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.