False CFL watt ratings

I did a thing here Shutter speed does not affect flash exposure 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?

My bet is the lumens rating is off to. But you could check for consistent light output using a light meter.

Needa said:

My bet is the lumens rating is off to. But you could check for consistent light output using a light meter.

Click to expand...

I cannot measure lumens, but the 45 watt CFL (measuring 26 watts, yet claiming 200 watt equivalency) meters 1.3 stops less than a 150 watt incandescent, in the same 10 inch reflector. That is 41%, and 60 watts equivalency. However, the reflector was not very optimum for the CFL, so I don't think of that part as having much precision.

Read somewhere that LEDs and CFL should actually be in fixtures designed for them for optimal light output.

"Such power factor is a loss of efficiency, not a gain". But, of course, in this context, the power factor inevitably translates into a LOSS.
Good article on this: What?s The Difference Between Watts And Volt-Amperes? | Energy content from Electronic Design

Right, power factor is an AC efficiency power loss when voltage and current are not in exact phase. It is the inevitable result of the necessary inductance in some circuits. That's just how life is, or at least physics. I don't complain about the power factor, I accept it and understand it. As long as the watts are accurately delivered, then power factor is the power companies problem, not mine.

My complaint is that some of the larger CFL bulbs use the resulting greater VA number as the marked power rating, but call it watts, which is a false claim. They mark 45 watts when it measures 25 watts, and mark 85 watts when it measures 50 watts. Seemingly intentional fraud. They of course know better.

U.S. law requires bulb packaging to show lumens and watts. I wish these did, and I don't know the loopholes. These were bulk packaged imports in plain unmarked boxes, and these did not show or mention lumens, which is omission. And worse, stamped on the bulbs (and in the advertised claims) what they call watts is VA which is a lie, not the honest watts.

I don't know how universal the problem. I did check three brands of 13 watt CFL all of which did correctly label the watts accurately (same as they actually measure). But two of two larger ones did not, marked with seriously inflated numbers. The retail packaging labeling was one major difference, present vs. blank.

This just in.

An Elzo 45 watt CFL (Amazon) is marked 45 watts, 2800 lumens, and 5500K. Not used yet, but it actually does in fact measure 47 watts and 88 VA. It also claims 91 CRI. Faith is restored. For reference, a 150 watt Sylvania incandescent claims 2640 lumens.

Whereas a Fovitec Studio Pro 85 watt CFL does not mention lumens, and it in fact measures only 51 watts and 88 VA. Another noname China 45 watt CFL measures only 26 watts and 44 VA. These seem pretty false claims.