Obviously SOX is as of now, but what design changes would have to be made from a SOX lamps to achieve even better efficiency? Would a different electrode design increase efficiency or increase lamp life? This is not only aimed at increasing efficiency, but also lamp life. SOX lamps are not rated for high starts, so how would you improve this? The only real requirement here is to stick with the electrodes because induction SOX is a whole other story.

TL:DR What would be the aspects of a even more efficient than SOX LPS lamp?

Also: Metallic thallium have very low vapor pressure compared to thallium iodide.

Thallium is dangrously toxic, much more than Mercury. A broken lamp would very likely be a situation on par with a hazardous chemical spill, requiring evacuation, professional cleanup etc

(I don't know what quantity of Thallium would be needed to get the correct vapor pressure in such lamp, but it is way more than the tiny quantity used in some MH lamps. If it is anywhere near the quantity of Sodium in a SOX, it is immediately dangerous to life)

So do we need a lamp that is basically FL, but more complex to make, needs warm up, and is dangerous ?

Why was low pressure Thallium not ever considered? I get it, thallium does produce a heck of a lot of UV, but a simple phosphor can convert the useless UV into white light to help improve the almost monochromatic green into higher CRI light. Thallium in the low pressure phase will also not generate much IR, but with a IR reflective coating like in SOX lamps, that tiny amount of IR can help keep the arc tube warm, although a neon argon penning mix would start and warm up the lamp from the intense IR from the Neon still. Theoretically this would be more efficient than LPS because thallium produces a main line at very close to 555nm, and under scotopic, night, vision, is way more efficient than SOX. For the sake of even better efficiency the UV from the thallium could be converted into green light close to 555nm using a phosphor, this would also make the light source less intense than SOX.

I would imagine the spectrum of such a lamp would look like this, of course the UV in the spectrum would be converted into usable visible light to either Improve CRI by adding some red to the mix or improving efficiency by adding more green:

What if factories made multiple holes in the B22 sockets, and the pins would only be inserted in the ones required. That would make it easier to manufacture.

This DVD player model cross-referenced to many others from Soundmax and Hyundai brands.

Have you tried these https://github.com/probonopd/irdb/blob/master/codes/Hyundai/Unknown_H-DVD5038N/0%2C251.csv

Not exact, but may be a at least partially compatible?

Seems that a compatible remote called Soundmax TT-6011A can be bought in Russia for about ~$5. Though the cost of sending it to Finland will be grossly prohibitve...

I've got a Russian Hyundai DVD player from my friend some time ago. Its model number is H-DVD5028.
However, there is just a small problem with it... its original remote control is missing. I do have an universal remote control (One For All, see photo), but I can't get it to work with it. I've used the 4-digit code for Hyundai DVD players from some big list of codes that came with the remote. My Daewoo CRT TV works with the universal remote, and I've actually got some of the functions work with the DVD player using an Arduino and IR LED. So I know that the receiver system on the player is not bad. However, I don't know the exact IR codes (NEC or SIRC codes, etc.) for this player.
I wonder if anyone here could help me with this?

That is your perception of what is "neutral white". It is different for everyone

Besides plain variability between individual people, the statistic also varies by region : The closer people live to the equator, the higher CCT is what most of them consider as white. My observation confirms this :

I live in Israel and have been through virtually all my life. The white of 6500K CFLs (not LEDs) does look like neutral white to me. 4000K is clearly less white, though i still accept it as "white enough", while admitting that it (Fluorescent 4000K, not LED) does make less eye strain in the long term, which makes it preferrable for actual use, even if it is less "white"

I would say that "blue" starts at 7000K++, not 6500K

5000K is not something that i ever seen here, whether on sale or installed. I would guess (from my imagination) that 5000 or 5500 might be the other end of the range which i consider white

Many people i know dont regard 4000K the same way i do, and do prefer 6500K unconditionally. Others prefer 2700K. Although it never was a "rule", the claimed correlation does seem to exist :

 - More of the 6500K guys were either born here, or came from other countries of the Middle East or Morocco (even if back there they probably used incandescents, and even if they are old enough to have used incandescents through most of their lifetime regardless of where they lived)

 - More of the 2700K guys came from Europe or by extension Russia (including the Asian part)

Also interesting to note is that the correlation is slowly fading out. Back in the 00's the 6500K guys were the first to widely and quickly adopt CFLs as soon as cheap CFLs appeared. They bought them just to get the 6500K light. 20 years on, it seems like people's preferences are now less related to their country of birth, and many have now more mixed different CCTs in the house

In Britain (a country where the weather is very often cloudy) they call 3500K "white" and 4000K "daylight" (atlest back when they had their own independent lamp production, so up to the 80s/90s)

B22 has some problems with corrosion :

 - The pin springs are not very strong, and if the contacts are a little corroded, they dont always provide sufficient wiping force to break the surface and make a good connection. In E27 the center contact is normally more rigid, so is scratched with more force when the lamp is screwed in. The side contact gets way more wiping as the lamp is screwed past it. So E27 can take somewhat more corrosion before it fails

 - When you already installed the lamp in a socket with corroded contacts, E27 will stay where you left it. B22 still allows some movement of the lamp, so it fairly easily loses the good contact spot

An ignitor will likely break the oxide, and SOX lamps are normally used by professional users, which makes B22 an ok choice for SOX. But not so much for home user (straight 120/230V) especially in wet locations

Having used both ES and now B22 (as i recently acquired some long festoon with B22's, ask me how i know about the corrosion problems....), and even before B15 in various configurations (all signal lamps in the car....) i would say that for general use ES is more convenient as it needs less precision. Just stick it approximately there and screw

This would especially make a difference if you already climbed into some inconvenient or unsafe position to reach the lamp and can barely reach it

So there goes your "we can all admit" no, not all



Consider GU10 for "home user" lamps for dry location. It is a widely enough adopted standard so not at risk of becoming obsolete, it is made of ceramic materials so is good for both "hot" and "energy efficient" lamp types, and safe from poking in fingers

It will however have the same problems as B22 when it comes to corrosion, and even worse because the contacts are not accessible for a quick scrub with a screwdriver, so you really will have to replace the socket if it fails

And if made of ceramic (for "hot" lamps), it is more expensive than both E27 and B22 to manufacture (both in terms of $, and resources that will be discarded when the lamp EOLs). For compact lamps there is no choice, but for plain old Incandescents it may be possible to simplify it by reducing the ceramic to just an insulating disc, and making all the rest out of a metal cap, or making the entire base out of a low grade die cast glass



If you used B22 for HID lamps (as much as possible before ignitor voltages become a problem) you could key it differently for different ballast requirements

This have indeed been done in England for Mercury lamps, tho i think they all used the same 3 pin configuration

However, this would result in complicating retrofitting of lanterns (such as from Mercury to SON, or from HID of any type to CFLs and LEDs), which would result in way more good lanterns getting replaced and trashed

Also, there is an historical reason why HID lamps use the same base as incandescents : In the beginning of HID, they were used to retrofit incandescents in existing luminaires (by dding a ballast in series with the existing wiring. It was all Mercury back then, so really just a series choke). As HID was introduced, it got already intrduced with the existing caps, so it was already too late to change - Until many years later, when new types of HID lamps were developed that actually justified introduction of new bases like G12