## 4 The System Experiments  
In this experiment, we have 42 positions for the workers, as shown in Figure 3. Each desk has a random target of 300 lx, 500 lx, and 700 lx for the preferred illuminance. We distribute the illuminance based on the preferred individual illuminance for each user in the office. In the actual office design and traditional lighting control, the worker cannot change the illuminance. All the workers have the same level of standard illuminance as recommended. In the conventional intelligent lighting system, each worker can choose the level of the individual illuminance on the desk. The preferred illuminance was taken by a survey conducted in an actual office in Tokyo. In the traditional lighting control, each worker has 700 lx as a standard level of illuminance, while in the conventional intelligent lighting system, we found that around 20% of workers have the illuminance at the level of 300 lx. Furthermore, we found that another 20% of workers have the illuminance of 700 lx each, while around 60% of workers get the level of 500 lx. In our experiments, we observed the energy effect and monitored the impact of using intelligent lighting systems on the performance rate of power consumption in the office. In the conventional intelligent lighting system, toggling the sensing devices have influenced the use of the lighting system. Figure 3: This is a part of the experiment, including 42 lights and 42 desks. Figure 2: The received signal strength indicator (RSSI) experiments of beacons. For instance, we assume the system has two scenarios for the status of the system affected by the usage of sensing devices during the daytime. The first scenario of our experiment is related to the toggling status of the desk and sensing devices. The ratio of the occupancy status of the desk is the number of workers that used the intelligent lighting system and never left the office in the daytime. In this scenario, the intelligent lighting system has several cases when the workers are not in the office. We assume 30%, 60%, and 90%, or all of the workers leave the office, respectively. We have this assumption to study the behavior of the intelligent lighting system in the normal case and to monitor the effect of power consumption in different cases. For each case of the toggling status of the system, the purpose of the assumption will lead to check the overload of the energy in the office, regardless of the power consumption in the normal case of using the intelligent lighting system in the office. The second scenario of the experiments checks the overload of the energy rate in the intelligent lighting system through the proper use of the sensing devices. The sensing devices toggle the status of the system by each worker before receiving the values. Toggle the status of the sensing device is done manually by each worker in the office. The proper use of sensing devices keeps the lighting system active for each worker while the worker was using the system before leaving the office. Whatever the intelligent lighting system has an active status or a nonactive status, and the status depends on the toggling of the sensing device. Occasionally, each worker activates the intelligent lighting system during work time or deactivates the system due to forgetting to toggle the status of the system in the office. Consequently, the ratio of forgetting to toggle the status of the intelligent lighting system is the number of workers to the total who neglect the sensing devices while leaving the office. Regardless, we assume, in our experiments, different cases. We have 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of workers for the case of forgetting to toggle the system after leaving the office, respectively. We conducted the experiments to study the behavior of using the sensing device properly in different cases and the effect of energy consumption in the office. In the experiments, we had 42 workers and desks for each to use the intelligent lighting system.