After noticing that FUL CFL lamps predate modern “PL” CFL lamps and that they look very similar to each other, I am beginning to wonder if anyone considers a FUL lamp to be a “PL” lamp.

This is the first "PL" lamp: http://lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/D%20FLC%20Philips%20PLS9.htm

Hello,
Do you know when the FUL type fluorescent tube was introtoduced and by whom? Id say it is of Japanese origin, but I cannot say who come up with it and when.

To the question if they are PL Lamps. They are something else- completely actually. PL is a Philips Trademark originating from the prototyping name for a compact U shaped fluorescent lamp with a glow bottle starter in its base. The tube diameter of 1/2" tube diameter. These lamps and their preceder for electronic ballasts can be considered as "PL" lamps, the latter one, because they still share a Base with the Starter etui.

However "PL-Lamp" is not a scientific name for this typ of lamp. It would be more something like Compact Fluorescent lamp with integrated glow bottle starter or Compact Fluorescent lampfor use with external electronica ballast.

The FUL lamp however is something different: The lamps have a much thicker tube. Also its Base has no Starter compartment at all and is much mor deviated from the G10q base of circular fluorescent tube. For the same reason, the Philips PL-L lamp, I would also not call a PL Lamp.

At the end however this haul discussion is rather clueless. Fact being PL Lamp is just another a Brandname discribing a type of lamp, without clear definition. You can only go by the key features of the original Lamps. For example tube thickness, and the innovative design with the glow bottle starter in the base.

Best regards

I agree.  Plus the phosphors are quite different.  The main technological step that made the narrow diameter high power PL lamp possible was Philips’ invention of the green aluminate phosphor.  I believe that FUL lamps pre-dated that innovation.  They mainly seemed to use halophosphors with low power loading, at least in the beginning.

I would also like to know the origins of the FUL lamps.  I spect they are American, possibly from the Interelectric Corporation which was one of the main early manufacturers.  However, they could well have originated in Japan or even Korea.  The only thing I am certain of is that they were not European.

I have noticed that some later generation FUL lamps are in some cases Chinese made triphosphor lamps even if they claim to be halophosphate. In other cases, you can even find some triphosphor FUL lamps in Japan.

Yeah PL I believe stands for "Pi-Lamp" and is a Philips trademark for those lamps. It's why GE used the "Biax" name for their competing product instead.

I'd say FUL and PL are both types of pin based CFLs but I wouldn't call FUL a type of PL.

Yes today triphosphor seems to be the main type of FUL lamp - or possibly blacklight, they are still used very widely in insect traps.

In some countries you may get away with calling them PL lamps.  In Holland and Belgium the trademarks of Philips are so strong that they became generic names for consumers.  Every man on the street talks about fluorescent tubes as TL lamps.  I remember being astonished when I began working at Sylvania Belgium that even fellow employees speak of ‘TL lamps’ instead of ‘fluorescent tubes’, despite the fact it is the trademark of a competitor.  In Germany it is somewhat similar where metal halide lamps became known as HQI lamps after Osram and CFL as Dulux, even from other brands.  Just like in Britain a vacuum cleaner is known as a Hoover, whatever company made it.