T5 10.0 TOO CLOSE?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jsmith6629

New member
Hey guys. I've looked all over the forum and found answers that were all across the board. All I'm needing to know is 6" too close with the t5 10.0 in the sun blaster with reflector? My female seems to love laying up close to it but I just don't want to do any damage long term.
 

Claudiusx

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
6 inches is too close. But there is a chance that your sunblaster reflector isnt actually working the way it should. If you have a bad reflector then 6 inches would actually be near the proper distance.

We are currently working on a way to figure out visually if you have a good or bad reflector.

For the time being though, I'd play it safe and not let your dragon get that close.

-Brandon
 

Jsmith6629

New member
Original Poster
claudiusx":2grl65az said:
6 inches is too close. But there is a chance that your sunblaster reflector isnt actually working the way it should. If you have a bad reflector then 6 inches would actually be near the proper distance.

We are currently working on a way to figure out visually if you have a good or bad reflector.

For the time being though, I'd play it safe and not let your dragon get that close.

-Brandon

I appreciate the info. If that's the case, should I just take the reflector out?
 

Claudiusx

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
What you can do (and what I actually am doing in 1 of my smaller tanks) is to just slide the reflective material off of the reflector, and then replace the plastic reflector without the reflective strip. Hope that makes sense.

I like that black plastic piece to stay on just to prevent the bulb from shining up into eyes (as I have mine in an open top tank)

-Brandon
 

Jsmith6629

New member
Original Poster
claudiusx":3un48sue said:
What you can do (and what I actually am doing in 1 of my smaller tanks) is to just slide the reflective material off of the reflector, and then replace the plastic reflector without the reflective strip. Hope that makes sense.

I like that black plastic piece to stay on just to prevent the bulb from shining up into eyes (as I have mine in an open top tank)

-Brandon

She's sleeping now so I'll try that in the morning, I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying.
 

Claudiusx

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
Well if it ends up not making sense, let me know and I'll take a picture of mine to show you ha. All of mine are asleep too :p

-Brandon
 

kingofnobbys

BD.org Sicko
Wont harm her . They are fully capable of adjusting the UV reflectivity of their skin to compensate for high UVA & high UVB.

But if you are still concerned then simply swap out for a 5% or 6% UVB tube.
 

Jsmith6629

New member
Original Poster
kingofnobbys":woutm46y said:
Wont harm her . They are fully capable of adjusting the UV reflectivity of their skin to compensate for high UVA & high UVB.

But if you are still concerned then simply swap out for a 5% or 6% UVB tube.

Well that's conflicting lol. I went ahead and left the fixture where it was but removed the reflector
 

Claudiusx

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
They don't have some magic feature to make them less vulnerable to UV radiation on comand. They can darken and lighten their skin to absorb more or less heat. This has nothing to do with being able to be protected from the harmful UV rays.

I just measured my bulbs with reflectors. At 6 inches they were all around an 8. Which is definitely in the danger zone of UV exposure. A few minutes or a few short stints of basking at that level won't be harmful, but prolonged exposure at that level will be.

Switching to the 5.0 would work too... but you're accomplishing the exact same thing by just removing the reflector. 5.0 is half the strength of the 10. And no reflector is half of the strength of a good reflector. I'd go with the free option lol.

-Brandon
 

kingofnobbys

BD.org Sicko
claudiusx":e6bcg883 said:
They don't have some magic feature to make them less vulnerable to UV radiation on comand. They can darken and lighten their skin to absorb more or less heat. This has nothing to do with being able to be protected from the harmful UV rays.


-Brandon
Actually,they do vary the skin UV reflectivity markedly .
Nothing magical about this , it's simply an evolutionary adaptation they and many reptiles native to Australia have which is a consequence of the extreme levels of UV they are exposed in Australia especially in the more tropical areas ( most of the natural range of P.Vitticeps ) and in the less sparcely wooded areas (much of Australia is more akin the tropical savannah).

from the literature :
the bearded dragon P. vitticeps, like many other species of lizard, possesses a black peritoneum which ensures protection of deeper tissues against damage from near-UV light .
and
results establish the existence of an endogenous circadian rhythm in the dorsal skin reflectance of the bearded dragon P. vitticeps. All the rhythmic lizards displayed relatively well-synchronised sinusoidal rhythms of ∼10% reflectance amplitude, with a maximum reflectance (i.e. maximum skin lightening) reached in late evening and a minimum reflectance (i.e. maximum skin darkening) reached in late morning. Skin darkening is caused by the dispersion of melanosomes (melanin-bearing organelles) within melanophores, whereas skin lightening results from their aggregation around the perinuclear region
and
While P. vitticeps may modify both visible (UV-Vis range) and NIR reflectance to accommodate requirements of signalling or camouflage and thermoregulation during light phases, they are in a rest state during dark phases and have little need to display colour change for other purposes, which may explain their higher proportion of UV-Vis reflectance. This variation in the proportion of UV-Vis reflectance may be a function of a change in the spacing of reflecting platelets in iridophores, in combination with melanosome dispersion. Light could act as a stimulus for the pituitary to release MSH, resulting in the dispersion of melanosomes and the aggregation of reflecting platelets. The aggregated reflecting platelets could thus be associated with a decrease in the proportion of UV-Vis reflectance in relation to NIR reflectance, although the mechanisms moderating NIR reflectance are currently unknown.
ref
Cyclic Colour Change in the Bearded Dragon Pogona vitticeps under Different Photoperiods
PLoS One. 2014; 9(10): e111504.
Marie Fan, Devi Stuart-Fox, and Viviana Cadena
ref
Bagnara JT, Hadley ME (1973) Chromatophores and Color Change: the Comparative Physiology of Animal Pigmentation. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs.
ref
Porter WP, Norris KS (1969) Lizard Reflectivity Change and Its Effect on Light Transmission through Body Wall. Science 163: 482–484
ref
Christian KA, Bedford GS, Shannahan ST (1996) Solar Absorptance of Some Australian Lizards and Its Relationship to Temperature. Aust J Zool 44: 59–67
 

Claudiusx

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
kingofnobbys":34z15xnn said:
protection of deeper tissues against damage from near-UV light
kingofnobbys":34z15xnn said:
visible (UV-Vis range) and NIR [Way higher wavelengths than the damaging wavelengths of uvb and uvc] reflectance to accommodate requirements of signalling or camouflage and thermoregulation


Yes.. UV-Vis and near UV light... AKA not the spectrum of UV that readily causes cell damage at high levels. High doses of Low wavelength UV (not "near-UV" or the UV-Vis range) is what what we are discussing, and none of your sources prove that they have a mechanism to increase their resistance to low wavelength UV.
Everyone understands they can lighten and darken to absorb heat better. That doesn't mean they fend off damaging UV rays better.

Either way, if you want to continue to argue your thoughts, I would suggest another thread. The OP has his information and has already decided to just remove the reflector, as opposed to buying another bulb as you suggested.

-Brandon
 

kingofnobbys

BD.org Sicko
Yes I am aware OP decided to remove the reflector.

So by way of a FACT CHECK . Your are wrong regards yet another of your "claims".

It is standard scientific practice that when UV-vis is noted as the range of wavelengths of interest you are looking an instrument that measures emissions or reflected light or transmitted light in the UV range covering of 200-380 nm and the VIS range covering 380-770 nm .
That's visible + UVA + UVB + UVC but excludes Vacuum UV.

Check any spectrophotometer manufactures website for the specs of their instruments ( commonly found in chemical laboratories ) .
Here's one I'm very familiar with : Biochrom
https://biochromspectros.com/media/wysiwyg/support_page/UV-Visible_Spectrophotometry.pdf
Example UV-vis spectra
typical-uv-vis-spectrum.png


If it's limited to the near UV it's then labeled as a UVA instrument.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING, BE PRECISE when talking physics.
 

CooperDragon

BD.org Sicko
Staff member
Moderator
This thread is for a simple lighting placement question which has been answered. Please reserve physics discussions for the Advanced Discussion subforums. Further advanced discussion in this thread will result in the thread being locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest resources

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

I miss you so much, Amaris 💔
What is a quick way to warm up a cold beardie? His heating element went out overnight and now he's very cold.
Pearl Girl wrote on moorelori1966's profile.
i feel so sad reading your about me 😢
Clapton is acclimating okay I think. He's quick as lightning so I'm not sure how much I should bring him out of his house yet. He's not at all interested in his salad though. I wonder if I should change what I'm giving him. Least he's eating his crickets.

Things to do:
Buy calcium powder
Material to raise surface for basking spot
Scenery decals for back of tank

Forum statistics

Threads
155,903
Messages
1,255,709
Members
75,967
Latest member
Newbeardiemom09
Top Bottom