Is anybody here familiar with this? It looks like a scam to me.
The Light Controller That Works Like an MP3
BY Ariel SchwartzFri Sep 17, 2010
LumiSmart lighting controller
What do MP3s and light bulbs have in common? Quite a lot, it turns
out, when the light bulbs are attached to a LumiSmart Intelligent
Lighting Controller. The shoebox-sized solid state controller,
developed by Cavet Technologies, costs $2,000, takes 20 minutes to
install (with help from an electrician), and cuts electricity
consumption by 30% to 40%.
The controller works by cutting off power to light bulbs for
nanoseconds at a time--faster than a light or ballast can figure out.
It's similar to compression algorithms used in MP3s, where cutting out
select bits to decrease file size still maintains the file as a whole.
You may find a better source than this but confirms what I had heard
about lighting being only about 10% of a home's electricity consumption:
Also for lighting you could save more than 30-40% with cfl's.
I say, thumbs down on this device.
It obviously would reduce power consumption by 30-40% -- which means, in the
case of resistance heating, for example -- that it also reduces power *output*
by the same 30-40%. Since the amount of energy needed to heat the house, dry
laundry, cook, etc. doesn't change, reducing the power available for the task
means increasing the time required to do it, meaning, for example, that your
furnace will have to run 43-67% longer to keep your home warm. It will take
43-67% longer to make toast, brew coffee, boil water for tea, cook your meals,
or dry your clothes. In short, it won't save a damn thing on anything *but*
lighting -- and probably only on *incandescent* lighting at that.
Another poster cited the figure of lighting being 10% of total electricity
cost - that depends a lot on (a) the type of lighting, and (b) what other
purposes electricity is used for. With a gas boiler, gas oven, gas water
heater, and gas clothes dryer, incandescent lighting represented over 30% of
my total cost for electricity. Switching over to CFLs reduced that to around
10-15%. In a home that had CFLs to begin with, and electric heat, water
heating, cooking, and dryer, I'd imagine the proportion to be a lot less than
that. But let's be generous to the purveyors of this device, and assume that
it's 20% on average. Further assume an average total cost of $125/month.
That's $25/month for lighting. If this device can save 40%, that's $10/month,
making it 200 months = 17 years before you recover the cost of purchasing it.
Add another couple hundred bucks or so for installation by a licensed
electrician, and you're looking at a payback period of pretty near twenty
years. At the lower end of their projection (30%), the period approaches 25
years. And if your lighting costs are only 10% of your total, instead of 20%,
it's nearly 50 years.
LumiSmart is an intelligent lighting controller that is designed for use
in commercial / industrial buildings, not homes. The device operates on
patented adaptive micro-processor controlled wave-form modification. The
device enables large companies to dramatically cut there power consumption
without retrofitting lights or rewiring which leads to costly business
LumiSmart is currently being rolled out by numerous utilities in 21
countries. Your local utility will contribute up to $1000 per circuit
where LumiSmart is deployed.
The product is manufactured in Toronto, Canada, is UL listed and is
currently available for commercial properties. The device is also smart
grid upgradeable for demand response and remote management. Do more
homework on the device, their are many third party reports on the web and
you can check with your local electrical distributor for availability.
Simon Jerome wrote:
The Lumismart is an intelligent lighting controller for commercial,
and Retail locations. It uses waveform modification to remove sections of
from the electrical sine wave. It is connected between the electrical
circuit breaker and a dedicated fluorescent lighting circuit, in essence
dimming florescent lights that were not originally designed to dim. This
device is not
intended for residential home use, as lighting is a small portion of the
power cost and most residential electrical circuits are not dedicated to
The product has been validated by lighting test houses around the world,
North America and Europe, as well as at Underwriter laboratories.
just this week, Cavet Technologies were announced as winners of the the
Clean 15 (Fast 50) companies in Canada with the Lumismart ILC. The concept
waveform modification to reduce lighting associated costs is not new and
been out for many years. However, Lumismart increases the amount of
savings by over double, and is designed more as a commodity purchase
I trust this answers your questions, however you can find more information
VP Global Sales
Cavet Technologies Inc.
You've been around a.h.r for quite a while, and IMHO asked an honest
question. You unfairly got caught up in the annoyance at the parasite
site, which I share. But you did not post through the parasite.
My guess is that the manufacturer watches the internet for references to
their product, and found a hit at the parasite.
It is possible the 'device' saves power by providing less illumination.
It does not make sense for your house and, according to the mouthpiece,
is not intended for residential. I didn't read any of the propaganda and
I have no idea if it makes sense anywhere else. I am, in general, skeptical.
Lighting is a *huge* cost for retail businesses -- look around next time
you're in Wal-Mart, Home Depot, or any supermarket. Installing one of those
gadgets in a Wal-Mart store would probably pay for itself in a matter of
months. I imagine that stadiums would benefit considerably too. But as I
showed in an earlier post, it's pretty well pointless for residential use.
I agree you could reduce cost *IF* you can use a lower lighting level.
Would seem like a big box would design the lighting at the level they
needed, in which case the 'device' would be pointless. If you had, for
example, skylights that added solar light (the Costco I go to does) you
could vary the electrical lighting, and some installations do. You
couldn't necessarily reduce the lighting on a whole circuit.
And IF the 'device' works, and is cost effective. I have no opinion on that.
.. but probably an incorrect conclusion. If the device can reduce power
consumption by 30% while reducing lighting levels by less than that, it's
In most lighting applications, a sufficiently brief interruption of the
current will have negligible effect on the light output. Consider an
incandescent lamp on a 60Hz AC power source. 120 times a second, the voltage
is *zero*. But since it takes longer than 1/120 of a second for the filament
to cool to the point where it no longer emits visible light, there's no
flicker. It's no stretch to imagine that an electronic controller could chop
30 or 40% out of the total power with nowhere nearly a 30-40% reduction in
So you reduce the electrical energy in by 30% and the light energy out
is not reduced by 30%? There is a free lunch?
Electrical energy in is greater or equal to light energy out. Doe the
'device' increase the efficiency of the lighting? If not perhaps they
could win the Nobel prize. (I suspect your claims are greater than their
I don't see any reason why heat would drop more than light.
Take the case of slicing out part of the AC cycle (which is what happens
with the common phase angle control dimmers we all use). Apply that to
an incandescent lamp. If you reduce electrical power by 5% the lamp will
run cooler, which means that less energy comes out in light and the
percentage of the electrical energy that becomes heat increases. Light
energy goes down more than 5% and efficiency is reduced.
The 'device', if I remember right, is intended for fluorescents. I see
no reason to believe that heat will be disproportionately reduced. I
expect that light will fall by the same percentage as the electrical
I agree with AZ.
I really don't want to reread the propaganda (which may or may not be
true) but my recollection is the alleged virtue of the 'device' is that
you can put it on an existing whole branch circuit with existing
non-dimming ballasts and dim the lamps for energy savings (at a lower
light level). Someone may have read the propaganda closer than I did.
If dimming the lamps makes sense, like large window areas and daylight,
and if the circuits are arranged right, like parallel to the windows
instead of window to darker interior,
and if the 'device' dimming works,
and does not reduce the life of ballasts and lamps,
and does not change the lamp color characteristics,
then the device may make a lot of sense (or cents).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.