PeterC wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 20:37:35 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

Hot off the Kill-O-Watt

Old finned LED 60W dimmable 100W nondim 40W nondim

VA 19.4 11.1 21.1 8.4
W 16.5 8.8 12.5 5.0
PF 0.85 0.80 0.58 0.60

For some reason, the non-dimmable have worse PF.

The three on the right, are Philips purchased in
the last month.

Presumably that's 100w equivalent, etc. When are we going to get back
to simply giving the actual power consumption as the basic parameter,
or possibly the light output?

Perhaps when 25,000h life isn't claimed to be 25 years when it's 3 years.
On some packaging it's quite a search to find the wattage; also, why does
the blurb claim 'high power' when I'm looking for lowest power for the
required output?

The rating system, the "class" of bulb, is to make it
easier for shoppers to "replace by application". The
bulb in the refrigerator for example, we only need 25W
for that one, so none of the above would be suitable
in the fridge. Knowing that it uses 3W real power,
wouldn't be as useful info.

The Philips I just bought, work down to -20C. Which means
those particular ones might be OK in the fridge, as long
as nothing condenses in the base. Maybe that's a good
reason to have potting compound in the base.

And the color temperature and CRI, tell you what the
light will look like. The three on the right above are
2700K 90CRI, which means roughly "almost the same as
an incandescent". A warm-ish light, suitable for reading.
The 5000K 85CRI bulbs I bought, the floods, those
are dreadful, and I can't use those for anything.
And I don't really understand what goes on with those,
as the light is "white", but it's also "bleh" and
indescribable in any meaningful way. They don't
look bluish, as the 5000K would hint, there's no
sign of blue the way some bulbs at that color
temperature look. But the light is just awful
and you just want to turn it off. It's "poke in the eye"
awful. I'd rather light the room with a magnesium flare.

Paul