Light Reflectors?

[BigbruiserAl]

As most know i have a rio 300(new) which comes with 4 54w T5. With the tank being deep 66cm+ some one suggested adding the juewl relectors as this should bounce lost light back into the tank.
Questions would 4 one for each bulb be OTT and am i right assuming this will more then likley add to my algae problem of which is only just under control?

Thanks BBA

 

[KittyKat]

At 2.7 wpg, you're already over the top (I am assuming the tank is 300 litres). If my assumption is correct and you're not one of those high-tech plant people, see if you can use only two of the bulbs, and you still won't need reflectors on them for most plants without heavy CO[sub]2[/sub] and fertiliser additions.

And to be honest, most fish would probably be permanently freaked out under that much light.

 

[BigbruiserAl]

Your not far off tank acual volume is 350L. I would call it heavly planted and i dose ferts and the plants do well. I belive they supply 4 t5 is something to do with with depth of the tank(how true it is i dont know lighting is not my forte)

Thanks for your help though

 

[KittyKat]

2.3 wpg then, still high, but not shockingly so if you dose. Unless you see signs of light deficiency on the plants, I'd pass on the reflectors still.. go by how the tank feels.

 

[StandbySetting]

Even still 4 Tubes is absolute over kill in my opinion, you've probably got something close to 4-5 WPG if you're basing it on the old T12's which the WPG rule was created for.

You should only ever need 2 of the tubes illuminated, you'll halve your tank lighting bill and go towards eliminating your algae.

 

[BigbruiserAl]

Thanks guys i like the light that the 10k bulbs give and ill turn the other off. Do you think that that it would be a idea to get 2 15k marine bulbs instead, these should show the colour of the GBR ,congos and rasbora better?

 

[StandbySetting]

15K are close to actinic, if you want the fishes colours to show better then go for a tube that emits peaks at about 450nm and 650nm.