evaluating the potential of halogen technologies, european ecodesign and labelling requirements for...

7/31/2019 Evaluating the Potential of Halogen Technologies, European Ecodesign and Labelling requirements for directional l

1/34

March 2011 European Council or an Energy Efcient Economy

Evaluating the potential ofhalogen technologiesEuropean ecodesign and labelling require-

ments or 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

P

eterM.

Fisher/SCANPIX


2/34

March 2011 European Council or an Energy Efcient Economy

Introductory remarks

This research was commissioned and published by eceee with funding

from the European Climate Foundation, the UK's Department for Envi-

ronment, 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 con-

tributions 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
http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/directional_lighting/http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/directional_lighting/http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/directional_lighting/http://www.eceee.org/Eco_design/products/directional_lighting/


3/34

Prepared for eceee | Performance Standards for Directional Lamps: Halogen Technologies | March 7, 2011 i

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 ....................................................... 14Data 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


4/34

Prepared for eceee | Performance Standards for Directional Lamps: Halogen Technologies | March 7, 2011 1

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 analyzesthe 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.


5/34


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 lampsproposed 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 highly-

specific efficacy level recommendation that would prevent potential patent infringements.

Labelling levelsThe 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 non-

incandescent technologies. It also acknowledges that each additional lumen per watt gain correponds to ever-

smaller 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 presentlyoccupied 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.


6/34


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-directionalgeneral 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

Commission adopted regulations1

to begin the phase-out of inefficient incandescent general service lamps, to

be complete by 20122.

The Commission is now evaluating directional lamps underLot 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.

Resulting publications include3:

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.

1OJ L 076, 24.03.2009, p. 3-16.

2Navigant Consulting, Inc. Task 1. International Directional Lamp Regulatory Review, May 2010.

3Task 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/.4VITO, Final Report Lot 19: Domestic Lighting, October 2009. Available at:

http://www.eup4light.net/assets/pdffiles/Final_part1_2/EuP_Domestic_Part1en2_V11.pdf.


7/34


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 serveonly 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 Halogen IRC Capsule

Incandescent filament housed in a halogen-filled

quartz capsule.

Centrally-aligned incandescent filament housed in a

halogen-filled quartz capsule with IRC coating applied

to the capsules exterior.

Source: http://www.enviro-lights.co.uk/?i=36881 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.


8/34


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

our tests, so all light output values reported are total luminous flux, unless otherwise specified5.

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 MR-16s, 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

ManufacturerDescription

Model

(number

tested)

Base Beam

Angle

Technology

Measured

Power

(W)

Light

Output

(lm)

Calculated

Luminous

Efficacy

(lm/W)

Osram

Decostar 51 ES

MR 1647860 (1) GU 5.3 36 IRC 25 406 16.4

Osram

Decostar 51 ES

MR 1647865 (1) GU 5.3 36 IRC 36 669 18.8

Osram

Decostar 51

STAR

MR 16

44870 (2) GU 5.3 36 halogen 51 744 14.7

FEIT Xenon MR 16

BPXNBAB/2

(1)GU 5.3 38

halogen

(xenon)19 287 14.9

FEIT Xenon MR 16

BPXNEXN/2

(1)GU 5.3 38

halogen

(xenon)49 865 17.7

Philips

Halogena Brightand White Energy

Saver

817268 (1) GU 5.3 36 halogen(xenon)

35 470 13.4

DSI

Prototype 12 V

CapN/A (1) GU 5.3 N/A IRC 48 1252 25.8

Philips Energy Advantage 816384 (1) GU 5.3 36 IRC 21 430 20.1



5

Where our results are compared to catalog data for directional lamps, we adjusted luminous flux valuesdownward to account for reflector losses and for the fraction of total light output contained within a 90-degreecone.


9/34


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

Manufacturer Description

Model

(number

tested)

BaseBeam

AngleTechnology

Measured

Power(W)

Light

Output

(lm)

Calculated

Luminous

Efficacy

(lm/W)

Osram Halogen Spot R63 ES 64546 (2) E27 30 halogen 43 473 10.9

Osram HaloPAR 16 ES64819 ES

(2)GU 10 30 halogen 30 272 9.1

Osram HaloPAR 16 ALU ES 64823 (2) GU 10 30 halogen 42 384 9.0

Osram HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR 64831 (2) GU 10 35 halogen 20 131 6.4

Osram HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR 64820 (2) GU 10 35 halogen 50 303 8.3

Osram HaloPAR 16 ALU STAR 64822 (2) E14 35 halogen 40 250 6.2

OsramHaloPAR 20 ALU

Superstar64832 (2) E27 30 halogen 50 419 8.4

OsramDuluxstar Target Spot

R50345998 (1) GU 10 unknown CFL 8 118 14.8

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

and affordable product to meet consumer needs.6

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

currently contains 230 V IRC GLS and decorative lamps, marketed as EcoClassic507. We were unable to

obtain any of the EcoClassic50lamps 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

6Ecos, 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/.7http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.com See MV Halogen without Reflector, EcoClassic50.


10/34


(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

operating a halogen lamp in a mains voltage socket8. 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 elogicPAR lamp. This lamp includes an internal power supply (Figure 1) that allows for the use of a

lower voltage capsule. We tested a 35 W version of this product9

that delivered 558 lumens at approximately

16 lm/W. The lamp we tested contained a traditional halogen capsule, indicating that the efficiency could be

further improved by using an IRC capsule. GE offers a 120 V line of PAR38 lamps marketed as HIR Plus10

.

We acquired and tested seven different models of varying wattages. The luminous efficacies of these lampsranged 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 EcoClassic50could 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

Ecos, B-Class Halogens and Beyond, 2008.9Model number: 35PAR38/HAL/ELOGIC/NFL25

10http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/products/hir_plus_halogen_par38/


11/34


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 previouslypublished 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

tests performed on dichroic MR-16 lamps provided to us by Steve Coyne at Light Naturally in Australia11

, 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.

11http://www.lightnaturally.com.au/


12/34


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.


13/34


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.


14/34


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 avoidcatastrophic lamp failures.


15/34


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 IRreflected 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

efficient material for reflector lamps, with superior reflectance properties from approximately 550 to 750nm12

.

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

energy used by the lamp produces IR13

. 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

effect in the US later this decade14

.

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 developinga filament with a ceramic coating that acts as a selective emitter

15, 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.

12Bass, M., Van Stryland, E.W. (eds.) Handbook of Optics vol. 2 (2

nded.), McGraw-Hill (1994).

13Lee Bartolemei, President, Deposition Sciences, Advanced Optical Coatings Enable Energy-Efficient

Lighting, The Photonics Solutions Update, January 29, 2008.14Personal Communication: Mr. Steve Stockdale, ADLT, Oct 4, 2010.

15http://foster-miller.qinetiq-na.com/t_advanced_materials.htm


16/34


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 non-

payment 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

database tools16

and personal communications between Steve Stockdale, ADLT, Dr. Norm Boling, Deposition

Sciences, Inc. (DSI, a subsidiary of ADLT), and Luke Mason, Ecos17

. 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.

16http://gb.espacenet.com/

17Personal communications from September through November, 2010.


17/34


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

include18

:

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 Europe2010 2011 2012

Auer 25 million 40 million 50 million

Philips ~10-15 million ~15 million ~15 million

Osram ~ 5 million ~ 5 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 near-

term IRC production capacity is achievable. ADLT, for example, can produce five to ten coating machines per

year, each machine with an annual coating capacity of 8 million to 10 million capsules19

.

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 oneform 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)

18Personal communication: Dr. Andre Mehrtens, Auer Lighting, October 18, 2010.

19Personal communication: Mr. Steve Stockdale, ADLT, October 18, 2010.


18/34


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

conventional incandescent lamps. These products are slated to become available in the USA in mid-2011

20

.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 ofvarious 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 fine-

tuning 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 representsthe 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

20http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/meetings/2010/Lighting%20Technology%20Updates%20Crowcroft.pdf


19/34


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 ina halogen capsule improves lamp performance by 60% without changing lamp life

21.

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

30 V delivers 18.5 lm/W22

.

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

become too great in the hot part of the filament23

. 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.

21I. 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. 125.22Vukcevich, ibid. p. 122.

23Vukcevich, ibid. pp. 122-125.


20/34


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 identicalvoltage, and are therefore directly applicable to a discussion of what could be achieved in Europe.


21/34


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


22/34


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 areconfident 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.


23/34


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.


24/34


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 non-

incandescent technologies. It also acknowledges that each additional lumen per watt gain correponds to ever-

smaller 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

higherlevel.

We believe that the next generation of incandescent technologies could migrate into the A

levelrange 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+

levelencourages CFL manufacturers to improve their present designs to gain distinction fromthe majority of A-rated products.

The A++ levelrecognizes 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 highefficiencies 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.


25/34


Figure 8. Recommended Energy Performance Labelling levels and 2010 Lamp Performance Results


26/34


Table 5. Comparison of Proposed Energy Performance Labels for Directional Lamps

Proposed by Ecos Proposed by VITO Preparatory Study

Label Y Factor

Minimum

efficacy at 750

lumens (lm/W)

Maximum

power at 750

lumens (W) Y Factor

Minimum

efficacy at 750

lumens (lm/W)

Maximum

power at 750

lumens (W)

A+++ 0.116 106.3 7.1 0.116 106.3 7.1

A++ 0.168 73.4 10.2 0.178 69.2 10.8

A+ 0.255 48.3 15.5 0.209 59.0 12.7

A 0.4 30.8 24.3 0.225 54.8 13.7

B+We recommend eliminating the B+ label to reserve the

+ designation for levels that exceed A. 0.4 30.8 24.3

B

(LV T2) 0.65 19.0 39.6 0.6 20.5 36.5

C

(MV T2) 0.75 16.4 45.6 0.8 15.4 48.7

D

(LV T1) 0.875 14.1 53.2 0.95 13.0 57.8

E 1.05 11.7 63.9 1.1 11.2 66.9

F

(MV T1) 1.3 9.5 79.1 1.3 9.5 79.1

G >1.3 79.1 >1.3 79.1


27/34


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 lightoutput 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

the VITO preparatory study24

.

Table 1. Observed Reflector Losses of Directional IRC Lamps

Manufacturer Lamp Type TechnologyIntact Light

Output (lm)Capsule only

Light Output (lm)Observed Reflector Loss

Osram MR-16 IRC Halogen 388 397 -2%

Osram MR-16 IRC Halogen 645 675 -4%

Philips MR-16 IRC Halogen 614 705 -13%

Philips BR30 IRC Halogen 674 822 -18%

Prototype* PAR38 IRC Halogen 977 1239 -21%

Prototype* PAR38 IRC Halogen 1765 2270 -22%

Philips R20 IRC Halogen 545 822 -34%

24http://www.eup4light.net/assets/pdffiles/Final_part1_2/EuP_Domestic_Part1en2_V11.pdf. p 505.


28/34


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 isnot commonly used by other IRC manufacturers. The special formulation calls for a mixture of Nb 2O5 (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)


29/34


APPENDIX B. Non-directional Lamp and Capsule Data

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

Manufacturer Description Model Base Technology

Rated

Power

(W)

Rated

Light

Output

(lm)

Estimated

Light

Output in

90 Cone

as DLS*

(lm)

Estimated

Efficacy as

DLS*

(lm/W)

Philips EcoClassic50 18158 E27 IRC 20 370 280 14.0

Philips EcoClassic50 18189 E27 IRC 30 620 469 15.6

Philips EcoClassic309256931442

01E27 halogen 53 850 643

12.1


02E27

halogen72 1200 907

12.6


01E27

halogen105 1980 1497

14.3

GE HaloGLS 76956 E27 halogen 28 340 257 9.2







* Estimated product performance as a directional lamp. Reflector loss and 90 cone correction factors applied. These

values are plotted in report graphs.


30/34


Table 2. Manufacturer-reported Data Used for Low Voltage (12 V) Directional Lamp Analysis

Manufacturer Description Model Base Technology

Rated

Power

(W)

Rated

Light

Output

(lm)

Estimated

Light

Output in

90 Cone

as DLS*(lm)

Estimated

Efficacy as

DLS*

(lm/W)

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64413 G4 IRC 7 105 89 12.7

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64423 G4 IRC 14 240 204 14.6

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64429 G4 IRC 25 500 425 17.0

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64432 G4 IRC 35 900 765 21.9

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64440 G4 IRC 50 1250 1062 21.2

OsramHaloSTAR

Capsule64447 G4 IRC 65 1700 1444 22.2

RadiumSkylight

EcoPlus223 18333 G4 IRC 14 240 181 12.9

RadiumSkylight

EcoPlus223 14530 G4 IRC 25 500 378 15.1

RadiumSkylight

EcoPlus223 13223 G4 IRC 35 860 650 18.6

RadiumSkylight

EcoPlus223 13224 G4 IRC 50 1180 892 17.8

RadiumSkylight

EcoPlus223 14531 G4 IRC 60 1165 881 14.7

* Estimated performance as a directional lamp. Reflector loss and 90 cone correction factors applied. These values are

plotted in report graphs.


31/34


APPENDIX C. IRC-Related Patents

Patents currently valid in Europe (Germany)

Patent Company Inventor(s) Application

Date

Status

EP 0 995 225 Philips Gibson et al. 1998 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 Philips Cottaar 1999 Valid in EU

Title: Electric Lamp.

Claims inserting layers of Ta2O5 or Nb2O5 in thick Ti02 layers to reduce scattering.

No specific efficacy claims in patent documentation.

Newly applied-for patent that will have relevance in Europe

Patent Company Inventor(s) Application Date Status

WO 10047894 GE Zhao et al. 2010 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


GB 834087 GE Bowtell, Moore 1957 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 Philips Vitt 1985 expired

Title: Interference Filter.

Describes a three layer IRC stack made of l/4, l/2 and combination of both thicknesses.



32/34


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


EP 0 300 579 Philips Brock et al. 1988 expiredTitle: Optical interference filter.

Describes mixed oxides on basis of TiO2 with ZrO2, HfO2, Nb2O5 and Ta2O5 (5% to 12%).


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.


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


US 5,550,423 Osram Syl. Oughton 1994 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.



33/34


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.


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).


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.


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 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 EPA (status 14 May 2009).


34/34

Patent applications in Japan, USA, or elsewhere, but not in EU

Patent Company Inventor(s) Appl. Date Status

JP 3438289 Toshiba Lighting N/A 1994 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 3475646Matsushita

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 3496498Matsushita

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 6,872,452Nippon Sheet

GlassN/A 2001 not in EU

Title

evaluating the potential of halogen technologies, european ecodesign and labelling requirements for...

Documents