## 4 The System Experiments
The energy of the intelligent lighting system becomes in full use of power in the case that the ratio of forgetting to toggle the status of sensing devices is 0%. In another case, the ratio of the occupancy status is 70%, while 30% of the workers leave the office, which assumes that 29 workers are still using the intelligent lighting system. The overloaded energy status of the intelligent lighting system becomes higher than before the previous status based on the ratio of the forgetting status to toggle the sensing devices. For more clarification, we assume the occupancy status of total workers is 10%, which corresponds to 38 workers having left the office while the intelligent lighting system works. However, if we assume the ratio is 60% for the forgetting status of toggle the sensing devices, it indicates that 23 workers left the office and forgot to change the deactivate the intelligent lighting system. The energy consumption, in this case, will increase, and the power overload is caused by the occupancy status of the desks. Furthermore, the system provides the energy for 27 workers, while the energy for this case is required for four workers. This case indicates that energy will become higher than before in the previous case. We conducted our experiments by using the previous scenarios, as depicted in Table 1. The table shows the ratio of occupancy and the ratio of forgetting toggle the status of the system for all the workers in the office. For instance, if the ratio of occupancy is 100% or the ratio of forgetting to toggle the status of the sensing devices is 100%, the total number of active illuminance sensing devices is 42 as well. In this case, the energy consumption will become high for the system. Table 1 shows, for example, if the occupancy status of the office is 10%, it assumes that there are four workers using the intelligent lighting system in the office. On another side, if the ratio of forgetting to toggle the status of the system is 40% of the workers who left the office, it assumes that around 15 workers kept the sensing device in the active case. The overload of the energy in the previous figure increased by four times the normal case. In the experiment, we had 42 workers, and around 20% of workers had 300 lx and another 20% of workers had 700 lx each, while 60% for the workers had 500 lx for each. The intelligent lighting system tries to realize the target for each worker, and the energy consumption becomes as in Figure 4. The energy overload reached the maximum power in the office. The energy rate becomes stable in around three to five minutes to realize the target for each user. Therefore, the energy rate becomes stable in a very short time as well when the situation of the occupancy ratio is changed from 100% to 70%, which is applied for all the situations for the occupancy status. The ratio of forgetting to toggle the status of the system affected the energy consumption rate. The energy overloads more than the required energy for the occupancy status. To further illustrate, the occupancy status has around 3000 watts for 10% of workers inside the office, while 90% of workers deactivate the system after leaving the office. However, the ratio of energy consumption increased to 100% in the case where 10 of the workers were not using the intelligent lighting system properly. Also, the ratio will increase more to 200% if the number of workers doubles. The occupancy status and the forgetting status of toggling the intelligent lighting system have a big influence on the energy consumption of the office, as depicted in Figure 5. The occupancy ratio and the forgetting ratio of toggling the status of the system have a relationship with affecting the energy consumption rate in the office. Utilizing the lighting control system by beacons instead of the traditional system tries to decrease the rate of energy consumption and fix the problem of activating the illuminance sensing devices manually.