UPDATE - SUNBLASTER T5 REFLECTORS - READ

[MrSpectrum]

I ran the test under the following parameters:
My 16" x 8" basking surface is comprised of eight 4" sq. slate tiles on top of a tower of bricks.
The Reptisun 10.0 T5 in Sunblaster fixture is centered longitudinally, exactly 9" above basking surface.
The 34" T5 tube extends 12" beyond the left side of the platform, and 6" beyond the right side of the platform.
Because it took me several weeks and several rebuilds of the tower to establish this configuration and correct temperatures, and the fact that I am disabled, I was not about to tear it down and have to rebuild & re-balance again for this test.
Using the same UVB bulb each time, and allowing 5 min. warm-up/stabilization, I took UVI readings with a Solarmeter 6.5 at the midpoints of each of the 4 edges of the platform. Here are the results:

Note: The flipped data may be skewed because attempting to flip the mylar reflector in its holder caused the mylar to kink in several places, and shatter. It no longer sits smooth in its cradle, and is in multiple pieces.
I WAS NOT WARNED OF THIS POSSIBILITY BEFORE ATTEMPTING THIS MODIFICATION.
NOW I AM WITHOUT ANY FUNCTIONAL REFLECTOR.

 

[lilacdragon]

Hi, Mr. Spectrum.
No-one has mentioned that flipping the reflector has caused it to break. That's really bad. Thanks for adding the warning.
But from your results, you've confirmed that the issue is that these reflectors have been assembled with the reflectors back-to-front in their holders.
When you flipped yours, several of your readings show a 1.9 to 2.0x increase... and the old reflectors all had very similar boosts cf. a bare tube.

Brandon, I checked your figures and I think you might have miscalculated; I found your "good" reflector boosted by 1.9 and 1.7x (from the two distances quoted) and the "repaired" reflector by 1.6 and 1.4x.
I don't think that's quite as bad as you thought?

 

[Claudiusx]

Brandon, I checked your figures and I think you might have miscalculated; I found your "good" reflector boosted by 1.9 and 1.7x (from the two distances quoted) and the "repaired" reflector by 1.6 and 1.4x.
I don't think that's quite as bad as you thought?

Sorry it was late for me too lol. You are right, my bad reflector increased 1.4x by flipping to it's good side.

Spectrums readings are interesting, mainly his middle of the bulb readings as that's where I took mine from too. Middle of the bulb readings show very little increase.

I'm sorry yours broke spectrum. I've flipped and removed mine a couple dozen times and haven't had that issue yet.

Frances, why are the readings so low, or more so the reflectors improvement so bad, in the middle of the bulb?

My problem is that there seems to be no consistency with these reflectors, and while we have found an improvement, we still dont have consistent numbers coming from them imo.

-Brandon

 

[lilacdragon]

Hi, Brandon.

I may be mis-interpreting Mr. Spectrum's test method but what I think he has done is to measure the readings taken from the sides of the basking platform, i.e., his meter is positioned at an angle, pointing towards the fixture diagonally, and the "middle of the bulb" readings are from a distance that is 4 inches to the side and 9 inches below the tube.
These readings, because the meter is "looking" at the tube from well to the side, are going to be from the tube itself and only ONE side of the reflector; the other side is not visible to the meter sensor. So you are only going to get 50% of the expected boost....
However, when the meter is directly under the tube and reflector, as it is at the two ends, the sensor can "see" reflections from both sides of the reflector plus the tube itself, hence 100% of the reflected light and 100% of the expected boost..