On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:42:19 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

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!

Two points: the *real* 60W lamp is the brighter American 60W lamp making
it a little brighter than our (UK) 60W lamps and I hope you took
advantage of Poundland as your source for the "40W" 470lm light bulb
which, in its "A" form, has proved reliable, unlike the golfball version
which didn't.

--
Johnny B Good