IIRC high pressure metal halide lamps are much more efficient than
fluorescents
I disagree. Linear T8 and T5 fluorescent lamps operate with
an initial efficacy of 100 lm/W or better on electronic
ballasts and have mean efficacy values that are just about
95% of the initial (100 hour) efficacy values.
Pulse start MH lamps have about the same initial efficacy,
but their mean efficacy values are only about 70% of the
initial value, and that's for a 15,000 lamp vs 20,000 hours
for the linear fluorescent lamps. Conventional metal halide
have lower initial efficacy values until move up to the very
large sizes. For example, one GE 250-watt metal halide has
an initial efficacy of only 83 lm/W and a mean efficacy of
54 lm/W. On the other hand a 1650-watt GE metal halide lamp
has a respectable initial efficacy of 107 lm/W, but the
rated life of this lamp is only 3000 hours and the mean
efficacy value is 88 lm/W.
CMH lamps still don't beat fluorescent in raw efficacy. A
400-watt Philips MasterColor CMH lamp has an initial
efficacy of about 87.5 lm/W and a mean efficacy of 74.4 lm/W
while having a rated life of 15,000 hours. A 70-watt Philips
MasterColor CMH lamp has an initial efficacy of
94 lm/W, and a mean efficacy of 71 lm/W. So, the performance
does vary with the type and size of the CMH lamp, but I
can't find any that have higher efficacy than good 4-foot
fluorescent lamps.
Now, before I get beat over the head I must state that I
know there are factors to consider other than raw efficacy.
Each lamp type has advantages and disadvantages in specific
applications. I am only responding to your comment that high
pressure metal halide lamps are mush more efficient than
fluorescent lamps..
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.