- Joined
- Dec 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,343
- Points
- 83
According to this thread, your fluorescent tube is either NOT efficient, NOT 90 CRI, or NOT halophosphor. We ditched halophosphor for a reason.
deluxe halophosphor tubes wth excellent CRI existed for decades, before triphosphor became common. Efficiency was a small trade off, but some assert that even today the light quality of certain deluxe halos remain unsurpassed. Some of the replies on that thread are also spreading misinformation about high CRI with halophosphor not being possible; but such misinformation is what I've come to expect. Certain deluxe halo tubes attained an almost complete spectrum of 100 CRI.
That tube has over 90% CRI (92, I think) and was designed for use in art galleries and hospitals. It has higher CRI still than most triphosphor tubes in use today, which are between 80 and 90%. The trade off for deluxe hi fidelity halophosphor tubes was indeed less efficiency. I've never tried deluxe warm white, but I'm quite a fan of warm white 29 so I'm eager to see if I'd prefer it over 830.
About the SOX lamp:
..."but their efficacy is still unsurpassed by any other man made lighting technology today."
Look into sulfur arc lamps. Even more efficient than SOX. They tend to suffer from very short electrode life though so some of the newer types are RF pumped.
SOX sure are pretty though, especially when they're warming up.
Never heard of them. I've only heard of carbon arc lamps. The fact that they are short lived is probably why sox is considered the most efficient (perhaps I should have used the term efficiency over efficacy) over the long term. Approaching 200 lumens per watt and sometimes exceeding it in the case of 131W SOX-E
Last edited: