http://www.bluemaxlighting.com has a typical marketing heavy "full spectrum" lighting website.  It also sells induction lighting and its currently involved in political scandal about ARRA.

It all started when Full Spectrum Solutions, the company behind BlueMax claiming that its losing bids to competitors who falsely claim "Made in the USA".  Now it has involved a state representative and in the midst of a political scandal. 

http://schauer.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=191679

http://www.bluemaxlighting.com/product_175_detailed.htm
I think you're smoking crack when you think you can get 96.2 lumens per watt from a 959 5900K >93 CRI 54W T5 HO lamp. 

Even the ordinary F54T5HO/841 is stuck around 93 lm/W 

The T5 HO that coated with 9xx triphosphors gives out similar efficiency of the halophosphors krypton buffered T8s and so are rated in Europe in the EEI (I think short of "Eenergy Efficiency Index") B and not A, like the 8xx ones. This is the main reason why they aren't popular for general lighting in Europe and used only in special purposes, and also there are no CFLs with these 9xx phosphors (Except N:Vision which i think uses these phosphors because of different spectra then regular triphosphors).
Also if they claimed that their T5 HO lamps even passesd TCLP, think of shorter lamp life and also lower efficiency then 9xx T5 HO lamps as they contains too much low mercury to become effective.

The T5 HO that coated with 9xx triphosphors gives out similar efficiency of the halophosphors krypton buffered T8s and so are rated in Europe in the EEI (I think short of "Eenergy Efficiency Index") B and not A, like the 8xx ones. This is the main reason why they aren't popular for general lighting in Europe and used only in special purposes, and also there are no CFLs with these 9xx phosphors (Except N:Vision which i think uses these phosphors because of different spectra then regular triphosphors).
Also if they claimed that their T5 HO lamps even passesd TCLP, think of shorter lamp life and also lower efficiency then 9xx T5 HO lamps as they contains too much low mercury to become effective.

It's listed as CFL even though its not really compact, but PL-L 950 is available in 55W 2' twin-tube and its only rated at 3650, while the RE80 regular PL-L 55W is 4800 lumen. 

I'd love to see a commercially available 93 CRI 5900K lamp hitting >95 lm/W. I call it BS

i call bs too.
the most efficient lamps are heavy in the green/yellow-green area.anything with a broader spectrum or a bunch of peaks to give better color rendering wont be as efficient.
the whole "full spectrum" thing is just marketing fluff anyway.
the dirty secret is that most are just relabeled 950 phosphor or chroma 50's.oh and a huge markup to go with all that male bovine excrement!

I emailed them and requested lab report.  They told me it was confidential. 

To quote them:
"We use a unique 6 phosphor blend to achieve the high lumen, CRI, and Kelvin ratings that we offer with all of our products.  Because we have a patented proprietary blend, I am not sure how much information I can release to you"

They don't have to release the lab report, but it makes me question the validity of their specs. "Oh its confidential" is such a convenient response.

I responded that a granted patent is a public record and asked for US Patent number.  They did not respond.  When I search the patents record in their name, I don't see a single entry.

It's quite hypocritical they're calling people out for misrepresenting country of origin, when they're misrepresenting product performance.

There is one trick to boost lumen output on a lamp intended to replace cerain lamp type:
Use higher arc voltage. On most ballasts this will increase the real power input (as ballasts are nearly constant current sources). With some aids ensuring the ignition voltage does not rise, such trick might fool users even when they try to measure optical properties. and compare hem with standard lamps in the same fixture.
Of course, then the real power does not match the designation (e.g. F32T8 will consume in reality e.g. 40W on BF=1 ballast), as the designation show mainly the lamp vs ballast compatibility.

There is one trick to boost lumen output on a lamp intended to replace cerain lamp type:
Use higher arc voltage. On most ballasts this will increase the real power input (as ballasts are nearly constant current sources).

Actually, fluorescent lamps have a negative V/I curve.  You can't control the voltage, but when you raise the current arc voltage actually goes down. 

With some aids ensuring the ignition voltage does not rise, such trick might fool users even when they try to measure optical properties. and compare hem with standard lamps in the same fixture.
Of course, then the real power does not match the designation (e.g. F32T8 will consume in reality e.g. 40W on BF=1 ballast), as the designation show mainly the lamp vs ballast compatibility.

This is why ANSI and IEC prescribe the use of reference ballast.  Sometimes ANSI and IEC conditions are identical, sometimes different.  If there is a difference, then American catalog specs would be based on ANSI procedure, European on IEC. 

Following ANSI standards basically locks the actual lamp wattage and lamp frequency as well as lamp temperature.  All the older lamps and T8 are tested at line frequency operation.  CFLs and T5s are tested at 25KHz. 

If you operate a 32W T8 at 25KHz at full 32W, BF would be around 1.1 

Listing specs in catalog that was obtained by anything other than the accepted industry standards for the region it is being targeted is unethical and dishonest, which just happens to be the same thing this company is accusing others of. 

F.S.S. is a manufacturer of induction street lighting and sells them under the name Everlast.  Keep in mind that "full spectrum solutions" is the one accusing their competitors concerning supposed misrepresentation of country of origin of induction lighting products. So, to use any trickery means hypocrisy at best. 

With "You" i meant "You" being in the position of the lamp designer, not ballast designer or user.
Indeed, the arc voltage is nearly constant and it is given by the lamp design (distances, gas pressure and composition, tube diameter,...).
And indeed, lumens are rated on the reference ballast.

What i want to say:
Assume a lamp manufacturer (or designer) want to create an F36T8 lamp (most common in EU, so i used it for the case).
Good manufacturer would try to make this lamp as much as possible electrically behaving the same as any other F36T5 on ANY ballast (so not only the standardized reference). The only otion for this is to design the lamp to have the same ignition and operating voltages.

But when the designer want to boost the light output and is not able to do so by increasing the efficacy (e.g. reach with the /9xx phosphor the same lumen output as 8xx tri-phosphor standard), he has to somehow increase the power input.
As the reference ballast is of a constant current source (current it deliver is rather independent on lamp voltage it feed), increasing the arc voltage (e.g. he use higher pressure of the gas fill) increase the power transferred from ballast to the lamp.
And as higher power mean more lumens with the same efficacy, the lamp lumen output on the refference ballast might be boosted in this way, compare to correctly made F3T8 lamp with the same efficacy.

Of course, it is lie to customers, as the lamp does not consume 36W as they expect from the lamp designation (but e.g. 45W), but the lumen ouput is higher. Drawback is shorter lamp life (it become more sensitive to cathode wear)
At least this is better for retrofit purpose then lowering lumens and keeping insuffitient lighting.
But what else to expect from a company, that argue using so exaggerated "health benefit" claims...

If they've changed lamp characteristics they don't meet ANSI specs. Ballast manufactures don't honor warranty if they're used with non-ANSI spec lamps.

If the arc voltage is altered, as in the case of 48" 25W T8, it is no longer 32W T8 48" so they're dishonest.

I agree, they have to name the lamp correctly: If the lamp consume 45W and they want to stress the expected compatibility, it has to be labeled like "F45T8 for use in F36T8 fixture".
But as i said, what to expect from companies, who do not hesitate to put such claims like "96lm/W with /956 color", etc.
However i do not accuse any specific company for mislabeling their product, i put this as a theoretical possibility, how to trick the user and avoid "too dim lamp" complaints...

I agree, they have to name the lamp correctly: If the lamp consume 45W and they want to stress the expected compatibility, it has to be labeled like "F45T8 for use in F36T8 fixture".
But as i said, what to expect from companies, who do not hesitate to put such claims like "96lm/W with /956 color", etc.
However i do not accuse any specific company for mislabeling their product, i put this as a theoretical possibility, how to trick the user and avoid "too dim lamp" complaints...

They can't claim compatible though if the lamps do not conform to ANSI specs as the use of their lamps would void ballast warranty.

Ballast warranty states that ballast manufacturer reserves the right to inspect failed ballast + lamps and if the lamps are found to be non ANSI standard, warranty is void on all ballasts in that install. 

Now going to their website, I see that they added LED therapy lights for help with circadian cycle LMAOOOO.