and halogen (IRC) lamps; Compare the luminous efficacies of these lamps to the labels (A+++ to F) proposed in the VITO preparatory study; Explore intellectual property issues regarding access to the technology needed to produce halogen IRC directional lamps; and, Evaluate the energy label and the MEPS proposed in the VITO preparatory study and recommend modifications, if warranted by new evidence.
To determine which products comply with the various proposed efficiency categories, Ecos researchers tested directional lamps that are currently available in the EU, or that are available in the USA as 12 V models. We also tested prototype IRC capsules that could be incorporated into future lamp products. We incorporated recent low voltage lamp test data from a study being performed by the Australian government, in which eceee has been an active participant. Finally, we conducted online research and in-person interviews on intellectual property issues and manufacturing options for 12 V and 220 to 240 V IRC lamps.
1 2
OJ L 076, 24.03.2009, p. 3-16. Navigant Consulting, Inc. Task 1. International Directional Lamp Regulatory Review, May 2010. 3 Task 1 through Task 4 reports were prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. and are available for download on Defras website: http://efficient-products.defra.gov.uk/cms/eup-directional-lighting-technical-support-reports-2/. Task 5 report was prepared by Conway & Silver, Energy Associates, LLC. It is available on eceees website: http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/directional_lighting/. 4 VITO, Final Report Lot 19: Domestic Lighting, October 2009. Available at: http://www.eup4light.net/assets/pdffiles/Final_part1_2/EuP_Domestic_Part1en2_V11.pdf.
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), ceramic metal halide lamps (CMHs), and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can surpass the minimum efficacy criteria proposed in the VITO preparatory study. slated for introduction in the USA and Europe in mid-2011 may also exceed the proposed MEPS. Nonetheless, availability of these alternatives does not yet justify efficiency levels so stringent as to prevent the sale of all incandescent lamps. The Commission has an opportunity to establish directional lamp MEPS and labels that shift the market toward improved incandescent technologies and, ultimately, to a situation where incandescent lamps serve only niche applications. The Commission is considering the extent to which MEPS should require improvements in incandescent lamp luminous efficacy, beginning with basic halogen lamp technology and including various filament, fill gas, input voltage, and optical coating improvements. Halogen incandescent lamp technology is widely employed in domestic directional lamps in both 12 V and 220 to 240 V products. In each of these lamps, an incandescent filament is housed inside a small quartz enclosure (capsule). Halogen gas fill in the capsule enables the filament to operate at a high temperature thereby increasing efficacy without sacrificing lamp lifetime. Halogen IRC lamps use a similar but more precisely designed filament in a halogen-filled capsule. The capsule is coated with spectrally selective materials that allow visible light to leave the lamp and reflect infrared (IR) back onto the filament, as shown in Table 1. The result is increased lamp efficacy, because less electricity is needed to maintain a given filament temperature.
Table 1. Halogen Incandescent and Halogen IRC Technology Overview
Halogen Incandescent Capsule Incandescent filament housed in a halogen-filled quartz capsule. Source: http://www.enviro-lights.co.uk/?i=36881
Halogen IRC Capsule Centrally-aligned incandescent filament housed in a halogen-filled quartz capsule with IRC coating applied to the capsules exterior. Source: ADLT, Hybrid Halogen presentation.
Halogen incandescent directional lamps of many sizes, shapes and light output are widely available from many lamp manufacturers. Halogen IRC lamps use a newer technology, and are not as available as are conventional halogen lamps. General Electric (GE), Osram and Philips sell halogen IRC lamps in the EU and USA, employing combinations of their own intellectual property and licensed technology.
Lamp Test Results

To evaluate the potential MEPS and labels for directional lamps, we gathered lamp performance data from our own laboratory tests and from manufacturer reports in European product catalogs. For the purpose of this report we focused primarily on halogen lamps. We tested 25 lamp models (both mains and low voltage) and a prototype low voltage IRC capsule to determine luminous efficacy values. We purchased lamps from European and USA retailers. We obtained the prototype lamp capsule from Deposition Sciences Incorporated (DSI). A complete list of test methods, data collected and other technical details is in Technical Note 1 in Appendix A. We used an integrating sphere for 5 our tests, so all light output values reported are total luminous flux, unless otherwise specified .
Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamps

The luminous efficacies we calculated for the low voltage products we tested ranged from 14.6 lumens/watt (lm/W) for a standard halogen MR-16 lamp to 25.8 lm/W for the prototype IRC capsule (bare-capsule value). The most efficacious commercially-available products that we tested were the Philips Energy Advantage MR16s, which utilize single-ended IRC capsules. Their efficacies range from 17.5 lm/W to 21.2 lm/W, depending on light output. Table 2. Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamp Test Results
Model Manufacturer Description (number tested) 47860 (1) Base Beam Angle 36 Technology Measured Power (W) Light Output (lm) Calculated Luminous Efficacy (lm/W) 16.4
Decostar 51 ES Osram MR 16 Decostar 51 ES Osram MR 16 Decostar 51 STAR Osram FEIT FEIT MR 16 Xenon MR 16 Xenon MR 16 Halogena Bright and White Energy Saver Prototype 12 V Cap Energy Advantage Energy Advantage Energy Advantage
GU 5.3
IRC
25
406
47865 (1)
GU 5.3
36
IRC
36
669
18.8
44870 (2)
GU 5.3
36
halogen
51
744
14.7
BPXNBAB/2 (1) BPXNEXN/2 (1) 817268 (1)
GU 5.3 GU 5.3
38 38
halogen (xenon) halogen (xenon) halogen (xenon) IRC IRC IRC IRC
19 49
287 865
14.9 17.7
GU 5.3
36
35
470
13.4
Philips DSI Philips Philips Philips
N/A (1) 816384 (1) 816391 (1) 816395 (1)
GU 5.3 GU 5.3 GU 5.3 GU 5.3
N/A 36 36 36
48 21 35 45
1252 430 607 955
25.8 20.1 17.5 21.2
Where our results are compared to catalog data for directional lamps, we adjusted luminous flux values downward to account for reflector losses and for the fraction of total light output contained within a 90-degree cone.
Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamps

The mains voltage halogen lamps we tested employed single-ended capsules. Their efficacies ranged from 6.8 lm/W to10.9 lm/W. The single mains voltage CFL we tested had light output of 118 lumens and efficacy of 14.8 lm/W.
Table 3. Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamp Test Results

Model (number tested) 64546 (2) 64819 ES (2) 64823 (2) 64831 (2) 64820 (2) 64822 (2) 64832 (2) 345998 (1) Beam Angle 30 30 30 35 35 35 30 unknown Measured Power(W) Light Output (lm) 473 272 384 131 303 250 419 118 Calculated Luminous Efficacy (lm/W) 10.9 9.1 9.0 6.4 8.3 6.2 8.4 14.8
Manufacturer
Description
Base
Technology
Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram
Halogen Spot R63 ES HaloPAR 16 ES HaloPAR 16 ALU ES HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR HaloPAR 20 ALU Superstar Duluxstar Target Spot R50
E27 GU 10 GU 10 GU 10 GU 10 E14 E27 GU 10
halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen CFL
43 30 42 20 50 40 50 8
Discussion
Our difficulty finding IRC halogen lamps that operate directly on mains voltage is not surprising, because it is a technical challenge to operate a filament in a halogen capsule directly at 230 V. The higher operational voltage (230 V compared to 12 V) results in a nearly 400-fold increase in required electrical resistance in the filament. A very long, small diameter filament is necessary to have the filament operate at the desired temperature. Extremely long, thin filaments are not well-suited for use in IRC capsules for several reasons. Longer filaments require additional physical support (an armature) to maintain proper orientation and rigidity, complicating capsule geometry and increasing thermal losses. Due to the smaller cross-sectional area of a mains voltage halogen filament, the fraction of reflected IR absorbed by the filament is reduced. We did not find any commercially available mains voltage IRC directional lamps, but several products do incorporate a small 230 V to 12 V power supply in the base of a lamp, while still yielding a sufficiently compact 6 and affordable product to meet consumer needs. Doing so allows the use of higher efficiency 12 V capsules in lamps that can be used in 230 V sockets. For example, Philips online catalog for European products 7 currently contains 230 V IRC GLS and decorative lamps, marketed as EcoClassic50 . We were unable to obtain any of the EcoClassic50 lamps for testing, but they appear to be configured in a fashion similar to the MasterClassic lamps we have previously tested. These improved efficacy lamps consist of a low voltage
6
Ecos, B-Class Halogens and Beyond: Design Approaches to Complying with Proposed EU Eco-Design Domestic Lighting Requirements: A Technological and Economic Analysis, prepared for eceee, December 12, 2008. Available at: http://www.eceee.org/press/B_Class_lamps/. 7 http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.com See MV Halogen without Reflector, EcoClassic50.
(12 V) IRC capsule coupled with an internal power supply. The luminous efficacy is limited by the halogen IRC capsules, not by the power supplies, which can achieve efficiencies of greater than 90% within the available space, at input power up to 30 watts. With a more advanced halogen IRC capsule, luminous efficacies would be higher than what is claimed for the EcoClassic50 lamps. Philips markets a less efficacious version, EcoClassic30, which appears to use conventional halogen capsules in conjunction with an internal power supply. Previous research performed by Ecos on behalf of eceee and Defra indicates that this configuration is a very energy efficient option for 8 operating a halogen lamp in a mains voltage socket . While this approach may be practical for larger-sized directional lamps (BR or PAR), the smaller size of MR16 lamps may constrain the use of an internal power supply. In the USA we found one example of this approach, Osram Sylvania currently offers a 120 V product, the Capsylite elogic PAR lamp. This lamp includes an internal power supply (Figure 1) that allows for the use of a 9 lower voltage capsule. We tested a 35 W version of this product that delivered 558 lumens at approximately 16 lm/W. The lamp we tested contained a traditional halogen capsule, indicating that the efficiency could be 10 further improved by using an IRC capsule. GE offers a 120 V line of PAR38 lamps marketed as HIR Plus . We acquired and tested seven different models of varying wattages. The luminous efficacies of these lamps ranged from 17.8 lm/W to 24.5 lm/W. These are 120 V products but we assume that their performance represents GEs commercially-available IRC technology. A lamp design like Philips EcoClassic50 could be realized with these components, resulting in a mains voltage lamp with significantly improved luminous efficacy compared to lamps currently available in the EU. Figure 1. Example of a Directional Lamp with an Integrated Power Supply (USA)
8 9
Ecos, B-Class Halogens and Beyond, 2008. Model number: 35PAR38/HAL/ELOGIC/NFL25 10 http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/products/hir_plus_halogen_par38/
Comparison of Test Data to Previous Studies

The Appendix of VITOs preparatory study contained data for most lamp types covered under the Ecodesign Directive. We compared our results with these reported values. In addition, VITO reported hypothetical improvement options for halogen lamps, which we also compared to our technology improvement estimates. After applying correction factors (detailed below), we found that our data are consistent with the previously published information. To directly compare our test results to VITO test results, we applied correction factors to our data to compensate for our lack of a goniophotometer. The first correction estimates the percentage of total light output within a 90-degree cone, which VITO proposed to classify as the functional lumens for halogen directional lamps. This correction normalizes our data with the VITO data. With the results of 88 goniometric 11 tests performed on dichroic MR-16 lamps provided to us by Steve Coyne at Light Naturally in Australia , we calculated that an average of 90% of a lamps total light output is present in a 90-degree cone for halogen directional lamps with beam angles ranging from 24 to 36 degrees. Therefore, we multiplied all light output values we obtained from our integrating sphere testing and all manufacturer-reported values we used by a factor of 0.9 for comparison to VITOs reported values. We then developed an assumption for the average light lost due to reflector absorption so that we could more accurately use data we collected from bare halogen (and IRC) capsules and GLS products, to estimate the improvement potential of directional halogen lamps. Based on our integrating sphere measurements of reflector lamps (with and without their integrated reflectors present), we estimate an average of 16% of total light output is lost due to a reflector. (Technical Note 2 in Appendix A details how we measured reflector losses.) We multiplied all light output values from bare capsules and GLS by a factor of 0.84 (in addition to the 90-degree cone correction factor) prior to comparison to VITOs reported values. After applying these correction factors to our test results (and manufacturer-reported data collected for capsules and GLS), we plotted the lamp data from the Appendix of VITOs preparatory study for comparison. Appendix B presents details on the bare capsules and GLS that we used to expand our dataset and to make potential technological improvement estimates.
11
http://www.lightnaturally.com.au/
Figure 2. Functional Lumens versus Luminous Efficacy, Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamps
Following the application of correction factors, our low voltage test results and estimated product performance show a strong correlation to the EU lamp data published in the VITO preparatory study. For additional comparison, we included the complete dataset of dichroic MR-16 lamps we obtained from Light Naturally, in Australia, labeled in the key above as AUS MR16.
Figure 3. Functional Lumens versus Luminous Efficacy, Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamps
Our mains voltage data also correlates very well with the data presented in the VITO preparatory study. The Recommendations section gives a more detailed analysis and shows how we used these data to suggest MEPS and labels.
10
Factors Influencing the Luminous Efficacy of Halogen Lamps

IRC can dramatically improve a lamps efficacy, but other factors also influence the performance of halogen lamps. These factors include, but are not limited to: fill gas composition and pressure, capsule geometry, filament composition and placement, and reflective coatings applied to the inner surface of the reflector portion of the lamp.
Figure 4. Factors Influencing Luminous Efficacy of Halogen Lamps
The fill gas used in halogen capsules consists mostly of an inert gas (argon, krypton, or xenon) along with a small fraction of halogen gas (typically bromine or iodine) which promotes tungsten that has evaporated from the filament to rejoin the filament instead of binding to the surface of the capsule. Argon is the most commonly used fill gas, primarily because of its relatively low cost; however, the larger atomic radius of krypton and xenon allow them to better insulate the filament against thermal losses, reducing the input energy required to maintain a given filament temperature (and corresponding light output). Another important factor involving the fill gas within the capsule is the internal pressure, which is typically five atmospheres at room temperature. Modification of fill gas pressure also affects tungsten evaporation rates and ideal operational temperatures. Higher fill gas pressures can increase filament lifetime or lamp efficacy. A higher capsule fill gas pressure increases explosion hazard, so most manufacturers employ fuses to avoid catastrophic lamp failures.
11
Manufacturers offer halogen capsules in a wide range of geometries. Most non-IRC halogen capsules employ a single-ended design with the tungsten filament either in an axial or transversal orientation. They are similar to the typical halogen capsule shown in Figure 4. Capsule design and filament orientation become more important when IR coatings are used in higher-efficiency applications. The most efficient IRC capsules use a double-ended design that allows for closer proximity of the filament to the IR coating. To maximize the IR reflected back to the filament, a typical IRC capsule has an ellipsoidal shape with a centrally positioned, rigid filament. Filament sagging can cause early failure, so some manufacturers use a re-crystallization process on the outer surface of the filament to increase rigidity. The high-reflectance coating on the conical inner surface of the reflector affects lamp efficacy, too. Materials with a range of reflectance levels can be used for this coating, including aluminum, silver, and gold. Dichroic films allow IR to pass through the reflector body; they are commonly used in temperature-sensitive applications. Aluminum is the most commonly used material because of its low cost; however, silver and gold have higher reflection performance than aluminum, for certain wavelengths. Silver reflector coating is the most 12 efficient material for reflector lamps, with superior reflectance properties from approximately 550 to 750nm . Tungsten filaments emit most of their light in this portion of the spectrum, so this makes silver the best option for reflective coating material when used in combination with a tungsten halogen capsule.
Infrared Reflective Coatings (IRC)

One of the greatest challenges for high efficacy incandescent lamps with acceptable lifetimes is designing the lamp capsules electromagnetic emissions to occur primarily in the visible spectrum instead of the IR. The output spectrum of typical incandescent and halogen filaments peaks in the IR; approximately 90% of the 13 energy used by the lamp produces IR . The most common approach to reduce the amount of IR emissions from the lamp involves coating the outer surface of halogen capsules with highly specialized metal-oxide films. IRC coatings are multiple layers of very thin (nanometer-thick) films of a variety of oxide materials deposited on the capsule. Formulations consist of 40 or more alternating layers of high- and low-index of refraction materials. Together these layers can achieve IR-reflectance of 70% to 80%. Typical luminous efficacies of IRC capsules range from 16 lm/W to 26 lm/W. Efficacies as high as 45 lm/W have been demonstrated at 120 V in laboratory prototypes and are targeted for commercialization before the Tier 2 EISA requirements take 14 effect in the US later this decade . The most common ways to apply IR coatings are low-pressure chemical vapor deposition and reactive sputtering. Both techniques are widely used in other advanced technology applications such as semiconductor fabrication, solar applications and nanomaterial synthesis. The equipment for these processes is available worldwide, and is not limited to an exclusive manufacturer or service provider. Selective emitter filaments can reduce IR emitted from lamps. Foster-Miller, for example, has been developing 15 a filament with a ceramic coating that acts as a selective emitter , while General Electric and others have developed intellectual property in related technologies to reduce IR emissions from incandescent filaments. The physical structure of these advanced filaments acts as a photonic lattice that captures lower energy IR photons while emitting higher energy, visible photons. Alternative filament chemistries and compositions are unlikely to be incorporated into commercially-available products in the near term.
12 13
Bass, M., Van Stryland, E.W. (eds.) Handbook of Optics vol. 2 (2 ed.), McGraw-Hill (1994). Lee Bartolemei, President, Deposition Sciences, Advanced Optical Coatings Enable Energy-Efficient Lighting, The Photonics Solutions Update, January 29, 2008. 14 Personal Communication: Mr. Steve Stockdale, ADLT, Oct 4, 2010. 15 http://foster-miller.qinetiq-na.com/t_advanced_materials.htm
nd
12
Preliminary Investigation of Relevant Intellectual Property

As MEPS progress, some technologies do not deliver sufficient energy savings to qualify. We explored whether patents regarding halogen lamps that are currently held by some manufacturers may limit the ability of other manufacturers to achieve more stringent energy efficiency levels. Patent rights and intellectual property ownership can change frequently. Patents are relinquished for a variety of reasons, such as nonpayment of fees, or a successful challenge from an existing patent holder. During our preliminary patent search, we identified patents relevant to both IRC (composition and manufacturing process) and halogen capsule design. We analyzed currently held patents for issues that could prevent widespread use of IRC technology in Europe. The sources for the information below are online patent 16 database tools and personal communications between Steve Stockdale, ADLT, Dr. Norm Boling, Deposition 17 Sciences, Inc. (DSI, a subsidiary of ADLT), and Luke Mason, Ecos . Appendix C lists relevant patents we discovered. We made considerable effort to uncover all relevant patents, but others may exist that we were unable to locate. The following points summarize the opinions of the authors and interviewees and should be verified by legal counsel prior to any action. We investigated currently-held patents in the following areas: Mechanical or technical processes used to produce IRC IRC composition Halogen capsule design
We did not find any currently held patents in these areas that would explicitly preclude a new or existing manufacturer from producing IRC lamps. We found approximately 25 patents relating to IR coatings that have been issued in different regions (EU, Germany, Japan and USA): Nine patents expired after 20 years; they are available for public use; Seven expired in the EU for a variety of reasons, but may have continued application in other regions; Six were issued outside of the EU; Two are issued and valid in the EU; however, we believe that neither is a market barrier; and, One recently filed international patent application may apply to IRC capacity in the EU.
Most of the patents available for public use (due to expiration or other reasons) cover the basic principles of producing IR films. While no specific luminous efficacy claims were made in patent literature, a claim of 25% to 30% efficacy improvement over standard halogen lamps was found in US 4,663,557. The majority of the currently-held patents pertain to very specific parameters of IR films; most of the recently issued patents concentrate on temperature and physical stability issues. Technical Note 3 in Appendix A gives more information regarding two currently valid EU patents. The patent literature indicates ongoing efforts by manufacturers to apply IRC technology to mains voltage halogen lamps. One patent in particular, DE102008032167, currently held by Osram GMBH in Germany, illustrates that major manufacturers are pursuing solutions to enable mains voltage IRC products. Technical Note 4 in Appendix A includes images from the patent application that illustrate how the design challenges of a 230 V IRC capsule may be overcome through complex filament/capsule geometry. We did not find EU-specific patents pertaining to reflector surface coatings. GE currently holds a US patent for a silver coating for incandescent reflector lamps. DSI also holds a US patent on a silver coating. Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) has a US issued patent for a silver reflector used in laser systems. The DSI and LLNL patents are available for licensing.
16 17
http://gb.espacenet.com/ Personal communications from September through November, 2010.
13
In summary, ownership of patents associated with IRC technology and halogen lamps is spread among manufacturers. We did not discover a singular patent that would act as a barrier to any manufacturer intending to produce IRC lamps. We cannot correlate specific patents to particular efficacy levels because many other factors also affect overall halogen lamp efficiency. Thus we cannot provide a highly-specific efficacy level recommendation that would prevent potential patent infringements.
Potential Expansion of Global or EU IRC Capacity

Many lamp and component manufacturers already have the capacity to manufacture IRC products and currently offer IRC technology in a limited number of applications. The major IRC producers by region 18 include : Germany: Auer, Osram and Philips India: ADLT Japan: Toshiba USA: DSI, GE and Osram Other manufacturers of deposition equipment used in the semiconductor and other high-tech industries could also potentially produce IRC equipment. Some of these companies may opt to enter the lighting market if demand for IRC increases.
Table 4. Estimates of Current and Future IRC Capacity in Europe Current and Projected IRC Capacity in Europe Auer Philips Osram 2010 25 million ~10-15 million ~ 5 million 2011 40 million ~15 million ~ 5 million 2012 50 million ~15 million ~ 5 million
Source: ADLT/Auer Lighting estimate, November 2010. If new MEPS and label requirements in Europe create additional demand for IRC products, expanded nearterm IRC production capacity is achievable. ADLT, for example, can produce five to ten coating machines per 19 year, each machine with an annual coating capacity of 8 million to 10 million capsules . If a manufacturer does not have the capacity to produce IRC capsules, cross-licensing partnerships for IRC technology exist in the EU. Major lighting manufacturers have employed cross-licensing agreements in one form or another for many years. IRC coating services or IRC coating equipment is available from companies including: Deposition Sciences, Inc. (USA) FHR (Germany) General Electric (USA) Hauser (Germany) Shincron (Japan) Toshiba (Japan) Von Ardenne (Germany)
18 19
Personal communication: Dr. Andre Mehrtens, Auer Lighting, October 18, 2010. Personal communication: Mr. Steve Stockdale, ADLT, October 18, 2010.
14
If a manufacturer without existing IRC capacity needed to begin producing IRC lamps to comply with new regulations, the time-frame for setting up a cross-licensing agreement is two to four years. An example of a cross-licensing agreement between a lighting manufacturer and an IRC coating/equipment provider was recently revealed in the USA at the 2010 ENERGY STAR partner meeting. Technical Consumer Products (TCP) partnered with ADLT to start producing 120 V IRC halogen GLS lamps with double the efficiency of 20 conventional incandescent lamps. These products are slated to become available in the USA in mid-2011 . Based on our analysis, we believe that an IRC luminous efficacy minimum performance level could be achieved for low voltage directional lamps without running into significant patent or intellectual property issues. The lack of commercially-available products in the mains voltage directional lamp category and the more narrow range of applicable patents in that market segment suggest that MEPS should remain below IRC levels to maintain a broad array of design options in the near term.
Data Analysis and Policy Recommendations

We considered catalog data and our own test results for various directional lamps. We assessed the merits of various technological approaches to improving directional lamp efficiency and the intellectual property landscape for those technologies. We conclude with recommendations for EU MEPS and labels for these products, and discuss sufficient lead times for manufacturers to migrate to new technologies. Governments around the world face a dilemma when proposing higher energy efficiency requirements for consumer products, given the number of competing factors they must balance. If requirements take effect too soon, many products may fail to comply, or may have quality problems. Manufacturers may incur significant costs associated with the early retirement of production equipment and the purchase, installation, and finetuning of new equipment. Conversely, if governments reduce the stringency of proposed MEPS or delay their implementation dates, the resulting energy savings suffer and little change occurs in the marketplace. Another round of regulations might be necessary to capture additional cost effective savings. In effect, the need for manufacturer lead time can be a perpetual invitation to establish only modest requirements or ones whose effects are delayed far into the future. To avoid either of these extremes, the U.S. ENERGY STAR program, the California Energy Commission, and other efficiency specification-adopting agencies around the world are taking a middle course: tiered specifications. They adopt near-term requirements (with 9 to 18 months lead time) to secure modest and immediate energy savings and to get manufacturers moving in the intended direction. They publish and promote the new standards process, and initiate early enforcement and education efforts to ensure that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are aware of the pending market shift. These government agencies will often simultaneously adopt a second, more stringent tier (or phase) of requirements that takes effect approximately 18 to 24 months after the first tier. The second tier represents the real prize in terms of energy savings. The second tier gives enough lead time for manufacturers to develop the new technologies, license them from others, or simply contract out that aspect of manufacturing to capable partners. Some manufacturers respond to these two-tiered standards by moving directly to the second tier requirements before the first tiers deadline, to avoid the expense and hassle of a second redesign process. This gives them a competitive advantage, because they promote their products as more advanced or future-proof than their competitors products. Similar to VITOs proposal, we recommend that the EU utilize a two-tiered approach. We also recommend that the EU consider how best to treat separately mains voltage and low voltage products. Finally, we believe the rationale for linkages between MEPS and mandatory labeling levels should be carefully considered, to
20
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/meetings/2010/Lighting%20Technology%20Updates%20Crowcroft.pdf
15
ensure that a logical, easy to understand progression is established for consumers to follow as new products come to market.
Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS)

There are three main reasons to create separate MEPS levels for low voltage and mains voltage lamps: Low voltage and mains voltage lamps cannot be used interchangeably in the same sockets, because one requires mains voltage to be stepped down first through a power supply or transformer and the other does not. Therefore, they can and should be evaluated on their merits separately to maximize cost effective energy savings for each, rather than combined with a compromise efficiency requirement that is optimal for neither. The most common European low voltage lamps (12 V) and mains voltage lamps (230 V) are inherently different. Reducing the lamps input voltage from 230 V is a relevant efficiency measure. The resulting efficiency gains can be great enough to offset the electrical losses associated with the internal power supply that is needed to accomplish the voltage drop. For example, GE notes that reducing input voltage from 100 V to 30 V and placing the filament in 21 a halogen capsule improves lamp performance by 60% without changing lamp life . Specifically, GEs experimental work demonstrates that a given 100 W lamp technology operating at 230 V delivers 12.6 lm/W, while the same 100 W lamp technology operating at 22 30 V delivers 18.5 lm/W . Neither 12 V nor 230 V is optimal for maximizing lamp efficiency. Through extensive laboratory research, GE found that the optimal voltage is approximately 22 V. Below 22 V, the thermal losses become too great at the cool ends of the filament. Above 22 V, the losses 23 become too great in the hot part of the filament . A separate MEPS requirement for low voltage lamps would encourage manufacturers to employ technologies that achieve near optimal input voltage.
In addition to changing the input voltage, other technologies can improve incandescent lamp efficacy. Perhaps the most dramatic single design change is to utilize an IRC capsule to recycle waste heat back onto the filament. Ecos conducted laboratory testing and analysis of available mains voltage product models from Europe to understand how halogen reflector lamp efficacy varied with light output (Figure 3). We plotted VITOs catalog data for conventional halogen lamps and VITOs estimates of the extent to which those efficacy levels could be increased by employing additional efficiency technologies. MEPS for mains voltage lamps Ecos obtained and measured samples of European reflector lamps to determine total lumen output. We applied correction factors to consider only the fraction of that light output falling within a 90-degree cone. These values were superimposed on the graph of VITO data. Ecos made additional calculations, similar to VITOs, to estimate how the best IRC halogen technologies would perform at European input voltages in a reflector lamp within a 90-degree cone. Figure 5 shows how we divide the results into three groups: The least efficacious of the conventional mains voltage halogens deliver 5 lm/W to 8 lm/W (functional lumens), depending on light output levels. These are the logical products to phase out of the European market in the near term via a Tier 1 MEPS level.
21
I. Berlec, Higher Efficiency A-Line Lamps, General Electric Lighting (GEL) Report, November 1980; cited in Milan R. Vukcevich, The Science of Incandescence, Advanced Technology Department, General Electric Lighting, NELA Press, 1992, p. 125. 22 Vukcevich, ibid. p. 122. 23 Vukcevich, ibid. pp. 122-125.
16
The most efficacious of the conventional mains voltage halogens deliver 8 lm/W to 12 lm/W, depending on light output levels. These are the products most likely to comply in the near term with our proposed Tier 1 MEPS. They are not efficacious enough to meet our proposed Tier 2 MEPS, which would take effect approximately 18 to 24 months later. Lamps shown in this range come from VITO catalog data or Ecos laboratory tests, increasing our confidence that the estimated values from VITO and Ecos are approximately correct. By combining VITO and Ecos estimates (which demonstrated strong agreement), we estimate that IRC technologies should deliver approximately 13 lm/W to 20 lm/W, depending on light output levels. These products represent a step jump in efficacy beyond conventional mains voltage halogen lamps, and are the products most likely to comply with our proposed Tier 2 MEPS. Some manufacturers would move straight to the Tier 2 incandescent technology to avoid a second redesign, while others would focus on LED, CFL, Electron-stimulated Luminescence (ESL), or Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) lamps to achieve performance significantly beyond Tier 2.
Figure 5. Mains Voltage Directional Lamp Test Results, Improvement Potential, and Proposed MEPS
MEPS for low voltage lamps We also analyzed low voltage lamps, for which we had more data from the extensive MR16 product testing already conducted in Australia. There are more lamps available in the USA that operate on an identical voltage, and are therefore directly applicable to a discussion of what could be achieved in Europe.
17
Figure 6 shows results that cluster along three diagonal lines representing lamps of 20 W, 35 W, and 50 W, the most common wattages for low voltage halogen reflector lamps.
Figure 6. Low Voltage Directional Lamp Test Results, Improvement Potential and Proposed MEPS.
Similar to the mains voltage lamps discussed earlier, it is possible to divide the low voltage data set into three fairly distinct clusters: The least efficient conventional halogen lamps range from about 5 to 13 lm/W, depending on light output level. No lamps employing IRC technology fall in this group, nor is it likely that many of these lamps employ enhanced fill gasses or other design strategies to boost efficiency. These are the logical products to phase out of the European market in the near term via a Tier 1 MEPS level. Moderately efficient lamps include a mix of conventional halogen designs with enhanced fill gasses, and IRC technology paired with standard fill gasses and other standard design approaches. These products range from about 10 to 18 lm/W, depending on light output level. All of the values shown in this range are catalog or tested; no estimation techniques were employed to project how lamps with a given technology would perform in this range. Many manufacturers already offer such products, and so would need to make no design changes to comply with proposed Tier 1 MEPS levels, but would need to redesign to meet propsed Tier 2 MEPS levels. Highly efficient lamps employ IRC technology in a variety of implementations to achieve efficiencies of 13 to 23 lm/W, depending on light output level. Note that about half of the lamp samples that fall in
18
this category are drawn from VITO catalog data and Ecos test results, while the remaining half are Ecos estimates scaling measured results for IRC capsules to 90 degree cone reflector values. This gives us significant confidence that the proposed Tier 2 MEPS levels are already achievable today, and that many manufacturers would move straight to Tier 2 compliance rather than redesigning twice as the MEPS levels migrate upward. How MEPS for mains and low voltage lamps relate to each other In Figure 7 we combine the two data sets and our proposed MEPS levels. We can again divide the results of the analysis of mains and low voltage lamps into three groups: The least efficacious conventional halogen lamps range from 5 lm/W to 13 lm/W, depending on light output levels. It does not appear that any lamps employing IRC technology fall in this group, nor is it likely that many of these lamps employ enhanced fill gasses or other design strategies to boost efficacy. These are the logical products to phase out of the European market in the near term via our proposed Tier 1 MEPS. Moderately efficacious lamps include a mix of conventional halogen designs with enhanced fill gasses, and IRC technology paired with standard fill gasses and other standard design approaches. These products range from 10 lm/W to 18 lm/W, depending on light output levels. All of the results in this range are from catalog or laboratory tests; no estimation techniques were employed to project how lamps with a given technology would perform. Many manufacturers already offer such products, and so would not need to make design changes to comply with our proposed Tier 1 MEPS; however, they would need to redesign products to meet our proposed Tier 2 MEPS. Highly efficacious lamps employ IRC technology in ways that achieve efficiencies of 13 lm/W to 23 lm/W, depending on light output levels. Approximately half of the lamps in this category are from VITO catalog data and Ecos test results. The remaining half are Ecos estimates that scale measured results for IRC capsules to 90-degree cone reflector values. We are confident that our proposed Tier 2 MEPS levels are achievable today and that many manufacturers could move directly to Tier 2 compliance.
As expected, the proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 MEPS for mains voltage lamps fall significantly below the proposed Tier 1 and 2 MEPS for low voltage lamps. However, we propose that mains voltage lamps achieve a more significant jump in efficacy between Tier 1 and Tier 2 than should low voltage lamps, for two main reasons. First, the present sales volume of mains voltage lamps is larger than that of low voltage lamps, so the effort required by manufacturers to achieve a major redesign for them would be greater than for low voltage lamps. This favors a relatively less stringent Tier 1 for mains voltage lamps. Second, the converse is true for forecasted sales in the long term; VITO expects that low voltage lamps will outsell mains voltage lamps. Thus the efficacy of low voltage lamps should be improved significantly in Tier 1 before any anticipated sales increases, to avoid a lost energy savings opportunity.
19
Figure 7. Proposed MEPS for Low Voltage and Mains Voltage Lamps
EU Mandatory Energy Performance Labelling Levels

This section will discuss our proposed energy performance labelling levels based on our analysis of data which included; test results of directional lamps available in the EU (both mains and low voltage), low voltage directional lamps available in the US, and low voltage directional lamps available in Australia. Estimates for future IRC technology came from our test results of advanced IRC capsule prototypes provided by Deposition Sciences Inc (whose sister company Auer Lighting manufacturers IRC capsules intended for the EU market). Performance estimates for ESL, CMH, CFL, and LED technologies came largely from manufacturer reported data. Figure 8 illustrates our approach to creating evenly distributed distances between mandatory labelling levels. Table 5 compares our proposal for labelling levels to the proposal in the VITO study. We align our Tier 1 mains voltage MEPS with VITOs proposed labelling level F, but we recommend new levels for E, D, C and B that represent relatively similar, successive improvements in efficacy. The near-term purpose of level E would be to highlight mains voltage products that are significantly better performers than are those at the Tier 1 MEPS, but still not advanced enough to employ IRC technology. Level D corresponds to the Tier 1 MEPS for low voltage products. This would inform lamp purchasers that, in general, low voltage lamps are more efficacious than mains voltage lamps, for a given application. Level C corresponds to the Tier 2 MEPS for mains voltage products. Only in this category would consumers find mains voltage products that achieve higher efficacies than some of their low voltage counterparts at similar light output. Once Tier 2 MEPS take effect for low voltage products (level B), that would no longer be the case.
20
We propose to spread out the labelling levels from A to A+++ at progressively greater distances beyond level B. This approach recognizes and differentiates among the significantly greater efficacies achievable with nonincandescent technologies. It also acknowledges that each additional lumen per watt gain correponds to eversmaller absolute wattage (input power demand) savings. For EU consumers to achieve meaningful financial savings from buying up to the next higher level, the levels need to be an ever-greater distance apart at the top end of the scale. We summarize our approach for setting the luminous efficacy for each level as follows: The most efficacious incandescent lamps presently available earn a B grade initially, clearly distinguishing them from any non-incandescent technologies that could achieve an A or higher level. We believe that the next generation of incandescent technologies could migrate into the A level range presently occupied by most CFLs and the forthcoming ESL lamps. The A+ level recognizes the most efficient of todays CFLs, LED and CMH lamps. The A+
level encourages CFL manufacturers to improve their present designs to gain distinction from
the majority of A-rated products. The A++ level recognizes the most efficacious of todays LED products, which may initially be offered in lower lumen output lamps. As LED performance improves and costs decline, we expect manufacturers to offer higher lumen output lamps. The A+++ level is reserved for future technologies (likely, LEDs) that we believe manufacturers will introduce within two to four years.
Note that for these proposed labeling levels the shape of the curves, though well-suited to incandescent lamp technologies, is poorly suited to LED technologies. For now, it is easier for LED manufacturers to achieve high efficiencies for low lumen output lamps than it is for higher lumen output lamps, due to thermal management challenges. Therefore, we urge the EU to consider developing a different equation for the A++ and A+++ labelsone that creates a flatter linerather than the present equation that accomodates lower efficacy in lower wattage incandescent lamps.
21
Figure 8. Recommended Energy Performance Labelling levels and 2010 Lamp Performance Results
22
Table 5. Comparison of Proposed Energy Performance Labels for Directional Lamps Proposed by Ecos Minimum efficacy at 750 lumens (lm/W) 106.3 73.4 48.3 30.8 Maximum power at 750 lumens (W) 7.1 10.2 15.5 24.3 Proposed by VITO Preparatory Study Minimum efficacy at 750 lumens (lm/W) 106.3 69.2 59.0 54.8 30.8 Maximum power at 750 lumens (W) 7.1 10.8 12.7 13.7 24.3
Label A+++ A++ A+ A B+ B (LV T2) C (MV T2) D (LV T1) E F (MV T1) G
Y Factor 0.116 0.168 0.255 0.4
Y Factor 0.116 0.178 0.209 0.225 0.4
We recommend eliminating the B+ label to reserve the + designation for levels that exceed A.
0.65
19.0
39.6
0.6
20.5
36.5
0.75
16.4
45.6
0.8
15.4
48.7
0.875 1.05
14.1 11.7
53.2 63.9
0.95 1.1
13.0 11.2
57.8 66.9
1.3 >1.3
9.5 <9.5
79.1 >79.1
1.3 >1.3
9.5 <9.5
79.1 >79.1
23
APPENDIX A. Technical Notes
Note 1. Specific lamp data collected, test equipment and procedures Prior to measurement of lamp performance with our integrating sphere all lamps were seasoned following procedures outlined in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) LM-54-99 Lamp Seasoning. The number of samples (units) tested for each lamp model is indicated in parentheses next to the model number in the results tables. If more than one lamp was tested, the reported values are averages of the test results from all units of the model. All of our reported test values come from integrating sphere testing; therefore, all light output values reported are total luminous flux unless otherwise specified. We tested all the lamps in our SphereOptics integrating sphere to determine light output (lumens), lamp power (W), correlated color temperature (CCT, in degrees Kelvin), x and y chromaticity coordinates and color rendering index (CRI). We also recorded the spectral power distribution of each lamp. The power supplies used during integrating sphere testing were an Agilent E3632A (for low voltage) and a Takasago AA1000F (for mains voltage). IESNA test procedures used: LM-45-00 Electrical and Photometric Measurements of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps and LM-66-00 Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Singled-ended Compact Fluorescent Lamps.
Note 2. Determination of reflector losses We used our integrating sphere to determine an average reflector loss factor to apply to the bare capsule and GLS data for comparison to actual directional lamp data. To calculate the light output loss associated with each reflector type, we tested each lamp listed in the table below in its intact form to establish a baseline value, and then tested the identical bare capsule after the reflector cover was carefully removed. The light output value of the intact lamp was then subtracted from the bare capsule output to determine the percentage of light loss due to the presence of the reflecting body. After averaging the results from the different lamp shapes tested, we determined an average reflector loss of 16%, which is comparable to the 15% reported in 24 the VITO preparatory study .
Table 1. Observed Reflector Losses of Directional IRC Lamps

Manufacturer Osram Osram Philips Philips Prototype* Prototype* Philips Lamp Type MR-16 MR-16 MR-16 BR30 PAR38 PAR38 R20 Technology IRC Halogen IRC Halogen IRC Halogen IRC Halogen IRC Halogen IRC Halogen IRC Halogen Intact Light Output (lm) 388 645 614 674 977 1765 545 Capsule only Light Output (lm) 397 675 705 822 1239 2270 822 Observed Reflector Loss -2% -4% -13% -18% -21% -22% -34%
24
http://www.eup4light.net/assets/pdffiles/Final_part1_2/EuP_Domestic_Part1en2_V11.pdf. p 505.
24
Note 3. Analysis of currently held EU patents on IRC coatings The two patents currently held in the EU both belong to Philips, but according to analysis performed by ADLT, they do not pose a major barrier to current or future development of IRC coatings within the EU. The first currently held IRC patent (DE 69911539) pertains to a highly-specific mixture of high index materials that is not commonly used by other IRC manufacturers. The special formulation calls for a mixture of Nb2O5 (niobia) and Ta2O5 (tantala) to be used as the high index material. The reasoning provided for the special formulation is to prevent crystallization of tantala that can occur at lamp operational temperatures higher than 800 C, and the blackening of niobia that can occur due to oxidation. The patent also outlines specific parameters for atmospheric conditions within the capsule that prevent blackening of nioba and crystallization of tantala. The second patent held by Philips (DE 69930921 T2) involves insertion of a second high-index material between the commonly-used repeating pattern of high-low index materials. The intent of this design is to prevent index material crystallization that occurs at higher temperatures. Detailed analysis of this patent performed by ADLT found that as long as individual layer thickness is kept below 5 nm, then no infringement issues exist that would prevent anyone from using this methodology. Dr. Andre Mehrtens of Auer Lighting, a German subsidiary of ADLT, stated, the mentioned valid patent is of no practical meaning since everybody can easily get around this patent by inserting very thin layers smaller than 5 nm.
Note 4. Mains voltage (230 V) IRC halogen patent held by Osram Figure 1 below contains illustrations found within a European-specific patent recently issued to Osram that show how a mains voltage IRC halogen capsule could be realized. The difficulty of reflecting IR back at a small target (in the case of a mains voltage halogen) is alleviated by producing individual chambers around portions of the filament, and these chambers can be coated with IR material. Although no specific efficacy claims for each capsule design were found in the patent documentation, it can be reasonably assumed that similar efficacy improvements (standard halogen versus IRC halogen) could be realized.
Figure 1. Mains Voltage IRC Halogen Capsule Designs (Osram Patent GB2461628)
25
APPENDIX B. Non-directional Lamp and Capsule Data
Table 1. Manufacturer-reported Data Used for Mains Voltage (230 V) Analysis

Estimated Light Output in 90 Cone as DLS* (lm) 280 469 643 907 1497 257 314 476 537 983 1013 1361
Manufacturer
Description
Model
Base
Technology
Rated Power (W)
Rated Light Output (lm) 370 620 850 1200 1980 340 415 630 710 1300 1340 1800
Estimated Efficacy as DLS* (lm/W) 14.0 15.6 12.1 12.6 14.3 9.2 10.5 11.3 11.9 14.0 13.5 13.6
Philips Philips Philips Philips Philips GE GE GE GE GE GE GE
EcoClassic50 EcoClassic50 EcoClassic30 EcoClassic30 EcoClassic30 HaloGLS HaloGLS HaloGLS HaloGLS HaloGLS HaloGLS HaloGLS
18158 18189 9256931442 01 9256377442 02 9257012442 01 76956 74777 76952 74540 76947 74547 76943
E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27 E27
IRC IRC halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen
20 30 53 72 105 28 30 42 45 70 75 100
* Estimated product performance as a directional lamp. Reflector loss and 90 cone correction factors applied. These values are plotted in report graphs.
26
Table 2. Manufacturer-reported Data Used for Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamp Analysis
Estimated Light Output in 90 Cone as DLS* (lm) 89 204 425 765 1062 1444 181 378 650 892 881
Manufacturer
Description
Model
Base
Technology
Rated Power (W)
Rated Light Output (lm)
Estimated Efficacy as DLS* (lm/W)
Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Radium Radium Radium Radium Radium
HaloSTAR Capsule HaloSTAR Capsule HaloSTAR Capsule HaloSTAR Capsule HaloSTAR Capsule HaloSTAR Capsule Skylight EcoPlus Skylight EcoPlus Skylight EcoPlus Skylight EcoPlus Skylight EcoPlus
64413 64423 64429 64432 64440 64447 223 18333 223 14530 223 13223 223 13224 223 14531
G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4
IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC
7 14 25 35 50 65 14 25 35 50 60
105 240 500 900 1250 1700 240 500 860 1180 1165
12.7 14.6 17.0 21.9 21.2 22.2 12.9 15.1 18.6 17.8 14.7
* Estimated performance as a directional lamp. Reflector loss and 90 cone correction factors applied. These values are plotted in report graphs.
27
APPENDIX C. IRC-Related Patents

Patents currently valid in Europe (Germany) Patent EP 0 995 225 Company Philips Inventor(s) Gibson et al. Application Date 1998 Status Valid in EU
Title: Electric Lamp Having Optical Interface Filter (Interface edited to say Interference). Claims a mixture of Ta2O5 and Nb2O5 with at least 20% Nb2O5 as a high index material. This is a special patent application which is only relevant to this claimed mixed oxide material and is not relevant to the majority of IRC that employ TiO2 as the high index material. No specific efficacy claims in patent documentation. EP 1 036 405 Title: Electric Lamp. Claims inserting layers of Ta2O5 or Nb2O5 in thick Ti02 layers to reduce scattering. No specific efficacy claims in patent documentation. Philips Cottaar 1999 Valid in EU
Newly applied-for patent that will have relevance in Europe Patent WO 10047894 Company GE Inventor(s) Zhao et al. Application Date 2010 Status In future
Claims various 3-material oxide mixtures NbTaX, NbTiY or TiAlZ with X,Y,Z = Hf, Zr, Al, Ta.
Early patents that have already expired due to elapse of maximum time period of 20 years Patent GB 834087 Company GE Inventor(s) Bowtell, Moore Application Date 1957 Status expired
Title: Improvements in or relating to electric incandescent filament lamps Describes the principle of IRC by reflecting IR back to the filament No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation US 4,229,066 OCLI Rancourt et al. 1978 expired
Title: Visible transmitting and infrared reflecting filter. Describes an IRC coating with combined AR properties realized by inserting thin layers. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. DE 3538996 Title: Interference Filter. Describes a three layer IRC stack made of l/4, l/2 and combination of both thicknesses. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. Philips Vitt 1985 expired
28
US 4,663,557
OCLI
Rancourt, Martin
1985
expired
Title: Optical coatings for high temperature applications. Describes temperature stable coatings in excess of 500C consisted of SiO2 and Ta2O5. 25-30% increase in lamp efficacy reported with 30-35% being theoretical maximum. JP 60-242996 Toshiba Hayama et al. 1985 expired
Unable to find specific patent information. Describes TiO2, Ta2O5 and ZrO2 with additives consisting of B, P, As, Sb, Sn, Zn, Pb, K, Ni and Co. US 4,734,614 Philips Kuus 1988 expired
Title: Electric lamp provided with an interference filter. Describes temperature stable coatings up to 1200C made of SiO2 and Nb2O5 No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. EP 0 300 579 Philips Brock et al. 1988 expired
Title: Optical interference filter. Describes mixed oxides on basis of TiO2 with ZrO2, HfO2, Nb2O5 and Ta2O5 (5% to 12%). No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. US 5,113,109 Toshiba Kawakatsu et al. 1990 expired
Title: Optical interference film and lamp having the same. Describes mixed oxide layers of TiO2-SiO2 and TiO2-Ta2O5 for use in IRC coating. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. US 5,138,219 GE Krisl, Bateman 1990 expired
Title: Optical interference coating and lamps using same. Describes a special IRC coating realized by 3 stacks (angle-independent IRC design). 40% improvement in light output observed for 60 W lamps when compared to similar uncoated design.
Applications that have expired or have been withdrawn at least in the EU, but that may still be valid in USA and other countries Patent US 5,550,423 Company Osram Syl. Inventor(s) Oughton Application Date 1994 Status free in EU
Title: Optical coating and lamp employing same Describes a IRC coating realized from 3 spectrally adjacent stacks (2 are short pass filters) There is no granted EP patent (EP 0 657 752 A1 has been withdrawn in 2000) and the granted Hungary version HU 215859 B has been cancelled due to non-payment of fee on 28 Aug 2000. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation.
29
US 5,923,471
DSI
Wood, Howard
1996
free in EU
Optical interference coating capable of withstanding severe temperature environments. Describes a high temperature stable coating realized by a very thick last layer made of SiO2. The German version DE 69735822 T2 (via EP 100 99 49 B1) has expired due to non-payment of fee (status on 03 Jun 2009). Since this was the only application in EP, it is now free in Europe. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. US 6,476,556 Philips Cottaar 2001 free in EU
Title: Electric lamp and interference film. Describes an IRC coating with IR reflection of >75% (average) in the region 800 nm - 2200 nm. The European application EP 1 190 268 is deemed to be withdrawn due to non-answering a letter from the EPA (status 03 Aug 2004). No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. US 6,710,520 GE Brown et al. 2000 free in EU
Title: Stress relief mechanism for optical interference coatings. Describes an IRC coating with a total number of more than 60 layers. The European application EP 1 182 469 has been withdrawn by the applicant on 06 Mar 2003. No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation. WO 05046983 DSI Krisl 2004 free in EU
Title: Optical coating and methods. Describes thin crystal growth inhibiting layers, e.g. thin ZrO2-layers in TiO2 or Nb2O5 layers. The European application EP 1 680 275 is deemed to be withdrawn due to non-answering a letter from the EPA (status 03 Apr 2009). EP 1 792 328 Philips Van Grootel et al. 2006 free in EU
Title: Electric lamp and interference film Describes very thin crystal growth inhibiting layers, e.g. thin SiO2- or Ta2O5 layers in TiO2 The European application EP 1 792 328 has been withdrawn due to raising an objection to this application (status 03.Sept.2010: application withdrawn, has been published on 06.Oct.2010). No specific efficacy claims found in patent documentation EP 1 866 570 Cunningham D. Cunningham 2006 free in EU
Title: Incandescent lamp incorporating extended high-reflectivity IR coating and lighting fixture incorporating such an incandescent lamp. Describes ITO layers onto or at the bottom of a dielectric stack of an IRC. The European application EP 1 866 570 is deemed to be withdrawn due to non-answering a letter from the EPA (status 14 May 2009).
30
Patent applications in Japan, USA, or elsewhere, but not in EU Patent JP 3438289 Company Toshiba Lighting Inventor(s) N/A Appl. Date 1994 Status not in EU
Title: Bulb and tungsten halogen lamp and lighting system Claims a complicated IRC design by specifying layer thickness (full text only in Japanese) JP 3475646 Matsushita Electronics Corp. N/A 1996 not in EU
Title: Tungsten halogen electric bulb. Claims an ellipsoidal shaped halogen bulb with an IRC coating formed out of 18 layers (full text only in Japanese). JP 11119021 Toshiba Glass KK N/A 1997 not in EU
Title: Infrared ray reflection film and lamp using the same. Claims a complicated two stack IRC design.(full text available only in Japanese). JP 3496498 Matsushita Electronics Corp. N/A 1998 not in EU
Title: Incandescent lamp. Claims H and L optical thickness from the first to last layer in IRC to reduce in an equal ratio. (full text available only in Japanese). US 6,872,452 Nippon Sheet Glass N/A 2001 not in EU
Title: Dielectric film having high refractive index and method for preparation thereof. Claims amorphous TiO2 layers mixed with Nb2O5 or Ta2O5 with >30 at% of added metals. Mostly focuses on method of producing dielectric film through sputtering technique. Not particularly focused on lighting applications. JP2002341134 Matsushita Electric Industries N/A 2001 not in EU
Title: Infrared reflection film and electric lamp provided with the same. Claims an IRC structure wherein a two stack design is repeated several times in the coating. (full text available only in Japanese)
31

Evaluating The Potential of Halogen Technologies, European Ecodesign and Labelling Requirements For Directional Lamps, 3-2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating The Potential of Halogen Technologies, European Ecodesign and Labelling Requirements For Directional Lamps, 3-2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating the potential of halogen technologies

European ecodesign and labelling requirements for directional lamps

March 2011 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

March 2011 European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

Preliminary Investigation of Relevant Intellectual Property .......................... 13

Data Analysis and Policy Recommendations ................................................. 15

Proposed minimum performance standard levels

Table 1. Halogen Incandescent and Halogen IRC Technology Overview

Lamp Test Results

Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamps

BPXNBAB/2 (1) BPXNEXN/2 (1) 817268 (1)

Philips DSI Philips Philips Philips

N/A (1) 816384 (1) 816391 (1) 816395 (1)

GU 5.3 GU 5.3 GU 5.3 GU 5.3

1252 430 607 955

25.8 20.1 17.5 21.2

Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamps

Table 3. Mains Voltage (230 V) Directional Lamp Test Results

Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram Osram

E27 GU 10 GU 10 GU 10 GU 10 E14 E27 GU 10

halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen halogen CFL

Comparison of Test Data to Previous Studies

Factors Influencing the Luminous Efficacy of Halogen Lamps

Figure 4. Factors Influencing Luminous Efficacy of Halogen Lamps

Infrared Reflective Coatings (IRC)

Preliminary Investigation of Relevant Intellectual Property

http://gb.espacenet.com/ Personal communications from September through November, 2010.

Potential Expansion of Global or EU IRC Capacity

Data Analysis and Policy Recommendations

Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS)

EU Mandatory Energy Performance Labelling Levels

Y Factor 0.116 0.168 0.255 0.4

Y Factor 0.116 0.178 0.209 0.225 0.4

APPENDIX A. Technical Notes

Table 1. Observed Reflector Losses of Directional IRC Lamps

APPENDIX B. Non-directional Lamp and Capsule Data

Table 1. Manufacturer-reported Data Used for Mains Voltage (230 V) Analysis

Rated Power (W)

Philips Philips Philips Philips Philips GE GE GE GE GE GE GE

Rated Power (W)

Rated Light Output (lm)

Estimated Efficacy as DLS* (lm/W)

APPENDIX C. IRC-Related Patents

You might also like