What about HID vs Halogen?

[cobb]

It seems that the main war of and purchases of lights is led vs filiment bulbs. Well, we all know filiment wins for brightness, throw. How does HID compare to them? Is HID dimmer than filiment bulbs like xenon and halogen? Are they in middle of the road?

Just wondering. I am still on the fence about getting an HID flashlight. Besides the cool factor, longer run time than a halogen portable spot light, isit any better?

[CLHC]

Just curious Cobb. Have you seen a HID flashlight/spotlight before? These things are awesome. Some of them contain Xenon too. . .I'm sure your question will be answered by those more qualified than I am.

[Mike Painter]

Originally Posted by cobb

It seems that the main war of and purchases of lights is led vs filiment bulbs. Well, we all know filiment wins for brightness, throw. How does HID compare to them? Is HID dimmer than filiment bulbs like xenon and halogen? Are they in middle of the road?

Just wondering. I am still on the fence about getting an HID flashlight. Besides the cool factor, longer run time than a halogen portable spot light, isit any better?

We don't all know that hot wire wins at brightness and throw as a discussion in another thread shows.

If you could switch an HID bulb for a filiment bulb with the same current, voltage, reflector, etc, the HID would be about three times brighter.

If LED efficency improves at even 1/4 th rate that other electonics have then it is only a matter of time before they will eclipse current lights.

But qquantum dots may outshine them.

[MaxaBaker]

If you want an incan light that is as bright as an HID light with the same runtime, be prepared to be carrying A LOT of more battery weight for the incan

HID rulz!

[greenLED]

what about temp differences. Say, if you compared an HID and a Halogen rated for the same Watt output (is there such a thing?), which one would generate more heat? I understand the HID would generate more light, right?

[Ty_Bower]

HID puts more of its energy into the shorter wavelengths. That means more of the light ends up in the visible spectrum, and less in the infra-red. They run much cooler than incandescents. A 100 watt incandenscent will readily set fire to paper. You'd have a tough time doing the same with HID.

HID lights have the downside of needing time to achieve full brightness. They're not like an incandenscent (or LED) where you flip the switch, and they're on. If you want to know what the noise was in the back yard, you might be better off with a high watt incandescent. If you're going to search the swamps for your brother who's been missing for a day, you might fire up your HID.

[02Scuba]

Take a look at www.nocturnallights.com for a pretty good discussion regarding the differences between an overvolted 12 volt MR-16 and a 21 watt HID. Do not, I repeat, do not buy a light from Nocturnal Lights. There producst are mediocre at best and their service is horrible. However, their web-site does provide some prettty good information on the debate that rages on between HIDs and Halogen lights. Having done a lot of night diving I can tell you now a 24 watt HID by far puts out more light than the best overvolted 50 watt Halogen (the So-Lux).

I now dive with a Polarion X1, which is a 35 watt HID. There is no way I could go back to a 50 watt Halogen as the X1 is about 4 times brighter. To completely convince myself that the HID is superior to the Halogen I am building a 100 watt dive light. The bulb I will be using is the Osram 64625. It will be regulated as opposed to direct drive. Even with the monsterous Ni-mi battery pack I am making I do not anticipate burn time at more than 50 minutes. About right for one dive. The Li-ion cells in most 24 watt HID dive lights last longer (about 135 minutes) and are smaller because the HID is simply more efficient.

After I have finished the 64625 Dive light and have had an oppertunity to compare it with my X1 I will report on my impression if any divers are interested. I have a Modded Mag 625. It's really one hell of a bright light but I just do not think it can run with a good 35 watt HID

[NAW]

HID lights will kill nearly all Incandescents in both throw & overall output. There is absolutley no comparison.

Check out some of these HIDs pwning the Incandescent lights.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...ight=crocodile

A good example of how good HID lights are compared to Incandescents is to consider this. There is a 130W Halogen 15MCP Thor spotlight & a 35W 30MCP Costco HID light. Those two lights are around the same size but the Costco HID can throw much farther & have a longer runtime.

[2xTrinity]

Originally Posted by greenLED

what about temp differences. Say, if you compared an HID and a Halogen rated for the same Watt output (is there such a thing?), which one would generate more heat? I understand the HID would generate more light, right?

Well, how much heat is generated altogether is a funciton of the wattage -- since an HID is more efficient and doesn't need as many watts to emit the same amount of light as Incan, it won't generate as much heat. however, in the case of incandescent, most of the heat that is generated is emitted as infrared radiation. In the case of something like an HID, a lot of that heat causes the temperature of the lamp to increase and isn't thrown as much.

That means a 35W incandescent will probably not cause the light to heat up as much as a 35W HID as the heat from the incan will be thrown out of the light. However, comparing a 35W HID to the ~120W incan you'd need to make the same amount of lumens, the incandescent will be much hotter.

In the case of LEDs, the heat buildup is an even bigger problem, as the semiconductors are very sensitive to heat buildup -- much moreso than HID or Incandescent, so that's why so much attention has to be paid to heatsinking for LEDs running at low wattage (read: 3-4W).

Just curious Cobb. Have you seen a HID flashlight/spotlight before? These things are awesome. Some of them contain Xenon too. . .I'm sure your question will be answered by those more qualified than I am.

One of the things that irritates me to no end is how people tend to call Xenon fill-gas incandescent, partial Xenon fill-gas HID, and Xenon Arc all "Xenon bulbs" even though each is referring to completely different, particularly car enthusiasts who call HID "Xenon".

In the case of the incandescent, Xenon is used as a fill gas as it is a good insulator -- the filament will stay at a hotter temperature (read: more efficient) with the same amount of input power in a bulb filled with Xenon than a regular argon or krypton filled bulb.

A xenon arc lamp is where an electric arc is passed through xenon gas, causing it to emit light. These are more efficient than incandescent, but less than Metal Halide (HID), at around 50 lumens per watt. Xenon arc lamps though are the best for "throw", this is what police searchlights, and the Luxor Hotel use. They have a short arc so the light is very concentrated.

The HID bulbs used in cars are Metal Halide, basically a mercury vapor lamp that has had other gases, and salts added to it to cause it to emit at more wavelengths and improve the efficiency and color rendering. In the case of cars, Xenon is added to help the bulb warm up/ produce full output a lot sooner. These produce around 80-100 lumens per watt..

I'm actually somewhat surprised someone hasn't tried to make a flashlight out of a high pressure sodium bulb, as those put out 150 lumens per watt! Although, if you think that LEDs are bad for color rendering...

[EricB]

>The HID bulbs used in cars are Metal Halide, basically a mercury vapor lamp that has had other gases, and salts added to it to cause it to emit at more wavelengths and improve the efficiency and color rendering.

OK, that answers one question for me. I always wondered what the difference was, and which was which.

If HID is so much more efficient than incandescent, then I wonder why the self-ballasting mercuries never replaced incandescents. Now, ABC news just had a report the other night about how Philips wants to phase out incandescents in favor of CFL's. I imagine those are supposed to be better for home use than HID's, right? (I never even knew they had HID's in flashlights or lanterns and stuff)

[2xTrinity]

Originally Posted by EricB

>The HID bulbs used in cars are Metal Halide, basically a mercury vapor lamp that has had other gases, and salts added to it to cause it to emit at more wavelengths and improve the efficiency and color rendering.

OK, that answers one question for me. I always wondered what the difference was, and which was which.

If HID is so much more efficient than incandescent, then I wonder why the self-ballasting mercuries never replaced incandescents. Now, ABC news just had a report the other night about how Philips wants to phase out incandescents in favor of CFL's. I imagine those are supposed to be better for home use than HID's, right? (I never even knew they had HID's in flashlights or lanterns and stuff)

I think GE came out with a self ballasted Metal Halide back in the late 1970s, but Philips came beat them to the market with the CFL which was a lot cheaper at the time for the same output. The Metal Halide also had the problem where if you turned it off while hot, you had to wait for it to cool down to start again -- allowing for hot restrike feature is possible but it adds significant complexity and cost to the ballast, much more than a typical CFL ballast. Also, tint is harder to control on metal halide than fluorescent, and though now they can do it fairly well, that's only very recent.

I do think some self-ballasted MH exist though, for ~75W (~7000 lumen) flood bulbs for use in retails stores, to replace 300-400W halogens, basically for power output that CFLs would be too bulky to work for.

[brickbat]

Originally Posted by EricB

If HID is so much more efficient than incandescent, then I wonder why the self-ballasting mercuries never replaced incandescents.

Because self-ballasted mercury lamps are a far cry from current metal halide lamps in 2 key areas: They had lousy color rendering, and they weren't very efficient - not much more so than incandescent. Their main advantage was long life.