[Gordon Shumway]

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

[David Nebenzahl]

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

[LouB[_2_]]

Gordon Shumway wrote:
SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

It would seem the worst you are going to have is a quicker failure of
the CFL so I think it is a good idea.
OTOH you should probably try the smaller CFL first to see if the light
is actually OK

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. That's why I asked.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 11/14/2009 7:10 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. That's why I asked.

Yes, of course. The question is, does that 23-watt CFL produce more heat
than what the fixture is rated for (75-watt incandescents)? (I don't know.)


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

[Tony Hwang]

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. That's why I asked.
Hi,
What about the base of the bulb hich is in the socket? The specs. on the
label is there for a reason. I use SAD LED panel which is pretty bright
near the computer.

[Don Klipstein]

In , Gordon Shumway wrote:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Non-enclosed table lamps with bulbs pointed upward (base-down) can take
CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.

As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.

What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
fixture.

If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).

- Don Klipstein )

[cjt]

Gordon Shumway wrote:
SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

My guess is the limit specified has more to do with a bright spot
showing through the shade (i.e. an aesthetic consideration) than any
concern about heat.

[cjt]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 7:10 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. That's why I asked.

Yes, of course. The question is, does that 23-watt CFL produce more heat
than what the fixture is rated for (75-watt incandescents)? (I don't know.)


Incandescents turn most of their power consumption into heat, while CFLs
are much more efficient. If the only consideration is the heat, I think
it should be able to take a 75 watt CFL. However, such a big bulb might
not physically fit, and also might look like heck.

[cjt]

cjt wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 7:10 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. That's why I asked.

Yes, of course. The question is, does that 23-watt CFL produce more
heat than what the fixture is rated for (75-watt incandescents)? (I
don't know.)


Incandescents turn most of their power consumption into heat, while CFLs
are much more efficient. If the only consideration is the heat, I think
it should be able to take a 75 watt CFL. However, such a big bulb might

make that 23 watt

not physically fit, and also might look like heck.

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:35:43 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Hi,
What about the base of the bulb hich is in the socket? The specs. on the
label is there for a reason. I use SAD LED panel which is pretty bright
near the computer.

Actually I didn't give that much thought. I just checked and the base
itself is barely above the ambient temperature. The glass portion is
where all of the heat is. Good point though.

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

Non-enclosed table lamps with bulbs pointed upward (base-down) can take
CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.

As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.

What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
fixture.

If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).

- Don Klipstein )

Thank you for this information. You have been very helpful.

[ransley]

On Nov 14, 8:49*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. *This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. *The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." *This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. *If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. *Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

CFLs produce about 75% less heat than incandesant. Why do you think
they are more efficent. Obviously the lamp was mislabeled.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 1:12*am, cjt wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 7:10 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room..
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. *This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. *The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." *This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. *If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. *Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

Good grief. In an incandescent 75watt bulb, almost all that energy
is heat. In a 23watt bulb, the most heat it could generate would be
less than 1/3 that of the 75watt bulb.

In other words, I don't see why the fixture would restrict the bulb
size so low for a CFL based on TOTAL heat. Now, I could see an issue
with how the heat is distributed in one bulb versus another or that a
CFL having electronics inside can't tolerate being raised to as high a
temp as an incandescent





I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

The particular Philips, 23 watt CFL bulbs that we have definitely
produce much less heat than an incandescent. *I don't know what the
normal operating temperature is but after they have been on for more
than 10 minutes I can easily hold the bulb in my hand for a very long
period of time without any problem. *Yes, the bulb is very warm but
definitely not hot. *That's why I asked.

Yes, of course. The question is, does that 23-watt CFL produce more heat
than what the fixture is rated for (75-watt incandescents)? (I don't know.)

Incandescents turn most of their power consumption into heat, while CFLs
are much more efficient. *If the only consideration is the heat, I think
it should be able to take a 75 watt CFL. *However, such a big bulb might
not physically fit, and also might look like heck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[George]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...


But "lots of heat" relative to what? I have honestly never heard this
myth. CFLs produce heat buy way less than a comparable output
incandescent lamp.

[ransley]

On Nov 16, 6:21*am, George wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. *This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. *The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." *This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. *If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. *Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do.

I now turn the discussion over to Don Klipstein ...

But "lots of heat" relative to what? I have honestly never heard this
myth. CFLs produce heat buy way less than a comparable output
incandescent lamp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure they put out Lots of Heat, relative to his AA battery
flashlights.

[RicodJour]

On Nov 15, 9:25*am, wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:12*am, cjt wrote:



David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/14/2009 7:10 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:49:20 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/14/2009 6:34 PM Gordon Shumway spake thus:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. *This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. *The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." *This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. *If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. *Good or bad idea?

Bad idea. It's a myth that CFLs don't produce lots of heat. They do..

Good grief. * In an incandescent 75watt bulb, almost all that energy
is heat. * In a 23watt bulb, the most heat it could generate would be
less than 1/3 that of the 75watt bulb.

In other words, I don't see why the fixture would restrict the bulb
size so low for a CFL based on TOTAL heat. * Now, I could see an issue
with how the heat is distributed in one bulb versus another or that a
CFL having electronics inside can't tolerate being raised to as high a
temp as an incandescent

Since the OP said it was a table lamp, and we don't know the
configuration, I would imagine that the seemingly low and arbitrary
CFL rating has to do with bulb longevity, and not heat output being a
problem with respect to fire. If the top of the shade is solid - more
of a reflector - and not vented - the CFL will operate at a higher
temperature and the bulb will die much sooner that it's rating (don't
they all?). Many people would blame the lamp and manufacturer, so
perhaps the lamp manufacturer is heading off complaints about their
'defective' lamp. Just a guess.

R

[Tony[_19_]]

Gordon Shumway wrote:
SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

CFL's are inductive loads. Many things electrical are rated differently
for resistive vs inductive loads. Return the lamp and find one with
higher ratings.

[JRStern]

Should be fine, subject to Don's excellent posting about enclosure
etc.

I've found some of the mid-sized CFLs put out more light than
expected, a little 55 watt spot bulb equivalent, and a little
candelbra-base 40 watt equivalent, seem much brighter than the
incandescents they replaced.

Perhaps they're down-rated because they're brighter when new but tend
to dim more than incandescents as they age?

I've been having excellent luck replacing all sorts of bulbs with CFLs
from Home Depot.

Tried a cheapo from the 99c store, went dead in three days.

I also have a collection of CFLs from the last ten years, I've been a
fan since before they became fashionable, and the new ones seem much,
much better overall.

However, when the room needs heat, I do miss the several hundred watts
that I used to get from the lighting! I suppose it's cheaper to run
the gas heat for an extra minute or three, but I do see the
difference!

J.



On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , Gordon Shumway wrote:

SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

Non-enclosed table lamps with bulbs pointed upward (base-down) can take
CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.

As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.

What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
fixture.

If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).

- Don Klipstein )

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Tony wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
enough light for my old eyes.

I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
bulbs produce?

I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
watt CFL. Good or bad idea?

CFL's are inductive loads. Many things electrical are rated differently
for resistive vs inductive loads. Return the lamp and find one with
higher ratings.

Modern spiral CFLs draw less current than equivalent-light-output
incandescents do, despite these CFLs having low power factor.

One more thing - the usual spiral CFLs are not inductive. Their low
power factor is almost entirely from harmonic content in the current
waveform, not much from lead or lag. However, the non-dimmable ones are
largely incompatible with most electronic switching devices not rated for
fluorescents or motors.

For those who are concerned anyway - dimmable versions have high power
factor and have recently started to become almost reasonably available,
though they are more expensive than non-dimmable ones. I have seen
dimmable CFLs at Target for most of this year already.

- Don Klipstein )

[Don Klipstein]

In article , JRStern wrote:

Should be fine, subject to Don's excellent posting about enclosure
etc.

I've found some of the mid-sized CFLs put out more light than
expected, a little 55 watt spot bulb equivalent, and a little
candelbra-base 40 watt equivalent, seem much brighter than the
incandescents they replaced.

Perhaps they're down-rated because they're brighter when new but tend
to dim more than incandescents as they age?

CFLs do fade over their lives more than incandescents do. CFLs, like
fluorescents, also are dimmed by non-optimum temperature.

Maybe the 40 watt candelabra-base incandescent replaced by the CFL was
subpar as far as incandescents go - and incandescents that are subpar as
far as incandescents go are almost as easy to get as subpar whatever-else.

I've been having excellent luck replacing all sorts of bulbs with CFLs
from Home Depot.

Tried a cheapo from the 99c store, went dead in three days.

I have a lot of experience with "dollar store CFLs". I have purchased
quite a few, mostly to gain ability to truthfully say that it is my actual
experience that these tend to be stool specimens. I state my experiences
including test results in:

http://members.misty.com/don/cfdollar.html

My experiences among 70 "models" of 20 "brands" so far he

* Above-average rate of early failure
* My only experience of a CFL filling a room with smoke
* Above-average rate of visibly malfunctioning early short of failure
* My only experience of a CFL easily coming apart
* My only experience of a CFL having something loose rattling inside
* My only experience of a CFL being DOA

* Color is usually "icy cold daylight bluish white", even for some in
packages saying "soft warm white light"

* Most of the few warm-color ones have lousy color rendering similar to
the lousy "old tech warm white" even worse than "old tech cool white"

* 100% rate of ones making claims of light output falling short of claims,
in a few cases so badly as by factor of about 3

* Accounts for over 97% of integral-electronic-ballast CFL models I have
seen without notation of UL listing or "FCC ID"

I also have a collection of CFLs from the last ten years, I've been a
fan since before they became fashionable, and the new ones seem much,
much better overall.

However, when the room needs heat, I do miss the several hundred watts
that I used to get from the lighting! I suppose it's cheaper to run
the gas heat for an extra minute or three, but I do see the
difference!

This does sound like an application that took until now for someone to
mention in the bits of Usenet where I look: Need for light and extra heat
in one room of a house. During heating season here, it may make sense to
use incandescents - even ones of subpar efficiency, such as "vibration
resistant industrial duty" which have compromised efficiency and are
among the many exempted by the upcoming USA 2012/2014 "incandescent ban".

http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html

When it is not heating season, use CFLs.

- Don Klipstein )