Discussion:
CFL equivalance wattage changes
(too old to reply)
Andrew Gabriel
2012-02-01 14:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Andrew May
2012-02-01 14:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
I noticed that at the weekend. There no longer seem to be any CFLs
available that claim to be equivalent to 100W tungsten.
Andrew Gabriel
2012-02-01 16:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew May
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
I noticed that at the weekend. There no longer seem to be any CFLs
available that claim to be equivalent to 100W tungsten.
There never were real 100W equivalents in the supermarkets
(which only stock lamps up to around 18W), but of course
they used to claim to be, which was probably the main cause
of the complaint that they were too dim when people tried
their first one. If you go to more specialist outlets (often
mail-order), then there are CFLs available up to 100W (native)
and more.

The only honestly marked 100W equivalents I've seen before the
recent change are the Feit ones stocked by Costco - 23W large
spiral tube which is genuinely equivalent to an old 100W (and
I've found to be very good in all other respects such as long
life at high temperature running, sustaining full light output
during life, instant-on). Only problem in some fittings will be
physical size, as efficient light output demands a large spiral.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
PeterC
2012-02-01 17:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Gabriel
Post by Andrew May
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
I noticed that at the weekend. There no longer seem to be any CFLs
available that claim to be equivalent to 100W tungsten.
There never were real 100W equivalents in the supermarkets
(which only stock lamps up to around 18W), but of course
they used to claim to be, which was probably the main cause
of the complaint that they were too dim when people tried
their first one. If you go to more specialist outlets (often
mail-order), then there are CFLs available up to 100W (native)
and more.
Morrisons stocks 30W and very nice they are too. Don't get silly hot even
balls-up in a shade, possibly due to PFC.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Tomsic
2012-02-01 14:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Agree.

While I haven't seen any comments abouy "lumen inflation" and CFLs recently,
it's still common for LED products. The "Bulb Purchasing Guide" download
from the EPA, however, also hits your 1:4 ratio about dead center.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=LB

Terry McGowan
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
TimR
2012-02-01 16:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tomsic
Agree.
While I haven't seen any comments abouy "lumen inflation" and CFLs recently,
it's still common for LED products.  The "Bulb Purchasing Guide" download
from the EPA, however, also hits your 1:4 ratio about dead center.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showPro...
Terry McGowan
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
--
Andrew Gabriel
I just checked that website. (thanks)
The CFLs have to put out 3 times the lumens/watt of an incandescent.

But the LEDs have no efficiency standard, at least that I could
find.
RickR
2012-02-04 00:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tomsic
Agree.
While I haven't seen any comments abouy "lumen inflation" and CFLs recently,
it's still common for LED products.  The "Bulb Purchasing Guide" download
from the EPA, however, also hits your 1:4 ratio about dead center.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showPro...
Terry McGowan
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
--
Andrew Gabriel
I just checked that website.  (thanks)
The CFLs have to put out 3 times the lumens/watt of an incandescent.
But the LEDs have no efficiency standard, at least that I could
find.
Energy Star rated lamps have a minimum output for equivalency. That
goes for CFL & LED.
Also check out http://www.lighting-facts.com

----
RickR

Brian Gaff
2012-02-01 14:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think the old ones simply took the complete light output and the newer
ones take account of the way they eye perceives light and so the frequencies
produced do matter. Also I've been told newer ones seem to be whiter and get
full output faster than the old ones used to. Maybe they had a job lot of
crap phosphor to use up that gave off lots of light but not in the right
places in the spectrum!

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: ***@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Post by Andrew Gabriel
I notice a sudden recalculation of the equivalent filament light output
ratings on the packaging of all CFLs in the shops in the UK.
They are now mostly claiming almost the 1:4 ratio I've always stated,
rather than the completely bogus 1:5 and 1:6 ratios they've been
lying about for years. I don't know what triggered this change, but
it was far too long coming.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
PeterC
2012-02-01 17:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Gaff
I think the old ones simply took the complete light output and the newer
ones take account of the way they eye perceives light and so the frequencies
produced do matter. Also I've been told newer ones seem to be whiter and get
full output faster than the old ones used to. Maybe they had a job lot of
crap phosphor to use up that gave off lots of light but not in the right
places in the spectrum!
Brian
I wonder if it was based on the output of the straight tube and didn't allow
for some of the light shining through 3 layers.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Andrew Gabriel
2012-02-01 18:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PeterC
I wonder if it was based on the output of the straight tube and didn't allow
for some of the light shining through 3 layers.
It was based on the output of softone lamps, which had a painted
glass coating, which lost 20% or more of the light. Almost no one
used these - it was basically a way of misleading people about
the light output of CFLs, but it badly backfired on the industry,
because everyone could see they were lying, and it had the effect
of making out the lighting industry to be dishonest in the public's
eyes.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Loading...