Nice that they are good with keeping things uniform....I've seen plenty of times where there's more than one type of fixture at an intersection, or those along the side of a road.

I seriously doubt anyone in the general public ever notices such things though.

MassDOT actually has a ton of mix-matched HPS. For LEDs, the ones they install in a certain place are all the same but different places have different brands. They must be testing like four or five brands. RIDOT (where i live, in RI) is currently testing out LeoTek LEDs instead of the usuall flat-lens 400W HPS.

CAPE COD, My home state The LEDs are crap and are unconstitutional New Seabury is very mad with the crap, Cape Cod is trying to be its own state because of crap like this.

These lights here are MassDOT lights, so these are state-owned and maintained, not maintained by Cape Cod. There are LEDs on I-295 in Smithfield (exit 7 @ Rte 44).

Right, You got the point "MassDOT not maintained by Cape Cod" See the point I am making. Yes I seen the LEDs in Smithfield and I was so happy the worst they look means LPS looks better

To be honest, I like the whiter light better and I don't really even mind the glare too much but the fixtures are so ugly looking. I was kinda upset though because those fixtures on Smithfield were only about 10 years old, installed I think in 2005, 2006, or 2007. The fixtures weren't in service long at all and now they're scrapped. A waste of taxpayer's dollars more than anything else.

I lost someone because the road was dim so 180w LPS + 80lm per a watt or 200lm per watt We only have one Earth. We don't use as much coal witch is bad me need more co2 but that is for a different talk.

Yeah but only half of those LPW are detected by the human eye. The eye is more sensitve to light in the green and blue spectrum, so lights that give off white light are actually more effecient to the human eye. Lighting is not the culprit, it's power plants. Light bulbs don't give off greenhouse gases, it's the power plants that generate the power that produce all the CO2.

Nope if we put more CO2 into the earth that will be bad. I'm guessing you think that if we add more CO2 then plants will photosysthesize more? More CO2 actually means less plants! Plants actually need oxygen just like humans. Plants take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide just like humans during cellular respiration (I've just finished a two-month-long lesson on this in Biology class). In the presence of sunlight, plants photosynthesize in addition to performing cellular respiration. So in the daytime, plants put out O2 and take in CO2. In the dark, plants take in O2 and release CO2 like animals.

More CO2 would actually suffocate plants because they wouldn't be able to take in as much oxygen (same for animals; you'd have to breathe in more air for your body to take in the same amount of oxygen; same goes for plants). However, what we need is more sunlight, but that's not something we can control. If we had more sunlight, plants could photosynthesize more and they would take in more CO2 and release more O2, which would balance out our extra CO2 outputs. But obviosuly we can't control the amount of sunlight we get so we need to reduce carbon emissions and be repsonsible citizens. Recycling is a big component of this. I'm an avid recycler. Materials can be reused instead of new raw materials being stripped from our earth. But yeah, more CO2 would be detrimental to the earth and would eventually kill off all the life on earth, because if the plants cannot take in oxygen at night, then the cells cannot produce new cells, and the plants would all die from lack of oxygen. Same goes for humans.

So what % of the atmosphere is CO2, 0.03267% was 0.0317% 200 years ago and 2.53% 60 million years ago so 95% less how would you do with 95% less water or air, not so good. The plants feel
the same and if we go lowers they die, more CO2 please.
As for 1/2 lm for LPS I have a friend with a light meter sees what we see and it looks MV is more than what they say and LPS is more too 100w MV was 5,500lm 100w HPS 6,900lm 90w lps was 18,910 very close to 200lm per watt + the ballast we are at about 179lm per watt, I was thinking 240lm per watt with no ballast so I was wrong it is 210lm I would say his light meter is with in 1%

Plants can only take in so much CO2 at a time. Adding more CO2 doesn't change anything. Whether your right and I'm wrong or I'm right and you're wrong doesn't really matter. What matters is that nature has its own way of balancing things, and the less us humans interfere the better.

As for LPW, it has to do with CRI. The higher the CRI, the more lumens are usable to the human eye. It is impossible for the perceived lumens to be higher than the raw lumens. The lumen rating on the manufacturer's website or the lamp carton (raw lumens) is always higher than the amount of light we see (perceived lumens). Both 100W MV and 50W HPS are rated for 4000 lumens, however the 100W MV appears much brighter because of the whiter light and the higher CRI. LPS looks great on paper with those high LPW ratings but around 1/3 of the lumens are actually not effective to the human eye and it actually has a negative CRI! The percent of usable light would be determined by the fraction "Perceived Lumens" over "Raw Lumens". Instruments that measure lumens do so in terms of raw lumens, which is how lamps are rated by the manufacturers. Perceived lumens is the amount of light that is usable by the human eye. The human eye's light sensitivity peaks in the green range. Incandescent lamps have CRI of 100, which means the raw lumens is equivalent to the perceived lumens.

Cooler color temperatures also make the mind more alert too. Studies have been done that show that drivers who were driving on roads illuminated by higher CRI lighter could respond to things such as obstructions, pedestrians, etc much more quickly than drivers driving under low-CRI lighting. Both LPS and HPS have horrible CRI. Also higher CRI lighting makes it easier to identify things. For instance, let's say you're walking and you see some thugs bust a window in a car and speed away at night on a LPS-lit or HPS-lit street. It's hard to tell the color of the car under HPS and virtually impossible to tell under LPS, because LPS os monochomatic, meaning everything is pretty much seen in grayscale. Higher-CRI lighting such as MV, MH, LED, fluorescent, etc., makes drivers more alert and makes roads much safer.

No one is right or wrong here I am just listing the facts, facts are more CO2 means more plant growth, just like what I said about EMPs all I do is list the facts and let others make a choice , It is perfect we can have a debate about lights this debate is how the DOT needs to run, This very debate was used to make a choice for the factory I work at, we all sat down and the facts were put out we had different fixtures to looks at and a vote was held LPS got 90% of the vote. Now some hated the color and some did not understand what was going on at all (no shock ) but we all looked at the fixtures and in was clear the answer is no to LED we can't do it they understood it is them or light do we want to lose jobs or is it time to stop and do things right, so 7 LPS fixtures are going in 1 next week.

Yep I got it. Yeah having a group discussion about the lights going in your factory is a good thing. Better than having a dictatorship. I think LEDs have potential but I hate how everyone praises LEDs as the "universal" light source. Every light source has pros and cons. No light source can do it all. MV is good where lamps need to last a long time and lighting needs to be low-cost. LPS if good for astronomy observatory areas, as scientists can filter out LPW light the easiest because LPS is essentially monochomatic. MH is good where bright white light is needed in a compact light source. LEDs are good for inicators and refriderators (LEDs actually perform best in sub-zero temperatures, so they're perfect for the freezer cabinets at the store or a residential refridgerator). Linear fluorescents are good for general commercial lighting. Stores, schools, offices, etc because they provide a softer, more diffused light. Incandescents are good for homes where 100 CRI is ideal and a warm, pleasing, low-cost light is desired. Incandescents are also good for use in extreme heat such as inside an oven. Just about any other light source cannot survive extreme heat (HID could if the ballast was mounted remotely but who wants to wait around 5-10 minutes for the light in their oven to light up? lol).

I would love to have MV in the factory Now that would be cool, but they voted no. Zone D hallway now has LPS

Yeah MV would be awesome. I've honestly never seen a LPS fixture in person other than those NEMA head lights on the storage building along I-95 South at the Jefferson Blvd exit. I've heard the warm-up phase is pretty cool.

I service 6 LPS fixtures as of now.