How to effectively use modern technology to reduce the effort of counting lights

See other copy of thread.

Can't find it guru .

How much would your for-profit company be willing to pay for this cost reduction benefit?

Have you considered hiring a consultant?

To give you a wide picture of , one of our role is to verify if the number of lights are accurate enough to the one's actually being claimed as a part of the energy saving calculation. Once we have verified , we need to create a RCP ( reflected ceiling plan) of the site which is then audited by an experienced auditor.
We could avoid that 'misconception' in mind of not losing/over-counting the lights while claiming for the energy saving certificates , that would be an advantage i feel.

Refer to the sites existing drawing plans showing the lighting.

If these are not available, not to worry, a quick trip to site with a camera to document the internal lighting layout is your next step.

Cannot get to site and limited information available, try Google maps satellite imagery function to look at the site from above.

If you are designing the lighting of a new site or redesigning the lighting of an existing site then you should be using a lighting design program, possibly in conjunction with a site visit, definitely in conjunction with the site drawings if these exist.

However, it needs a stabiliser and takes away a good amount of space (bytes) every time.

I am sure an Engineering consultancy can spend the money on modern hard drive space or alter the camera resolution of the images taken to something manageable. I take tens of thousands of photos for work and don't have a problem.

To give you a wide picture of , one of our roles is to verify if the number of lights is accurate enough to the one's actually being claimed as a part of the energy saving calculation. Once we have verified , we need to create a RCP ( reflected ceiling plan) of the site which is then audited by an experienced auditor.
We could avoid that 'misconception' in mind of not losing/over-counting the lights while claiming for the energy saving certificates , that would be an advantage.

Existing lighting/site plans are very handy when we need to count , but I am trying to take this to a new level which would reduce our effort in verifying with what's on the plan and what's actually installed as a part of the upgrade.( Most of the time , things don't match , auditor picks up the issue and delays the creation of energy saving certificates)

Google maps won't help us count the lights.

We have already discussed the concern of expanding the hard-drive vs the Go-pro camera , we do have one in-house , it does help but I am looking for something more creative if any.

Thanks

This is folly.

You want a free solution to a problem that does not exist anywhere except in your mind.

The number of lights is a very small part of the power saving certification process.

Bribe the auditor.

Turn out the lights, the party's over!

If it's covered parking what about taking a light meter in and taking measurements to ensure the required lux is high enough but not too high that it is wasting power? That and a power meter to measure the lighting circuit energy draw.

Why are lighting plan drawings not available for this existing site? With these you can relatively quickly use a lighting design program to model the site and tell you if the lights are bright enough or too bright. Without them you will likely need to make a set from scratch.

Is all this necessary or is there a simpler way (like referring to a lighting standard for recommended number and type of lights per unit area)?

Just out of curiosity, what is the value of "counting" lights without knowing the lumens / lux?

To give you a wide picture of , one of our roles is to verify if the number of lights is accurate enough to the one's actually being claimed as a part of the energy saving calculation which leads to the creation of energy saving certificates. The designer/installer takes care of the lux/lumen value of the site.

Once we have verified , we need to create a RCP ( reflected ceiling plan) of the site which is then audited by an experienced auditor. We could avoid that 'misconception' in mind of not losing/over-counting the lights while claiming for the energy saving certificates , that would be an advantage i feel.

Take a wire cutter with you, I am sure saving will be best achieved when reducing the amount of Amps drawn by these pesky lights! With a wire cutter you can prove this to the auditor.

If counting the number of lights is the objective of the project, it is a complete waste of time!

Do you know:

1. how long the light is illuminated?

2. the efficiency/power consumption, when illuminated?

3. Age of the light?

4. replacement cycle?

5. efficiency of wiring?

and the list just goes on and on.

I do not.

Yes. Work remotely from an "as-built" drawing of the installation.

You would have to checkout any new method against an existing site you already checked "light by light" on foot & against plans, best one you have drawings for the new scheme you installed or certified yourselves .

You could have an array of horizontal photocells in a + across the roof of a car and auto-record each cell at regular intervals as you drive around the car park. Perhaps use the "Auto braking system" pickup on a wheel & ignition spark rate to "tag off" distance for the photocell data as you drive around the access lanes, with a manual mark button each time you pass the first pillar on a lane and a gyro-compass to record heading.

If you could then plot luminance levels on a track derived from distance and heading record you would have an "as-is" luminance plan.

You could get a "toy" photocell fitted car to track a red laser beam "tape measure" down each lane, manually setting-up a beam for the next lane as it tracks the first. Maybe it could follow a green cross-beam lane to lane.

Maybe you can justify buying a Tesla to drive around automatically.......

As to real energy saving a kWh meter recording of the carpark lighting circuit for periods before and after modification seems essential along with number of car entries/exits each period if you have PIR control.

A simple no would do