There are so many systems being developed that have a bunch of people sitting behind computers trying to make systems that would control building lighting.

I ask a dumb question - in a warehouse environment or in a low tech production facility - does having a complicated computer system controlling lighting make a lot of sense?

Wouldn't a dumb simple system that requires "No User Smarts" be an ideal way to reduce maintenance and reduce power?

I think sometimes people focus to much on "the ultimate solution" as opposed to a realistic and practical solution.

 

Yes, for a particular situation a simple system can often suffice. But the special class solution is always simpler than a general class solution. For example, the past three plants I've worked at have had fluorescent, netal halide and a mix of the two. And they've worked one shift, two shifts, and 24x7. What saves energy with one might actually cost more with another. And you have office patterns, floor patterns and warehouse patterns. If you want to sell one box verses custom for every situation, it's going to get complicated. Computers are actually excellent for dealing with complexity, and changes are easily handled. And in some cases, actually saving any money requires rather rigorous and flexible control. Some systems save a lot of money and some were never justified. A 24x7 operation may not ever break even, but that should have been determined before investing in a system.

Regards
cww

 

Motion sensors seem to work quite well in most offices. Area lighting in factories is much harder to deal with, as there are typically too many obstructions, plus there are also usually more serious safety implications. I can't say much about warehouse applications, but I imagine there is more to those than meets the eye as well.

You also generally want to deal with more than just lighting, including heating, ventilation, and fans (in the summer). If you're going to deal with those, you may as well handle lighting at the same time. Simple timers don't really work, as shift schedules are often irregular and can change at the last minute. Another factor to consider is that a lot of users want to collect usage estimates for each area of their plant or office (and I would assume warehouse as well), so they can put the responsibilities for cost savings on individual departments (or however they are organized).

What most plants seem to do however, is to just tell the supervisors to turn the lights off when they leave and turn them back on again when they arrive. That's about as simple as you can get. The main disadvantage is that the first part of the shift can be a bit chilly until the heaters have had a chance to warm things up again.

Leaving aside the warehouse question, the original post was for a "low tech production facility". That isn't really very descriptive, but I will take a guess that the author meant a facility with a lot of individual manual assembly work areas. However, a lot of "high tech" applications have similar applications, with just a lower density of manual stations (e.g. load/unload stations).

The best energy saving scheme in many applications of that sort is to reduce the intensity of the area lighting and to put individual work lights at each work station. It's not a new idea, but it takes a bit more more planning and effort to implement so not everyone does it.

The biggest problem with that scheme however is getting people to turn the individual work station lights off when they're not there. Motion sensors might work in that application, but I haven't tried them there.

 

In my opinion the place warehouse or manufacturing area is not important.

The important thing is what you need.

The application depends on the customers needs.
If you want to save energy in a manufacturing area you can use lux measurement and also shift times. Also you can use presence sensors. By the way, you can use a controller without PC and that means no facility keeper or human force. And also you can use computers of course.

Or in a warehouse it depends on the loading shifts. If you want a energy efficient lightning the best way is to use some sort of controllers rather then conventional all time lightning.

I assume that time switches is not useful. Or only other presence type sensors.