WHEN: Wednesday 12.07.2023, 19:00 / 19:15 digital

REGISTRATION REQUEST>05.07.23 here

WHERE : hybrid, @Ellux Vertriebs GmbH I Fritschestraße 27/28 I 10585 Berlin I mit leckerem Mitbring-Buffet

For all who could’nt make it yesterday the dicussion about the nwvelties in theDIN EN 12464-1 was a very special trialogue in lighitng!

What a night! And a record, in the sum of quantity and quality. More than 80 people in the audience – about 20 in person and the others online.

A who is who of the lighting world and their authorities – thank you for your visit! And again – a warm welcome to, WIL und IALD German & Alpine Chapter!

Thanks to you, Peter Dehoff, for the comprehensive explanation of the motivation and background for the adjustment of the values in the revision of the standard.

Your main goal: to create optimal working conditions and the best visual comfort for users by making more light available when needed.

Thus, increased well-being of workers and energy savings by implementing a control system with the possibility of individual adjustment of lighting. By all means professionally planned and commissioned – the factual requirement for this set of rules to be applied in a meaningful way.

And always your reference to it: It is a recommendation and NOT a law!

And thank you, Michael Immecke,for the impressive demonstration of the downside of this set of rules from your diverse work and planning practice!

Concluding – too often it is considered law in sub-optimally informed official offices and planning offices not specialized in lighting.

Too often, the professionals and thus the necessary prudence in planning and implementation are left out; instead, electrical installers and wholesalers feel empowered to do so. The control system – the Siamese twin – often ends up as a victim of the red pencil, for reasons of competence and cost.

The consequence: excessive use of products and thus a drastic increase in raw material and energy requirements in production and operation. A tendency that is diametrically opposed to the urgently needed transformation of our society to a more sustainable, circular economy “within planetary boundaries”, i.e. within the framework that the planet, as we need it, can cope with without damage and:

Not a solution that will help us address the climate crisis. Or preserves the conditions on our planet that are fundamentally necessary for our survival as humans for future generations.

The question – is the norm to blame or the way it is understood?

Finally thank you, Paul Schmitz: You have once again clarified for us the physiological studies and research on which the values determined in this set of rules are based.

In addition, what personal, physiological and economic advantage the standard – professionally applied – brings in optimal coordination of lighting and design.

It is clear that the results of physiological researches in favor of their validability can never reflect the reality in its entirety. Emerging under laboratory conditions and / or excluding various other aspects and not representing the entire humanity in the composition of the subject groups > they are not to be considered as absolute, but just relative = in context.

And it is clear that, in any case, you should read the standard in its entirety, over and above the tables, if you feel empowered to apply it – including the explanatory texts – >> that could be considered a law; then it does not conflict with the sustainability goals.

An exciting discussion followed, in which some aspects were discussed in depth, but also many more facets of the topic were at least touched upon – there is still a great need for trialogue here.

It became particularly clear how great the discrepancy is between the actual goals of the technical recommendation and its actual application. Certainly not in the day-to-day planning of the international and highly professional offices of the German lighting capital Berlin, which work under optimal project requirements. But in the much more widespread daily practice, which – focused on investment costs and energy efficiency in the short term – puts aesthetic and physiological aspects, but also choice and long-term effects and not infrequently the involvement of specialist planners to the back.

One more good reason to transfer the “how” of lighting to the offices, chambers, guilds, trade and not to specialized architecture and planning offices, i.e. – to the public sector. say – to get it into the width of society and politics and to thematize it with all those..

This is the goal of the Symposiums FUTUR PROOF LIGHTING! A start and a good reason to support it!