Replacing Mercury Vapour Ballast

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DavidLuck

Member
Location
Jakarta
Hello everyone,
I have a question. Is it safe to replace mercury vapour ballast with metal halide ballast?
My office is still using MV lamp for lighting and most of MV ballast already obsolete.
Btw, the lamp that we use is 100 W Mercury vapour lamp.
I'm new in this field so I really appreciate for all the advice
Thanks
 
Legally it is probably not compliant as the fixture is listed for MV. I don't think there is a practical issue with doing it.
 
I was under the assumption that a 100W MH lamp was pulse start, this could be a big problem if the existing merc lamp holders are not rated for that......
 
DavidLuck said:
Hello everyone,
I have a question. Is it safe to replace mercury vapour ballast with metal halide ballast?
My office is still using MV lamp for lighting and most of MV ballast already obsolete.
Btw, the lamp that we use is 100 W Mercury vapour lamp.
I'm new in this field so I really appreciate for all the advice
Thanks
Click to expand...

You can replace the ballast with any type you want just use a lamp that matches the ANSI rating of the lamp.

ANSI H38 - H100 is a 100 watt mercury vapor lamp,So on the Ballast it should say H38 ,on it.

Also some Mercury vapor ballast will run Metal halide lamps and will have the ANSI code for those lamps marked on the ballasts as well
In that case look for the ANSI code ,ANSI M140/M90/E,and they will work fine in those fixtures.
 
I appreciate that this is not answering the question, but it might be time to consider alternative lighting ?
Mercury lamps have a very poor efficiency by modern standards, not much better than incandescents.
Depending on the fixture design it might be worth removing the ballasts and fitting compact flourescent lamps. A 30 or 40 watt CFL would give as much light and have no ballast losses.

Some countries are prohibiting the manufacture or import of mercury lamps, or are considering such restrictions. Even if no such restrictions apply in your country, you find the replacement lamps hard to come by in the future.
 
MV lamps in an office? Very poor color rendition for this application. Changing to metal halide will seem like a big improvement, but it is also time to consider other options.
 
Thank you for your reply
I already suggest to change the existing lamp to Metal Halide
but our management still want to use the existing lamp..
Next I try to find Ballast that match ANSI H38
but there is no manufacturer that produce the ANSI H38 Ballast again..
From the internet, I got the info that it's POSSIBLE to use MH Ballast on MV Lamp.
But there are no technical report that can support it.
So maybe, anyone can share their experience about this or suggest some idea
Thanks
 
DavidLuck said:
...
From the internet, I got the info that it's POSSIBLE to use MH Ballast on MV Lamp.
But there are no technical report that can support it.
So maybe, anyone can share their experience about this or suggest some idea
Thanks
Click to expand...

As was mentioned earlier, at least some currently manufactured ballasts are primarily sold for use with HID lamp types but are also dual listed to include ANSI H38. This one that I found in a quick search, with no guarantee that it will work for your fixtures: http://www.lightingsupply.com/catalogsearch/result/index/ballast_ansi_code/H38/?q=t5+ballast. The fact that it mentions T5 does not necessarily mean that it can only be used with that form factor lamp.
 
In theory it can be done by disabelling the ignitor, but replaceing the bulb and the ballast is way better than mercury vapor in color and energy.


Is there anything keeping the mercury vapors?
 
These lamps have been banned by the federal government. There's a lot of reasons why. Just buy a new lamp, socket, and ballast. A 70 Watt Metal Halide will replace it all day long. I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep a Mercury Vapor lamp in any circumstances.
 
Instead of replacing with MH why not consider disabling ballast and using a CFL lamp? I have a place where they are considering doing just that. Replacing several 175 watt MV lamps with 85 watt CFL lamps, will need to disable the ballasts and run 120 directly to the lampholder. They will put out brighter and better color rendition light than the MV's did and use less energy.
 
The only advantage to the merury vapor would be a 24,000 hour life over the 10,000 hour low wattage metal halide and a simpler ballast, but I would still go for the metal halide. I would avoid CFL, but thats just my opinion.
 
mbrooke said:
The only advantage to the merury vapor would be a 24,000 hour life over the 10,000 hour low wattage metal halide and a simpler ballast, but I would still go for the metal halide. I would avoid CFL, but thats just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Care to tell us what year you are stuck in?:p:) Mercury vapor had its place in time, it is now being retired, just doesn't make much sense to try to do much of any repairs to one other than relamping at the most. CFL's have improved from when we first started to see them, they still have some problems to work out but are about the best general purpose lamp we will soon have.

As far as lamp life of a MV, they do not put out nearly the same lumens at end of life as they did when new, and will still put out lower and lower lumen levels once beyond end of life. I've seen many 175 watt MV lamps that still light up but, you could probably replace with a 150 watt incandescent and have more light.
 
kwired said:
Care to tell us what year you are stuck in?:p:) Mercury vapor had its place in time, it is now being retired, just doesn't make much sense to try to do much of any repairs to one other than relamping at the most. CFL's have improved from when we first started to see them, they still have some problems to work out but are about the best general purpose lamp we will soon have.

As far as lamp life of a MV, they do not put out nearly the same lumens at end of life as they did when new, and will still put out lower and lower lumen levels once beyond end of life. I've seen many 175 watt MV lamps that still light up but, you could probably replace with a 150 watt incandescent and have more light.
Click to expand...

Im in love with simplicity:lol: Just thinking of a possible reason why the op would want mercury vapor. On the CFL thing they dont work well with enclosed fixtures (heat build up), but metal halides with F-can type ballasts are well worth it IMHO.
 
There used to be a bulb that you could use instead of replacing the ballast, but I can't remember if it was MV to MH or MH to MV.

I think they were made called Sun Bulbs. We used a bunch of them to retro fit our parking lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top