Maker Pro
Maker Pro

High-CCT/CRI HPS question

  • Thread starter Daniel Stern Lighting
  • Start date
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
Philips won "Best New HID Product" at LightFair '01 for their MasterColor
HPS Retro-White line. I've no direct experience with the product, but the
catalogue claims 92 CRI and ~3000K, running on standard HPS ballasts.

My knowledge and experience have a rather sharp cutoff (as it were) at the
boundaries of automotive lighting, so I'm almost certainly missing
something basic here, but what would stop the development of a product
like this for automotive headlight applications? Rapid startup and
hot-restrike would be necessary, and without knowing much about HPS
chemistry and ballasts I suppose these could make problems...any thoughts?

DS
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Philips won "Best New HID Product" at LightFair '01 for their MasterColor
HPS Retro-White line. I've no direct experience with the product, but the
catalogue claims 92 CRI and ~3000K, running on standard HPS ballasts.

My knowledge and experience have a rather sharp cutoff (as it were) at the
boundaries of automotive lighting, so I'm almost certainly missing
something basic here, but what would stop the development of a product
like this for automotive headlight applications? Rapid startup and
hot-restrike would be necessary, and without knowing much about HPS
chemistry and ballasts I suppose these could make problems...any thoughts?

This is NOT an HPS lamp, It is a metal halide lamp designed to run on
HPS ballasts. Since automobile discharge headlamps already use metal
halide technology, there is no fundamental advantage. I do believe the
Retro-White is a ceramic metal halide lamp and that would provide
advantages in CRI and efficacy. I do not believe CMH lamps are made in
small enough packages for auto headlamp applications and they have
greater source size (due to translucent envelope) than quartz metal
halide lamps of equivalent power, so they would probably not be as
desirable for a headlamp application where light control is critical.
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
This is NOT an HPS lamp, It is a metal halide lamp designed to run on
HPS ballasts.

OK, that clears up a couple other questions I had about the product...
Since automobile discharge headlamps already use metal
halide technology, there is no fundamental advantage.

Well...I suppose it depends on what you consider a "fundamental"
advantage. CRI (qua SPD) is currently being looked at with regards to
glare -- there's an emerging need to attenuate the high blue spike in
current production automotive HIDs, but at the same time there's a drive
to eliminate Mercury from them, and so far all such efforts have resulted
in even higher blue spikes. And, the CRI of current automotive HIDs is
lousy -- mid 70s.
Retro-White is a ceramic metal halide lamp and that would provide
advantages in CRI and efficacy. I do not believe CMH lamps are made in
small enough packages for auto headlamp applications and they have
greater source size (due to translucent envelope) than quartz metal
halide lamps of equivalent power, so they would probably not be as
desirable for a headlamp application where light control is critical.

H'mm...yeah, that makes good sense, but it'd be interesting to know how
small a CMH source could be made. It'd be larger than a present automotive
HID source, to be sure, but the translucent envelope would probably solve
as many problems as it would create, particularly in polyellipsoidal
("projector") lamps, and it seems to me the new problems might be easier
to tackle than the old ones have been, so far.

Thanks for the comments.

DS
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK, that clears up a couple other questions I had about the product...


Well...I suppose it depends on what you consider a "fundamental"
advantage.

Sorry. All I meant was that Retro-White is metal halide and auto
headlamps already use metal halide.
CRI (qua SPD) is currently being looked at with regards to
glare -- there's an emerging need to attenuate the high blue spike in
current production automotive HIDs, but at the same time there's a drive
to eliminate Mercury from them, and so far all such efforts have resulted
in even higher blue spikes. And, the CRI of current automotive HIDs is
lousy -- mid 70s.


H'mm...yeah, that makes good sense, but it'd be interesting to know how
small a CMH source could be made. It'd be larger than a present automotive
HID source, to be sure, but the translucent envelope would probably solve
as many problems as it would create, particularly in polyellipsoidal
("projector") lamps, and it seems to me the new problems might be easier
to tackle than the old ones have been, so far.

I can't answer the "smallest that can be made" but the lowest power
CMH lamp made now is 39 watts (which is less than I thought - I
expected to find that the 70 watt was the lowest power.) Philips has
the 39 watt CMH in both T6 and T4 single-ended envelopes. They don't
give the size of the arc tube, only the outer envelope. CRI is 81 and
the CCT is 3000 K. The 70 watt is available with CRI of 92. This lamp
does not have Krypton or Xenon fill used in automobile headlamps to
get instant light. If you think there is an application for this lamp
in auto headlamps, you may want to contact Philips.
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Side issue #2. It is my understanding that Gil Reiling was an inventor,
or the inventor of the original metal halide lamps.

Yes, Gil did invent the metal halide lamp. I don't remember if there
are any co-inventors listed on the patent.
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
I recently heard that some company (I do not recall the name) is
introducing a neobdynium (spelling?)lamp for autos in the hope that it
will supplant some of the "blue light" lamps that are in vogue.

AIIIIGGGHHHHH...

This is just another one of Daniel Karpen's scams.

DS
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
I recently heard that some company (I do not recall the name) is
introducing a neobdynium (spelling?)lamp for autos in the hope that it
will supplant some of the "blue light" lamps that are in vogue.

To elaborate on my previous message ("Aiiighhh"): Despite Karpen's
gobbledegook that appeared recently in the Detroit News (and before that
in LD&A, which was subsequently heavily strafed with objections from
non-quacks), headlight lamps doped with Neodymium Oxide have been found by
bona fide scientists (Sullivan and Flannagan at UMTRI, for two) NOT to
improve seeing at all, and to cause a small but significant *INCREASE* in
discomfort glare relative to a plain, untinted bulb. In both these
respects, the Neodymium lamps are identical to the headlight lamps with
blue absorption coatings.

Karpen claims that "mainstream science" has no idea how to measure light,
they've got the spectrum all wrong, blue light is friendliest to the eye,
yellow light is glaring, and that circular polarizers installed as
"shielding" over fluorescent and HID light sources can block harmful
electromagnetic waves that interfere with creative thought. Needless to
say, not a single one of his claims is backed with anything approaching
methodical science or proper research -- it's just a string of opinions
and assertions. I know I am not the only one who cannot figure out why the
scientific community continues to give him audience, except as comic
diversion at otherwise not-particularly-humourous technical conferences.

DS
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
I recently heard that some company (I do not recall the name) is
introducing a neobdynium (spelling?)lamp for autos in the hope that it
will supplant some of the "blue light" lamps that are in vogue. The
new lamps are smiliar to the GE Reveal incandescents and claim much
improved CRI and consequent improved visibility. It will be
interesting to see if they live up to the manufacturer's claims.

Remember that neodymium and all other filters *absorb* light. I have
seen no data supporting any claim that GE Reveal lamps provide better
visibility than unfiltered incandescent lamps OF EQUAL POWER AND LIFE.
There have been a few experiments done that compare unfiltered
incandescent lamps to neodymium lamps at EQUAL LUMENS, which is not
the way that real lamps work when you add a neodymium filter.
 
T

TKM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Daniel Stern Lighting said:
To elaborate on my previous message ("Aiiighhh"): Despite Karpen's
gobbledegook that appeared recently in the Detroit News (and before that
in LD&A, which was subsequently heavily strafed with objections from
non-quacks), headlight lamps doped with Neodymium Oxide have been found by
bona fide scientists (Sullivan and Flannagan at UMTRI, for two) NOT to
improve seeing at all, and to cause a small but significant *INCREASE* in
discomfort glare relative to a plain, untinted bulb. In both these
respects, the Neodymium lamps are identical to the headlight lamps with
blue absorption coatings.

Karpen claims that "mainstream science" has no idea how to measure light,
they've got the spectrum all wrong, blue light is friendliest to the eye,
yellow light is glaring, and that circular polarizers installed as
"shielding" over fluorescent and HID light sources can block harmful
electromagnetic waves that interfere with creative thought. Needless to
say, not a single one of his claims is backed with anything approaching
methodical science or proper research -- it's just a string of opinions
and assertions. I know I am not the only one who cannot figure out why the
scientific community continues to give him audience, except as comic
diversion at otherwise not-particularly-humourous technical conferences.

DS

Karpen told me at LightFair that he had just received a patent on a
neodymium-doped windshield. What the benefits are supposed to be is not
clear, but then much of what Karpen tells me is not clear. Now, I also
wonder about the U.S Patent Office.

Terry McGowan
 
J

John D. Bullough, Gurley Building

Jan 1, 1970
0
Remember that neodymium and all other filters *absorb* light. I have
seen no data supporting any claim that GE Reveal lamps provide better
visibility than unfiltered incandescent lamps OF EQUAL POWER AND LIFE.
There have been a few experiments done that compare unfiltered
incandescent lamps to neodymium lamps at EQUAL LUMENS, which is not
the way that real lamps work when you add a neodymium filter.

Absolutely true. If visual acuity worsens at lower light levels and
a neodymium coated lamp AT EQUAL ILLUMINANCE gives equal visual
acuity (both are results I have seen) then it stands to reason that
the reduced illuminance from a filter would result in worse visual
acuity. Now, whether these headlamps do something to increase light output
by increasing wattage (I don't believe the Reveal lamps marketed
for homes do) is another story. I also have no experience to
suggest the filter itself causes shorter life.

We tested "color rendering"* of some neodymium coated headlamps,
equated for EQUAL ILLUMINANCE under the assumption that to meet
headlamp standards a filtered headlamp would have to somehow be
adjusted (by increasing wattage or some other means) to be equivalent
to a typical unfiltered headlamp. Lo and behold, people LIKED the
appearance of colors better under the coated lamps, but their
ability to correctly identify those colors was the same under
the coated lamps as under uncoated halogen and even HID headlamps.

*I use the term "color rendering" loosely here. In fact the
neodymium coated lamps have a CRI of around 80, compared to
around 99-100 for the uncoated halogen lamps, although they do
seem to make certain small color differences stand out more than
unfiltered halogen lamps despite their lower CRI. There is a
system called "gamut area" which roughly estimates the ability
of a light source to render colors so that the relative
chromaticities of the illuminated surface colors, plotted on
a chromaticity diagram, are as far apart as possible. A neodymium
lamp does indeed have a larger gamut area than an unfiltered
halogen lamp but it seems unlikely this improvement has much
bearing on driving safety, given that even HID headlamps allow
people to correctly identify colors. To put that in context,
neodymium headlamps (IF adjusted for EQUAL light output as a
conventional halogen headlamp) might make it slightly easier
to tell if a pedestrian on the edge of the road is more likely
to be a Native American or a Southeast Asian. Great. Kudos to
neodymium for promoting awareness about the cultural diversity
of pedestrians. But is that really an important judgment someone
needs to make while driving? Isn't it enough just to know that
it is a *person*?

As for glare, color seems to play no role in reductions in
visual performance caused by glare from headlights at night,
but "bluer" lights are consistently observed to be a bit more
uncomfortable than "yellower" ones, which is in contradiction
the alleged benefit of the neodymium headlamp, which removes some
"yellow." D. A. Schreuder in the 1970s wrote an excellent
review about "yellow versus white" headlamps (when Belgium,
his home country was allowing both colors in deference to
France who used yellow headlamps and other neighbors who all
used white headlamps) and all of the research he reviewed
pointed to that conclusion.

John
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
Karpen told me at LightFair that he had just received a patent on a
neodymium-doped windshield.

Right, and he's got his Neodymium-doped rearview mirrors. His
manually-typewritten and mimeographed(! He believes computers cause brain
damage) newsletter is called "Rearview Mirror Looking Behind to Get
Ahead". I was naive enough to get on his mailing list before I realised
what he was, and every month or so I'd get one of these newsletters of
his, full of "We're pushing ahead with trying to get the automakers to
invest in Neodymium Oxide for headlights, windshields and rearview
mirrors" and "I put prototype Neodymium-doped headlights in my 1988 Dodge
Aries and drove around on high beam. I could see much farther than with
normal high beams and nobody flashed me." type "science".
What the benefits are supposed to be is not clear

At the SAE International Expo and Congress in 2002, he held up a fresh
apple in his left hand and a 6" x 6" square of Neodymium-doped glass in
his right hand. Passing the glass between the apple and the semi-captive
audience, he said "See how the apple looks redder!" When he started
blathering on about "glaring yellow light" and how Neodymium (or, as he
pronounces it, "Nee-uh-DID-ee-um") glass filters it out, one of the real
scientists in the audience stood up and asked what studies he'd conducted
to determine the degree, if any, to which glass that filters yellow might
interfere with the conspicuity of yellow traffic control devices. Karpen
said he and his cousin had taken turns driving and playing pedestrian, and
they could see each other just fine.
but then much of what Karpen tells me is not clear.

Fortunately, I stopped getting his "news" letter when I moved.

DS
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 2 Sep 2003, John D. Bullough, Gurley Building wrote:


To put that in context, neodymium headlamps (IF adjusted for EQUAL light
output as a conventional halogen headlamp) might make it slightly easier
to tell if a pedestrian on the edge of the road is more likely to be a
Native American or a Southeast Asian. Great. Kudos to neodymium for
promoting awareness about the cultural diversity of pedestrians.

*ROFL*

Next time I'm in Troy, I owe you a beer.
As for glare, color seems to play no role in reductions in visual
performance caused by glare from headlights at night, but "bluer" lights
are consistently observed to be a bit more uncomfortable than "yellower"
ones

Yep. And one of your own studies suggested there may be some improvements
in seeing performance with yellower light in disturbed environments,
n'est-ce pas?

DS
 
D

Daniel Stern Lighting

Jan 1, 1970
0
Absolutely true. If visual acuity worsens at lower light levels and a
neodymium coated lamp AT EQUAL ILLUMINANCE gives equal visual acuity
(both are results I have seen) then it stands to reason that the reduced
illuminance from a filter would result in worse visual acuity. Now,
whether these headlamps do something to increase light output is another
story. I also have no experience to suggest the filter itself causes
shorter life.

Right, the filter itself doesn't do anything to affect the life of the
burner. However, because all filters "steal" some light, and headlight
lamps must comply with nominal values (plus or minus allowable tolerances,
usually ±10% or so, depending on lamp format and US vs. European
regulations) for both flux *and* power consumption, the degree to which a
wattage increase can be used is limited. More commonly, the wattage is
changed little if at all, but the filament is a harder-driven,
higher-luminance item -- which may force enough light through the filter
or dopant, but which also usually seriously decreases lamp life.

Examples from Osram's line of H1 headlight lamps follow.
Stated as B3 / Tc, nominal luminous flux / tolerance:

64150 (regular normal): 400h / 650h, 1550 lm / ±15%
64150CB ("Cool Blue" filtered): 125h / 250h, 1550 lm / ±15%
64150SUP (high luminance, no filter): 150h / 350h, 1700 lm /±4.5%
64150L (long life, no filter): 600h / 1200h, 1475 lm / ±10%

The rated life speaks for itself, but it's difficult to draw conclusions
about the flux without sphere photometry of actual lamps, because there's
a multitude of sins that can hide in those tolerances. It could very well
be, for instance, that most of the 64150 lamps produce 1550 to 1600 lm,
while most of the 64150CB lamps produce 1350 to 1400 lm, and all the lamps
could still accurately be said to produce "1550 lm ±15%".
neodymium headlamps (IF adjusted for EQUAL light output as a
conventional halogen headlamp)

Some time back, a major US automotive lighting manufacturer sent me some
early production samples of Karpen's Neodymium Oxide headlight lamps
together with sphere photometry on those specific lamps and a handwritten
note saying they were having a tough time making the lamps work -- the
Nd-doped glass was making problems of an unspecified nature, and they were
having trouble meeting the required flux values while staying within the
allowable wattage. Example: A lamp with nominal 1000 lumens ± 10% and max
allowable power consumption 60W produced 897 lumens at 59.5 watts.

Without doing sphere photometry, I think it's safe to assume the Nd-doped
headlight lamps probably follow the pattern of the
(reputably-manufactured) blue-tinted ones: Nominally compliant with both
flux and wattage, but only just.

DS
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Absolutely true. If visual acuity worsens at lower light levels and
a neodymium coated lamp AT EQUAL ILLUMINANCE gives equal visual
acuity (both are results I have seen) then it stands to reason that
the reduced illuminance from a filter would result in worse visual
acuity. Now, whether these headlamps do something to increase light output
by increasing wattage (I don't believe the Reveal lamps marketed
for homes do) is another story. I also have no experience to
suggest the filter itself causes shorter life.

Great information, as usual, John. The GE Reveal lamps are sold in
"normal" wattages, such as 40, 60, 75 and 100 watt, so a customer
would typically replace a 100 watt unfiltered lamp with a 100 watt
Reveal lamp. The 100 watt, 750 hour, 120 volt Reveal lamp is rated to
produce 1352 lumens, while a GE 100 watt, 750 hour, 120 volt Soft
White Lamp is rated for 1624 lumens. It does make me wonder.

The GE Web site discusses "focus group research" which showed that
consumers preferred the Reveal to conventional incandescent for
"hobbies and close-up work". They don't say if this "research"
compared lamps of equal wattage or equal illuminance. If customers are
using the next higher wattage Reveal lamp to make up for the lost
lumens, GE is being very quiet about this. I'm sure they do not want
to offend the Energy Star gods :)
 
A

AC/DCdude17

Jan 1, 1970
0
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Victor Roberts wrote:

Well...I suppose it depends on what you consider a "fundamental"
advantage. CRI (qua SPD) is currently being looked at with regards to
glare -- there's an emerging need to attenuate the high blue spike in
current production automotive HIDs, but at the same time there's a drive
to eliminate Mercury from them, and so far all such efforts have resulted
in even higher blue spikes. And, the CRI of current automotive HIDs is
lousy -- mid 70s.

When you're driving, accurate color rendition isn't all that import and as
long as you can see the colors good enough to differentiate the basic things.
You don't need to be able to discriminate between very similar colors.

As far as spikes are concerned, spectral distribution is not a function of
CRI.

The traiditional coo white fluorescent lamp has a CRI of 63 or so, but it
provides a relatively smooth SPD.

A modern tri-phosphor fluorescent lamp with a CRI of 86 is MUCH spikier. Most
of the light is focused on red, green and blue spikes.


H'mm...yeah, that makes good sense, but it'd be interesting to know how
small a CMH source could be made. It'd be larger than a present automotive
HID source, to be sure, but the translucent envelope would probably solve
as many problems as it would create, particularly in polyellipsoidal
("projector") lamps, and it seems to me the new problems might be easier
to tackle than the old ones have been, so far.

There are problems with making the light source small enough to be focused
into a desired pattern, start up characteristic and resistance to vibration.
 
W

William H. Hathaway

Jan 1, 1970
0
As for glare, color seems to play no role in reductions in
visual performance caused by glare from headlights at night,
but "bluer" lights are consistently observed to be a bit more
uncomfortable than "yellower" ones, which is in contradiction
the alleged benefit of the neodymium headlamp, which removes some
"yellow." D. A. Schreuder in the 1970s wrote an excellent
review about "yellow versus white" headlamps (when Belgium,
his home country was allowing both colors in deference to
France who used yellow headlamps and other neighbors who all
used white headlamps) and all of the research he reviewed
pointed to that conclusion.

Then these studies either pre-dated or did not include
observations/opinions/view/data points that contend that
"bluer" lights are more erotic than "yellower" ones.
Consensus on lighting preferences is almost certainly unattainable.
 
D

Douglas G. Cummins

Jan 1, 1970
0
AC/DCdude17 said:
As far as spikes are concerned, spectral distribution is not a function of
CRI.

This is just an odd statement. Spectral distribution may not be a
function of CRI, but CRI is certainly a function of spectral power
distribution. A spiky spectrum does have an impact on Ra.

If all you meant was that you can have a low CRI from a spectrum with
little to no spikes, then that's what you should have said.
 
J

John D. Bullough, Gurley Building

Jan 1, 1970
0
Then these studies either pre-dated or did not include
observations/opinions/view/data points that contend that
"bluer" lights are more erotic than "yellower" ones.
Consensus on lighting preferences is almost certainly unattainable.

I try to stay out of the personal lives of the various colors.
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
The GE Reveal lamps are sold in
"normal" wattages, such as 40, 60, 75 and 100 watt, so a customer
would typically replace a 100 watt unfiltered lamp with a 100 watt
Reveal lamp. The 100 watt, 750 hour, 120 volt Reveal lamp is rated to
produce 1352 lumens, while a GE 100 watt, 750 hour, 120 volt Soft
White Lamp is rated for 1624 lumens.

1624 lumens? When I see GE (as well as other "Big Three") 100 watt
120V 750 hour "soft white" A19's in a retail establishment, the package
usually claims 1670 lumens. (Sometimes slightly more.) "Standard" and
clear versions claim usually and "traditionally" (my wording and
impression) 1710 lumens and sometimes as much as 1750 lumens on the
package.
The same life and wattage of a newer GE extra-soft-white claims slightly
under 1600 lumens.

Does anyone know if any of these lumen claims are "optimistic"?

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
1624 lumens? When I see GE (as well as other "Big Three") 100 watt
120V 750 hour "soft white" A19's in a retail establishment, the package
usually claims 1670 lumens. (Sometimes slightly more.) "Standard" and
clear versions claim usually and "traditionally" (my wording and
impression) 1710 lumens and sometimes as much as 1750 lumens on the
package.
The same life and wattage of a newer GE extra-soft-white claims slightly
under 1600 lumens.

The data I quoted came from the GE Lighting Lamp Products Catalog,
#86040 (3/99). I just noticed that the 1624 lumen figure was for an
A19 100W Soft White Saf-T-Guard (tm) lamp. The regular Soft White is
rated for 1690 lumens. There is also an Inside Frost that is also
rated for 1690 lumens, a Clear rated for 1730 lumens and a "Standard"
rated for 1710 lumens. I must admit I'm confused about "Standard". If
it is not Clear or Inside Frost or Soft White, what is it? Seems like
it may be an Inside Frost with a thinner coating. Or perhaps there is
another explanation. The version labeled Inside Frost is officially a
100A/COMM, while the Standard is just 100A. So Inside Frost and
Standard may have the same coating but 100A/COM may have an extra
filament support if COMM stands for "commercial."

These are all 120 volt, 750 hour, A19 lamps with a CC-8 filament.
 
Top