as you all know mercury vapor ballasts have been banned,and mercury vapor fixtures are illegal to install,and its simply not fair,mercury vapor lighting was simply thrown out of the door without a single thought of how to improve them at all,mercury vapor lamps when properly designed have proven themselves as a durable and worthy lighting source and they can and should be improved,both clear and coated lamps offer outstanding contrast,and visability.

i think the folowing could improve mercury vapor lamps.

return of the anti-blackening arctube design

experimenting with diffrent emmiter's

using larger electrodes

possibly changeing the shape and profile of the arctube

eliminating the starting probe for a pulse-start design

possibly using corestar arctube's

experimenting with diffrent gas filling's within the arctube

experimenting with various phosphorus

what do you guys think,any idea's or sugestion's??

The only possibility I could see is if someone created a mercury vapor lamp that beat the lumen-to-watt efficiency of EVERY other lamp out there, had CRI close to 100, had little or no warm up/restrike time, little or no mercury, still offered an extremely long life, good optical control and low cost, and didn't use the name "mercury vapor." This is what the lighting world is seeking now.

I don't think the chances are looking good for MV lamps. You can only go so far with improving the basic design of a MV lamp without creating an entirely different lamp.

On the other hand, I have yet to see ANY light source that can completely duplicate the color of a clear MV lamp (except malfunctioning HPS and MH lamps) and if THAT'S what a person wants in a lighting design, why change anything?

there is a very good reason to preserve and improve mercury vapor lighting.

even cheap mercury vapor lights can outlive high pressure sodium,and metal halide lamps
by a very large margin,and as long as you dont add any other metalic elements besides mercury,altering properities such as the gas filling in the arctube,and the shape of the arctube,does not change the fact that its still a mercury vapor lamp.

although you are right,use of mercury vapor lighting has sharply declined,and widespread use in the future is highly unlikely.

our best bet is for the improvement of ceramic metal halide lamps.

It would of been nice if GE would of stepped up to the plate like they did in the 70's when there was a force to use all LPS lights.

the Induction is kinda an "improvement" to MV actually as they work in very similar way! And those MVs from late 1960s and 70s and early 80s lasted very long time and stayed bright too. I have lots of 70s Westinghouse MV that has been in service for 20-30 years and still works and brighter than a 3 year old today's Philips well used lamp!!!!

jace,do you mean those electrodeless induction lamps?

yes, see here a picture of new induction posttops installed in Frederick MD

I bet they could make cooler color phosphor or even close to /W phosphor or whatever with those!

improvement of metal halide lamps is a more likely outcome.

just a question does the phosphorus on a coated mercury vapor lamp add lumens to the light output,or does it just simply correct the color?

It would be nice if they made retrofit metal halide lamps for 175 watt mercury vapor streetlights. They do make them in 250, 400 and 1000 watts. They cost less than newer fixtures and the older ones could stay in service until they wear out since mercury lamps won't be available in 2011.

there banning the lamps too??!!

they aren't banning the bulbs just the fixtures and the ballasts

well...anyway the people responsible for the ban are obviously narrow minded,since some of the reasons for the ban just dont make sense..

Europe was planning to ban mercury lamps by 2011 but that was postponed to 2015.

It has nothing to do with being narrow-minded.  I appreciate the passion most have here for MV lamps, ballasts and luminaires, but the official stance will always default to efficacy (lumens per watt).  Yes, HPS doesn't have as many "useful" lumens, but the efficacy on paper far exceeds MV and MH.

As others have mentioned, improvements to metal halide technology are already in the works and one can expect more mass deployment of pulse-start and high-CRI ceramic metal halide lamps.  Also, electronic ballasts for high-wattage metal halide are already out there and will certainly be perfected in the coming years.

I know the argument from some will center around maintenance and lamp life.  But guys, we all know current generation MV lamps are junk, too.  Either way, it will need to be maintained.

So, I expect HPS for general roadway and area lighting and MH for color-sensitive areas (monuments, roadway signage, car lots, etc).  Don't write-off induction lighting as a possibility either!  At least the induction has a nice long life.

Energy efficiency is the buzzword right now and it's not going to change anytime soon.  The market will dictate which technologies will ultimately prevail.  We might as well begin to embrace the future...

Some have accused me of having a conflict of interest since I work for one of the "big three" lighting manufacturers.  But, I assure you that has nothing to do with it.  It's just time to be realistic about what the future holds...and MV isn't in the future, unfortunately.

well...anyway the people responsible for the ban are obviously narrow minded,since some of the reasons for the ban just dont make sense..

Metal halide is technically an improvement to mercury lamps, as it involves adding halide salts to the arc tube mixture.

Ceramic metal halide is the way ahead. Unlike quartz metal halide, you're very unlikely to witness colour shifting or lumen depreciation, and furthermore, unlike quartz metal halide, the halide salts don't attack the walls of the arc tube making the lamps more likely to explode, so they're as safe as HPS lamps. Over here in Europe we seem to be leading the way when it comes to metal halide (and many other light sources for that matter). There is a type of ceramic metal halide lamp known as the Philips CosmoPolis lamp. A Philips 125w MV lamp produces 6200 lumens of light, whilst a Philips 60w CosmoPolis lamp produces 6800 lumens of a better quality and more aesthetically pleasing light. These ceramic metal halide CosmoPolis lamps are more efficient at producing light than HPS lamps on the market, and not only are they more efficient, they produce a nice and more natural white light as opposed to orange light. However, these lamps are designed to operate from specific CosmoPolis electronic gear units, unlike other ceramic metal halide lamps on the market, and because the technology is only been on the market for four years it hasn't become widespread, due to still being relatively expensive new technology. However, more and more places are adopting it.