On the left is a Philips ‘Basic Bulb’ and on the right is a TCP ‘Basic Bulb’…
The Philips says it consumes 8.5 watts and 138 milliamps; the TCP says it consumes 9.5 watts and 110 milliamps.
…wtf?
The wattage of the TCP lamp is higher than the Philips lamp but the current consumption is less!
They must be calculating the wattage at different voltages, which is misleading!
The TCP lamp consumes less power than the Philips lamp but the Philips lamp claims to consume 8.5 watts which is the lowest I have seen.
So apparently the Philips lamp is not the most efficient 800 lumen LED lamp you can get in a store! 
It appears you are trying to plant the wrong kind of bulbs in that flowerbed 
well… after you know about “chinese lumens” it really shouldnt shock you any, lol…
after all, its just SPECIFICATIONS… which must translate in Chinese through the translation software as “say anything you want to”
Watts is only proportional to current if the load has a power factor of 1. This is not the case if the load is partially inductive or capacitive.
yeah, but that power isnt “lost”? it gets stored in the inductor or capacitor, and the either the current or the voltage “lags”, right?
its only less efficient at turn on for a short period until the capacitor fills up, or, the inductor makes its field? the overall power loss is only if you are switching it?
i could be wrong, probably am…
The power is not lost, it simply isn’t drawn “nicely” from your power company. Imagine your gadget is drawing its power only from the 0-12V part of the 120V sine wave. It could draw 1A that way and still never get more than 12W (actually less) instead of the expected 120W. But it should still be rated as 1A because that’s what it pulls.
Edit: This sort of thing is fairly important in industrial settings because lower power factor requires bigger wires and equipment. And utilities will charge for it.
in my mind, whatever the device pulls amp-wise where it takes in power (usually a cord, here a bulb base…) is what the device SHOULD be labeled as. Both average and high figures if it makes a momentary bigger pull.
one bulb isnt a big deal… but… if i was putting 10 or 20 or 30 bulbs in a big fixture? i would depend on the sticker to tell me.
I LOLled!
That’s not a flowerbed, those are some weeds growing out of a crack in a concrete walkway/ledge thing
Oh right! The power factor! Makes sense now. Would be interesting to see the data sheets for these lamps for more info.
Edit: no their information doesn’t tell the power factor or Volt-Amps. electronupdate does though.
The specifications should be correct because these are lamps from reputable companies (Philips and TCP), not generic lamps directly from Chinese manufacturers.
What a title for a thread!
Is that the limited extent of your vocabulary?
It was used on this other forum that I used to frequent and it was a breath of fresh air coming on here, I hope this doesn’t become a common occurence.
oh, dont worry. He’s the exception rather than the rule…
typically? I like to open a snifter of good brandy, rest it gently on the baby grand piano in the reading library. I adjust my ascot and smoking jacket to an air of “well practiced insouciance” before i peruse the ponderables to pointedly pontificate the possibilities with my cheap chinese budget lights.
its only with the BETTER brandy, that the alliteration becomes possible.
Personally I find the title of this thread a bit confusing. Looking at the content of it, you can call it either a case of improper use of units or a creative way to handle units. But then a lot of threads could have the same title! And that would give everyone a hard time when he tried to find and re-read an article after a while. So in this case: less is not always more.
And for the record: English is not my native language, so I always think long and hard before I say something stupid.
poiihy —- i was making a joke…