alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/16/90)
In article <24777@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <90015.000606NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >>I plan on getting a second tank. As it stands now it will either >>be a 50 gallon high or a 65 gallon high. Probably the latter. Both are >>3 feet in length and the same width. The height difference is 6 inches. >>The 50 is 18 inches high, the 65 is 24. > >Always get the biggest tank. Get the 65. > >>Side note: since I might be transferring all my fresh water fish to the new >>tank, plus get somemore, I will be converting my 20 gallon high into a marine >>aquarium; > >Make the 65 the marine tank. Your chances of success are far greater. I second Richard's comment about using the larger tank for marine ... but ... For what it's worth, I'd take the 50, especially for marine. A shorter tank lowers the lighting requirements (alternately, a shorter tank increases the effectiveness of a fixed lighting). If you use a UG filter, the filtration is only affected by the surface area. If you are setting up an inverb tank, extra height is pretty useless. Even in community tanks, extra height isn't really used by the fish, where extra length would give more running room, more area for territoriality, etc. All the extra height gives you is some more volume. I'd rather take more volume as length and/or width. -- --------| With Altzheimer's Disease, every day is a new day! Alien | - Earl McKennon --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
atk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Alan T. Krantz) (01/16/90)
In article <24777@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <90015.000606NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >>I plan on getting a second tank. As it stands now it will either >>be a 50 gallon high or a 65 gallon high. Probably the latter. Both are >>3 feet in length and the same width. The height difference is 6 inches. >>The 50 is 18 inches high, the 65 is 24. > >Always get the biggest tank. Get the 65. This brings up an interesting question - well interesting to me - do people treat tall tanks significantly different than long tanks in terms of the fishes and plants purchased? Specifically what fishes do well in a short tall tank? I think the 30L has a very nice aspect ratio - long enough for schooling fishes - short enough for good plant lighting from above ... what are other favorite dimensions and why? | Mail: 1830 22nd street mail: atk@boulder.colorado.edu | | Apt 16 Vmail: Home: (303) 939-8256 | | Boulder, Co 80302 Office: (303) 492-8115 | ------------------------------------------------------------------
frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) (01/17/90)
In article <15670@boulder.Colorado.EDU> atk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Alan T. Krantz) writes: > >This brings up an interesting question - well interesting to me - >do people treat tall tanks significantly different than long tanks in >terms of the fishes and plants purchased? Specifically what fishes do >well in a short tall tank? I think the 30L has a very nice aspect ratio >- long enough for schooling fishes - short enough for good plant >lighting from above ... what are other favorite dimensions and why? I have come to really prefer tall tanks. One of the reasons is that I really enjoy the plants that we are growimg. Our A. undulatus had to be moved from our 55 (15" tall) to our 18T (20" tall), because of it's height (and other reasons), and jungle val really needs more than 15" to look great (I really like jungle val). As for fish, I enjoy under-loaded tanks, so I'm not overly bummed by the reduced surface area, and since many fish will prefer a particular depth, one can create a very attractive tank with a few species - I enjoyed Richard's suggestion of a tank with hatchet fish (surface), pencil fish (middle) and dwarf cichlids (bottom). It won't be in the near future, but I would love at some point to own a 24" deep aquarium. 48" long is fine by me. It would have a pretty serious section of val (1/4 to 1/2 of the tank) and some good sized swords, and two or three discus would slowly cruise this tank. I think that would be pretty nice. Greg Frazier ............................................................... "They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true freak cannot be made. A true freak must be born." - Geek Love Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/17/90)
In article <15670@boulder.Colorado.EDU> atk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Alan T. Krantz) writes: > >This brings up an interesting question - well interesting to me - >do people treat tall tanks significantly different than long tanks in >terms of the fishes and plants purchased? Specifically what fishes do >well in a short tall tank? I think the 30L has a very nice aspect ratio >- long enough for schooling fishes - short enough for good plant >lighting from above ... what are other favorite dimensions and why? Ah yes. The yin and yang of aquaria. Strictly speaking, surface area is all that counts. I have about 2 dozen killies (Aphyosemion gardneri Lokoja) about a month old in tupperware container about 10" long by 5" wide and only 1.5" deep. The little bugers are doing just great. It's the least hassle vessel to change water in; I can change 80% of it in under 30 seconds. I was thinking about moving them to a 2 gal tank, but quickly realized that they would have less surface area and therefore less dissolved oxygen. In my opinion, oxygen is the limting factor in growth in young fish. I will probably put these guys straight into a 15 gal tank in a week or two ans skip the 2 gal tanks stage. (Normally, they are hatched in a tupperware container, then go into a 2 gal tank, then a 15) Now, the counterpoint to this is a low tank as a display vehicle looks like shit. I have several 40 gal tanks that are 36" x 18" x 12". Great for surface area, but sort of worthless for plants. Once you have 3" or gravel, and steal an inch form the top, you are left with 8" of space to grow plants in. I have several Aponogeton biovinanus inthe tank, and they have these massive leaves that go all the way to the top of the tank, then go all the way back down the the bottom and then curl up again. These leaves are about 24" long. Maybe cryps would be a good choice, but of course I can't keep cryps. Most plants - val, swords, Apons all grow big, and of course bunch plants will essentially grow as big as you let them. There is of course a limit to this. Light decreases in intensity (very) approximately as the square of the distance, so a very tall tank is extremely hard to light properly. Plus there are engineering limitations - above 36" tall you start talking some pretty serious pressures and stresses. So it's a tradeoff of functionality vs. aesthetics.
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <15670@boulder.Colorado.EDU> atk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Alan T. Krantz) writes: >This brings up an interesting question - well interesting to me - >do people treat tall tanks significantly different than long tanks in >terms of the fishes and plants purchased? Specifically what fishes do >well in a short tall tank? Almost everything does better in a long than than a tall tank. If you are in to bottom dwellers (mini-reef or inverb tanks) the case is even more clear. >I think the 30L has a very nice aspect ratio >- long enough for schooling fishes - short enough for good plant >lighting from above ... what are other favorite dimensions and why? The 30L has always been my favorite commercial size. I once (about 10 yrs ago) got a bunch of specialty 20Ls from a fish store going out of business. They were 30Ls shortened. I loved them (and my fish loved them ...). They actually made good marine tanks too. With UGF filters (only thing you can get back then ...) they were about as stable and could take almost as much bioload as a 55. When you get to the big display tanks (90, 135, ...) it is almost impossible to find tanks I consider short enough unless you have them custom made ... When I had my house (sigh ...) I had a family room built downstairs. I put a 90 gal tank in the wall that connected to the utility room, so the tank had totally open access from the utility room. The contractor created the stand (studded 2x4s with a 2x4 frame and a ply base, perfectly leveled). From the family room, all you saw was a window-sized opening in the wall framed like a picture frame with a ceiling light aimed at it. Very nice, especially with the room lights low. From the utility room side you had easy access to all the works, and I had a utility sink installed within a few feet of it (between it and the washer/dryer). In a setup like this, you really do want the height for the display ... otherwise give me a nice short tank ... -- --------| With Altzheimer's Disease, every day is a new day! Alien | - Earl McKennon --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
NMBCU@CUNYVM (01/17/90)
In article <3928@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>, BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) says: > >Nelson, > Just a comment for thought.... I always thought "high" tanks were >'neater' than regular shaped tanks. As I have gotten into the business >of keeping them running, I have observed that experienced people seem >to avoid them. You end up with a lot of water you can't put fish in. >The capacity of your tank is determined more by the free surface area >than the volume capacity of the tank. A 20 high should have no more fish >in it than a 15. A 65 high should have the same fish load as 50, etc. >Maintanence increases with volume. How much better looking are the >high tanks? For me they aren't worth it. John I understand that long is better than high, but I cannot handle a 55L. I only have 36" available to me. So I'm opting for the 65 gallon high as opposed to the 50H. There are fresh water fish that like to hang out at the top as well as the middle and bottom. My 20 gallon high community tank which is getting crowded (about 25-30 fish - plus 6 fry in a little enclosed net area), has fish swimming all over the place. When I make the transfer into the new tank, they will still be swimming all over the place. Its not just because of crowdedness. I also have plans of adding one or two more species of fresh water fish and Angel fish is one of them, so I need the height. After the transfer is complete. I plan on setting up the 20H as a marine water tank. I've never had one of these before, so I'm going to start small. Small tank, small marine fish (clowns, damsels - two each), and hope they survive. These fish are much cheaper than Angels, Corals, and Surgeon fish. Maybe when I get this down pat, I could place a 30L at the bottom of the stand for the 65H, and keep the latter three in it. But for now I'll go with a small amount of small fish that shouldn't (?) grow to large. I'll add a coral reef for the damels and at the other end of the tank a anemone(s) (sp?) for the two clowns. Of course, I'm just guessing that they will get along well together and that the damsels will know to stay clear of the anemones. Oh well, thats my game plan anyway. Opinions? Ideas? Suggestions? Nelson Broat And no you can't suggest self sacrifice. Thats already been suggested. :) Relay-Version: Version 1.7 PSU-NETNEWS 5/20/88; site MAINE.BITNET Posting-Version: Version 1.7 PSU-NETNEWS 5/20/88; site MAINE.BITNET Path: cunyvm!maine.bitnet!tar From: Thom Rounds <TAR@MAINE.BITNET> Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll,rec.music.misc,rec.music.gdead Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: rec.music.pfloyd Message-ID: <90016.230227TAR@MAINE.BITNET> Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1990 23:02:27 EST References: <3016@astroatc.UUCP> <3502@hub.UUCP> Just a small request to those of you discussing bluegrass. I would just like to request that the subject gets changed, so as to avoid any confusion. It gets a little difficult for me to read and understand the general state of rec.music.pfloyd opinions when the discussion goes off on a tangent, not that I haven't been guilty of doing the same things myself. Thanks in advance... ---Thom Rounds
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/17/90)
In article <90016.222839NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >After the transfer is complete. I plan on setting up the 20H as a marine >water tank. I've never had one of these before, so I'm going to start >small. Small tank, small marine fish (clowns, damsels - two each), and >hope they survive. The population you are suggesting (clowns, damsels) is quite reasonable for a salt-water tank, the size you are suggesting is not. If you limit yourself to a 20H, you pretty much have to use a trickle filter unless you want your tank to regularily bounce. A UG wouldn't work. This is going to drive your entry level price much higher than a 30L with a UG filter. >I'll add a coral reef for the damels and at the other end of the tank >a anemone(s) (sp?) for the two clowns. I wouldn't advise this. Dead (ornamental) coral is OK. Don't even think of anemones or live coral (or even live rock) without a trickle filter in a tank larger than a 20H. -- --------| I die ... you die ... we all die ... Alien | - the Heavy Metal movie --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
gordon@lopez.UUCP (Gordon) (01/18/90)
A taller tank gives a more elegant appearance to me. I have custom built a octogonal (as viewed from the front) 86 gallon tank. It is 24" high, and gives the fish plenty of vertical space. I was aslo conserned with the reduced UGF space with this design and added a backfilter. One thing to keep in mind when desiding on the height is how long are your arms. I have long arms and still have to stretch to work at the back of the tank. Also remember that some fish will use the vertical room, while others will stay near the top or bottom. If the tank is too tall for the size of the fish this can cause visible layering.