On 24/10/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:

I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W incandescent
lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency for CFLs is
still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000 hour lamps
rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps which is the
benchmark for LED lamps.

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does it
sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

It was the only way they could sell CFLs originally - by pretending that
the feeble 40W ghastly greenish equivalent light output of a nominally
60W equivalent CFL was the same as a real 60W incandescent.

For some strange reason trading standards was never interested in it
because it was problematic (ie expensive) to measure reliably.

If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who would
complain?

It caught me out in the reverse direction when alarmed by the slow start
time of a CFL in my parents bathroom I replaced it with an LED 60W lamp.
The LED units produce the same light as a *real* 60W incandescent and
are instant on which was far too bright. I had to fit a 40W instead!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown