Let me add at little info. On the surface things, it would appear using a reflector could only be benefical. It directs all the light to the plant, hence no lumens shoot out towards the wall or ceiling. But a reflector places the end part of the buld towards the plant (the smallest surface area of the bulb). Also, the the reflector covers most of the the side of buld (the largest surface area of the buld). There can be no doubt that the side emits more lumens than the end. So the majority of the reflected cfl's lumens get to the plant after bouncing off the reflector one or more times, while traveling a much further distance. Lets define "further distance". For example, light that is emited on the side of the cfl near the base/ballast of bulb is about five inches from the the end of the reflector. Lets assume that on average that light must hit off two side of the reflector to make it to the exit of the reflector. Lets say if we measured this it would have traveled ten inches to reach the exit. Also take into account that each bounce will reduce the lumens due to friction and absorbstion off the reflectors. The strength of those lumens would probabley be very weak.
I can see how it is possible for a cfl w/out a reflector could put more lumens on a plant than a cone reflected cfl. Is there anyone with a lumen meter that could test this and share the result? Is there already data on this type of question that I'm asking? Any info that is supported by some data (lumesn checked both ways ect) it would be very helpful. Thank you.
