On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 03:24:37 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

On Thursday, 26 October 2017 08:42:22 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/10/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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 the claims made were true. CFL output was not compared with a
standard filament lamp in the box claims.

Most likely they chose a 240v long life lamp as "Their Standard". I
suspect the regulations now in place for LED lamps simply didn't exist as
such so they were free to choose the lowest possible benchmark by which
to 'legitimately' make wattage equivalency claims on the packaging.

Whether the new regulations applied to LED GLS lamps are also being
applied to the current production of CFLs, I simply do not know. If the
CFL lamp manufacturers know what's good for them, I'd expect them to now
be voluntarily applying the LED GLS standards even if they're not obliged
by force of regulation to do so. However, in view of the impending
obsolescence of the CFL, that's rather a moot point.

--
Johnny B Good