Actual White light is achievable on EL, its just less common

I find Cyan EL light to be awesome. For the phone, it goes well with the mindset i mentioned : The technology being made for its application, nothing more, and appreciated for what it can do there, not for how "perfectly white" it is. (that is also my thinking on things like HPS lighting for example). The purpose of a smartphone is having quick basic internet access and multimedia in a pocket size package. Not the device the real present day smartphone (which i dont use) came out to be : an artificially locked down computer platform, with an OS i can't control, with everything happening through "apps", fragile and with inadequate battery : Trying to be everything and being mediocre at it all

Generally, i find that 2000s technology as it was seen forward from the 90s is much better than actual 2000s technology, and the attitude towards it is by far better as well



The EU thing was effectively a SOX ban, at the time being intended to get SOX replaced with SON. It does not affect any other light source used in general lighting, and specifically SON, MB, MBF all do satisfy the standard

Why would they ban most efficient light source?

Why would they ban most efficient light source?

You just follow the money, the more you have the more effective your lobbyists in government are and some larger multinational companies have lots of money, basically its the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, they couldn't care about the efficiency, if whale oil lamps didn't have such a low profit margin they could make those the new light source with enough cash even with all the negative public relations of whaling...

And some of those large multinational corporations have large vested interests in LED's they really don't cost as much as you would think to make, so they know there is huge profits to be made, by 2022 the market will top $ 54,280,000,000.00 (Yes that number is in Billions) and with emerging markets like India and Africa becoming electrified LED's will continue to grow for years to come, so that directly translates into profits on the balance sheet and they will do anything required to protect that...

Don't kid yourself if you think LED's will be displaced by any current technologies, no matter the efficiency it won't happen, you might see a newer technology give it a run for it's money years from now but that is still waiting to be invented and at 2800°K 95 CRI mathematically you can get up to 370 lumens/watt with a Luminous efficiency of 54%, and at 555nm monochromatic (green) you can get 683 Lumens/watt at a Luminous efficiency of 100%, so while they can get 200 Lumens/watt on the state of the art LED's and theoretically LED's won't be able to top 300 Lumens/watt no matter what they do. But what will be more efficient and be the next new light, no one know's until it's invented...       

You just follow the money, the more you have the more effective your lobbyists in government are and some larger multinational companies have lots of money, basically its the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, they couldn't care about the efficiency, if whale oil lamps didn't have such a low profit margin they could make those the new light source with enough cash even with all the negative public relations of whaling...

And some of those large multinational corporations have large vested interests in LED's they really don't cost as much as you would think to make, so they know there is huge profits to be made, by 2022 the market will top $ 54,280,000,000.00 (Yes that number is in Billions) and with emerging markets like India and Africa becoming electrified LED's will continue to grow for years to come, so that directly translates into profits on the balance sheet and they will do anything required to protect that...

Don't kid yourself if you think LED's will be displaced by any current technologies, no matter the efficiency it won't happen, you might see a newer technology give it a run for it's money years from now but that is still waiting to be invented and at 2800°K 95 CRI mathematically you can get up to 370 lumens/watt with a Luminous efficiency of 54%, and at 555nm monochromatic (green) you can get 683 Lumens/watt at a Luminous efficiency of 100%, so while they can get 200 Lumens/watt on the state of the art LED's and theoretically LED's won't be able to top 300 Lumens/watt no matter what they do. But what will be more efficient and be the next new light, no one know's until it's invented...      

it's sad really, how greedy people can be, Not just in the lighting world, but in general. so I'm guessing in that situation HPS was all the rage even though it was less efficient than LPS because it made more money?

Not at the time of SON introduction or older SON upgrades. The main advantage of SON is the smaller lamp size

The greed surfaced around the late 00's, that is the time frame in which the lighting industry shifted from improving and maintaining many different light sources and ballast options towards restricted fewer choices, and now (this is the 2nd stage) towards wiping out everything except LED

Not at the time of SON introduction or older SON upgrades. The main advantage of SON is the smaller lamp size

I've read that the longer life resulting in a 4 year (vs 3 year for SOX) relamping schedule of HPS/SON and higher maximum output per lamp (180w SOX @~33k lumens vs HPS/SON @~120k lumens) also were a major contributing factor of its widespread adoption as well, yes?

I've read that the longer life resulting in a 4 year (vs 3 year for SOX) relamping schedule of HPS/SON and higher maximum output per lamp (180w SOX @~33k lumens vs HPS/SON @~120k lumens) also were a major contributing factor of its widespread adoption as well, yes?

And GE's money helped because philips had the patents GE needed to make there own SOX lamps compete in the global market, GE's SOX lighting only lasted 3000 hours, so GE went with HPS once they perfected it and pushed it though because they had those patents..

And GE's money helped because philips had the patents GE needed to make there own SOX lamps compete in the global market, GE's SOX lighting only lasted 3000 hours, so GE went with HPS once they perfected it and pushed it though because they had those patents..

That was the NA-9 lamp?

I have seen an article from another member about how today's LED street lighting is causing more light pollution at night and disrupting the nocturnal wildlife.  The shorter wavelength blue light from LED's is quite different from the warm orange light from sodium street lights. 

There are many chances that induction lamps would have been replacing HSP on steetlights, in the same was as led has been doing nowdays. The similar tint (4000K, good CRI) would cause the same light pollution problems, plus we would discuss about mercury pollution and radio ballast failures.

About home lighting: I don't think that CFLs would offer a better CRI than now, so some people would still prefer halogen bulbs, which might make incandescent ban more difficult to be voted.

Cavers would still use much calcium carbide on their acetylene lamps. There was a caver's lamp CFL protoype in the late 1990 (I have a copy of the website somewhere), I guess that a commercial version would have been developed, either by a one-man company or by Speleotechnics (who was a small but active caving light manufacturer in the 1990-2000's).

I guess that "tactical flashlights" would not be as popular as today, even with the developement of RCR123 and 18650 Li-ion batteries. Maybe there would be some incandescent flashlights or headlamps with electronic regulation (a few existed), with xenon bulbs. Some urban explorers would get Russian miner's lamps (the well-known incandescent caplamp with a battery pack worn on the miner’s belt) on eBay, as some started doing in the early 2000's. Xenon HID flashlights would be quite propular IMO, probably offering lower light powers around 1000 lumens.

There are many chances that induction lamps would have been replacing HSP on steetlights, in the same was as led has been doing nowdays. The similar tint (4000K, good CRI) would cause the same light pollution problems, plus we would discuss about mercury pollution and radio ballast failures.

I dont think so, because the induction can not offer such concentrated light source geometry as the HPS or LEDs do, so would not allow any efficient beam control. And that would mean you need way more raw lumens for the same task, so way higher power.
I guess if LEDs won't be there, the CMH development would make them still cheaper and more efficient (probably some variant with higher efficacy at the expense of lower CRI). Those will still offer veru good optical control and a better light quality than HPS alone.

I dont think so, because the induction can not offer such concentrated light source geometry as the HPS or LEDs do, so would not allow any efficient beam control. And that would mean you need way more raw lumens for the same task, so way higher power.
I guess if LEDs won't be there, the CMH development would make them still cheaper and more efficient (probably some variant with higher efficacy at the expense of lower CRI). Those will still offer veru good optical control and a better light quality than HPS alone.

I thought of induction lighting because in Montreal, about 10 years ago I saw several streetlights using this technology, mostly industrial & supermarket parking lots, but also a few urban highways.
However for 15 years I've also seen excellent examples of streetlights that use CMH, showing the very good optimal control you mention. This makes me think that both technologies would have been developed in parallel, according to their benefits and the need of optical control (e.g. urban areas) vs. low maintenance (e.g. parking lots).

If there were no blue LED lights, the newest street lighting would not contribute to increased light pollution and disrupt nocturnal wildlife. The ironic thing is that the orange sodium lamps used more energy, but were more environmentally friendly due to their lack of blue light at night.

If there were no blue LED lights, the newest street lighting would not contribute to increased light pollution and disrupt nocturnal wildlife. The ironic thing is that the orange sodium lamps used more energy, but were more environmentally friendly due to their lack of blue light at night.

I've read that low pressure sodium lamps are actually more energy efficient than LED.

They used more energy only because they were chosen to light the area brighter, at a time where thinking was "the brighter the better". Many LED installs save power merely by bringing light levels back down to the acceptable minimum (and below it, in some cases where there isn't more headroom to lower the light levels, but somebody still tries to fulfill an arbitrary energy saving goal). Both SON and SOX are more efficient than LEDs, and the fact they dont stress the eyes and the luminaires are less glary, gives them additional advantage way beyond the Lm/W figure alone