On 08/11/2020 12:08, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2020 04:12:06 -0500, Paul
wrote:

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.

My fridge needs the light to be permanently on when running below a
certain ambient temperature to force the compressor to keep working.
There is a winter switch for this purpose. I assume an LED light
would not produce enough heat for this to work. Is this an unusual
arrangement.


My Liebherr fridge has this. It has an Invensys electro-mechanical
thermostat. Maybe modern fridges with a 'chip' and circuit board
do it more intelligently.