Folks, I know alot of purists pine for the "good ole days" of mercury lamps and power groove fluorescents.  But I have to admit, working for a company that deals in cutting edge products as I do, I have become sold on some of the innovations that have occurred over the past few years.

One of which is LED technology, especially for traffic signals and vehicle lighting.  Brighter and quicker response than incandescent.

Another of which is 2X4 fluorescent high bay lighting.  My warehouse changed all of the 400 watt MH highbays over to T5/HO highbays.  Now, the new fixtures were installed before I was hired, but I noticed how the fluorescents tend to give a much more uniform light distribution and at around half the wattage.

I saw this comparison in action when I made one of my deliveries where the company was switching its own MH highbays over to T8 and the difference is remarkable.  I am in the process of pricing new fixtures for my church's gym to replace very obsolete incandescent lights.

What innovations have sparked your fancy??

- IKEA Lighting fixtures and bulbs
- New GE Reveal CFL's and the new GE A-shape CFL
- Improved Metal Halide Technology from Venture Lighting
- No LED's yet... Most are cr@ppy
- PL adapters, they really aren't new but are I bought a lot of them......
- Induction CFL's like Sylvania Dura-One lamps
- Low mercury T12's
- Dimmable CFL's
- If I think of any more I'll post them

I saw this comparison in action when I made one of my deliveries where the company was switching its own MH highbays over to T8 and the difference is remarkable.

Well, technically they have around the same efficacy, but MH has much smaller light source size which means better light control. The old fixtures were just probably poorly designed, if properly designed ones were used, they should direct the light better than linear fluorescents (which means more light where wanted and less light where unwanted than with linear fluorescent).


As for the innovations, I'm looking forward to when the ceramic metal halides will start replacing HPS, for a better, whiter night world.

Quote from: NiMo on August 05, 2009, 08:59:22 PM

I saw this comparison in action when I made one of my deliveries where the company was switching its own MH highbays over to T8 and the difference is remarkable.

Well, technically they have around the same efficacy, but MH has much smaller light source size which means better light control. The old fixtures were just probably poorly designed, if properly designed ones were used, they should direct the light better than linear fluorescents (which means more light where wanted and less light where unwanted than with linear fluorescent).


As for the innovations, I'm looking forward to when the ceramic metal halides will start replacing HPS, for a better, whiter night world.

Yes, but the energy consupmtion is also halved.  215 watts as opposed to 400 watts.

I saw the Icetrons used near me that replaced some really dim outdoor 4x2 fluorescent fixtures, they really WHOOP the fluos! In fact they were bright enough to really WHOMP HPS! There's also long row of icetrons that replaced LPS in tunnel near me!

I also like the CMHs too. I too do like the T-5 fixtures, some even are in classical looking fixtures too!

I am not sure about LED general lighting, but traffic lights do good, although I had read about problems with them during winter is that they don't get hot enough to melt the snow or ice of they ever got in front of em.....

If I was to use LED general lighting, I actually liked how the 35 dollar GE looked.....they were used in restaurant called Red Robins.

and NiMo....do you consider color rendering important?

Improvements in halogen incandescent technology :-)

Also 24,000 hour 4100K CMHs for street lighting.

Oh one more thing, induction!

but the energy consupmtion is also halved.  215 watts as opposed to 400 watts.

This means the lumens were about halved too. MH should really be better (with properly designed fixtures) than fluorescent *at the same wattage* because they produce the same amount of light but allow its better control.

This means the lumens were about halved too. MH should really be better (with properly designed fixtures) than fluorescent *at the same wattage* because they produce the same amount of light but allow its better control.

Not really.  For example, when you have four T5/HO 52 watt lamps replacing one MH400, you actually GAIN light output. 

Quote from: bluelight on August 06, 2009, 07:20:28 AM

Quote from: NiMo on August 05, 2009, 08:59:22 PM

I saw this comparison in action when I made one of my deliveries where the company was switching its own MH highbays over to T8 and the difference is remarkable.

Well, technically they have around the same efficacy, but MH has much smaller light source size which means better light control. The old fixtures were just probably poorly designed, if properly designed ones were used, they should direct the light better than linear fluorescents (which means more light where wanted and less light where unwanted than with linear fluorescent).


As for the innovations, I'm looking forward to when the ceramic metal halides will start replacing HPS, for a better, whiter night world.

Yes, but the energy consupmtion is also halved.  215 watts as opposed to 400 watts.

This link to the poor optical design - lanterns were so inefficient, they required twice the lumen output lamps for the same useful light.

The MH high bays that I have seen seem to create a shadowy environment as a result from a small intense source, particularly if they are clear bulbs. The new T8 or T5 high bays that have good design reflectors do seem to perform better because light is spread better and creates a softer distribution.