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 )