I’ve seen various articles discussing the psychology of lighting control, focusing on the debate around whether wired and wireless are at odds with each other — as we tend to view wireless as both a leveller but also somewhat of a black art.
Wireless is the trend, there is no doubt. This is in part being driven by those companies invested in the technology and with the promise that wireless will simplify installations and reduce build costs.
As with all technical discussions, part of this is true and part is an interpretation that suits a technology — however not necessarily the facts.
There is a case for both wired and wireless and, in a practical sense, they should co-exist in buildings as you can exploit the benefits of each if their role is carefully considered.
If we take the approach that every luminaire is wireless and that each one acts independently, then you could argue that, at a local level, you have controls and you have fulfilled your basic requirement for controls.
Roll back 30 years and this was the approach taken by the lighting industry with standalone luminaires with integrated controls — think of the Thorn Sensa for example, or the Crompton Cube.
Regardless of the technology, autonomous luminaires working independently don’t necessarily fulfil the lighting designer’s brief and, from a practical point of view, we need to maintain notional corridors so users can see how to exit a building when working in the dark during the winter months.
Also, we must consider the aesthetic of the space and how pools of light can act as spotlights highlighting individuals in a sea of darkness. There may be monsters in those dark shadows!
Linking luminaires together wirelessly does solve this problem and, with some thought and management, we can deliver a safer, more aesthetically pleasing environment — fulfilling our brief to create an attractive environment to work within.
Now the same can be said of wired systems and installing a pair of 1.5mm cables between luminaires isn’t such a challenge when you consider we must power the luminaires. This is perhaps one of the fundamental truths often overlooked when we discuss wireless solutions.
When you run power, what’s the difference in running mains power and mains power with data? Not that much if you talk with the structured cabling people. If you’re using an LCM then the cost is negligible, and you have to consider the cost of a few metres of cable will be far less than the cost of the wireless hardware.
There are of course overriding factors that impact on your choice of controls and if the project is a retrofit then running additional cabling may not be an option — especially on a heritage building.
We also need to review the costing models and understand what the true costs of each solution are. If you have a linear row of suspended luminaires in an aluminium extrusion for example, it doesn’t make sense to have multiple wireless drivers. It’s far simpler to link the drivers internally and use wired or wireless controls to communicate with that row of luminaires.
This so called hybrid approach reduces the number of wireless nodes and still provides you individual control, as each driver would be based on DALI-2.
I’ve spoken in the past about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which I adapted back in the 1990s into the “Hierarchy of Light” — where basic needs are on the first run of the pyramid and smart buildings are towards the top of the pyramid.
It’s human nature to want to aim for the top of the pyramid to deliver the smartest, most connected building. However, our desires and the harsh realities of project costs and management can impact our decision process.
In these instances we may choose something based on a wireless technology rather than a solution that best meets the needs of the project.
I should explain that separating the technology from the functionality is key. For me, good wireless controls are based on IEC 62386 Part 104 — a standardised wireless platform for wireless DALI-2 that is available from multiple vendors. The information available from the wired and wireless variants is the same and, as such, they are designed to work together in a hybrid arrangement. You can mix the two and have a wireless device trigger a wired solution and vice versa.
Sticking purely to a wireless-based solution on the misconception that this is the only way to deliver a smart building is perhaps foolhardy, as that technology solution might not have the protection offered by standards such as Part 104.
I’m talking about company-specific solutions supplied from one manufacturer which are perfectly acceptable ways to control a device. However, you are forever beholden to that one company and any change in the availability of that technology puts your whole project at risk.
Hardware should be open and interoperable — and open means a published standard that is available from multiple vendors, not a proprietary version of a technology platform.
Creating a bespoke version of an open platform is still just that — bespoke and locked to an individual company. In certain applications this might be the right approach, although you have to consider the long-term operating life/cost of the project and what impact this might have with regard to future sustainability.
We started off by talking about psychology and how we can be gently led down a path that favours a particular solution. We believe the sales pitch, and this is further reinforced by the media and our peers promoting a solution.
I am guilty of that, as I actively promote wireless as the new platform of choice. There is, however, one difference in my pitch: I don’t limit that discussion to only one solution.
Marketing has for years used psychology as a tool to influence our behaviour and, as we have a desire to be part of the current zeitgeist in controls, we get drawn into the “one solution fits all” scenario.
Social media and websites use this feature to understand how we read and interpret data to further target promotions, so it’s often difficult to separate fact from fiction. Apps, for example, are tools that can be used to change behaviour — think of the Couch to 5K app to get you running or apps that highlight calorie counting. They are designed to influence our behaviour, and this is why it is important to separate trend from reality. The only way you will do this is with knowledge.
Understanding a technology provides you with a mechanism to evaluate a solution when presented with a sales or marketing pitch. Be the person who asks the awkward questions and who is prepared to take the long view as to how sustainable a solution will be over time.
When I look at the various controls platforms in the market, I am generally impressed and feel we have some of the greatest technology available to create stunning lit spaces. The only caveat I would add is that I can see certain technologies becoming pinch points in the future due to the availability of company-specific versions of so-called open protocols.
Organisations such as The Lighting Industry Association, CIBSE SLL and the DALI Alliance have clear guidance on controls strategies without attempting to be prescriptive — and apart from the DALI Alliance they are platform agnostic.
In Summary
In this world of make do, reuse and recycle, we shouldn’t throw out proven platforms and assume the new shiny thing is better than the old shiny thing; it’s different, but the same.
Don’t assume smart is wireless. Question not only the availability of a solution — question its openness and interoperability. Will it work with other devices using the same protocol? If not, why?
Take the long view and think sustainable: what happens if something is withdrawn? How do you manage that system or service?
Data is everything, and standards like IEC 62386 provide huge amounts of data in formats that are common to most of the lighting industry. Make sure your wired and wireless solution deliver on data.
Using a standard does not limit innovation — it empowers you as the user/buyer of that technology to use the piece of equipment that best suits your application.
Author: Stewart Langdown FSLL (Fellow of the Society of Light & Lighting)