Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Other Photography Equipment
False CFL watt ratings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 534836" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>I did a thing here <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2.html#pwr" target="_blank">Shutter speed does not affect flash exposure</a> to compare using continuous lights vs. a speedlgiht. It came out OK overall. I'm not much into CFL, but using a $20 Kill-A-Watt meter, I discovered that a no-brand-name 45 watt CFL from China measured only 26 watts (and 44 VA), and was nowhere near the 200 watts equivalent it also claimed. To me that's fraud, but maybe not a big surprise. So thinking of a redo for the article, I bought a branded Studio Pro 85 watt CFL (again, one of the cheapest). It is a huge bulb, but it measures only 51 watts (and 88 VA). Anyone a little bit into electricity knows VA is not the same as watts. Such power factor is a loss of efficiency, not a gain.</p><p></p><p>I don't know how prevalent this is? 2 of 2 for me, on the larger ones. But I checked three brands of 13 watt CFL, and all three brands did make valid claims, all measured 13 watts and 21 VA, as expected. But not these two larger ones. I did learn the 85 watt was too dang huge to be very convenient.</p><p></p><p>It clearly seems fraud to me. I'm puzzled why this has not attracted attention?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 534836, member: 12496"] I did a thing here [url=http://www.scantips.com/lights/flashbasics2.html#pwr]Shutter speed does not affect flash exposure[/url] to compare using continuous lights vs. a speedlgiht. It came out OK overall. I'm not much into CFL, but using a $20 Kill-A-Watt meter, I discovered that a no-brand-name 45 watt CFL from China measured only 26 watts (and 44 VA), and was nowhere near the 200 watts equivalent it also claimed. To me that's fraud, but maybe not a big surprise. So thinking of a redo for the article, I bought a branded Studio Pro 85 watt CFL (again, one of the cheapest). It is a huge bulb, but it measures only 51 watts (and 88 VA). Anyone a little bit into electricity knows VA is not the same as watts. Such power factor is a loss of efficiency, not a gain. I don't know how prevalent this is? 2 of 2 for me, on the larger ones. But I checked three brands of 13 watt CFL, and all three brands did make valid claims, all measured 13 watts and 21 VA, as expected. But not these two larger ones. I did learn the 85 watt was too dang huge to be very convenient. It clearly seems fraud to me. I'm puzzled why this has not attracted attention? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Other Photography Equipment
False CFL watt ratings
Top