Quantcast

Tank sizes.

Help Support Reef Frontiers:

Solov

Ez reefer
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
115
Location
Bothell, WA
Hi!

I was curious if more experienced reefers can answer this:

Why there's no 72" long aquariums under 125 Gal??

Wouldn't it be just great to have lets say 75 Gal of 72" long? It would be like 72x15x16, sounds not too unreasonable to me.

And it would weight 400lbs less than 125 Gal, but will have most of its advantages as far as space considered.
 

oregon gorge

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
57
72"

Morning,

I am not sure why you want the length and not width or height? We started w/ a 55g which is 13'' front to back. Then we had 2 different 135's. #1 is 24t x 18w #2 was just the opposite. #2 was nice for the extra floor space, but sucked for being so short. #1 was okay for stacking rock, but no room front to back.

The 240g was better, w/ 24x24. My favorite is the newest one. 72'' long x 30'' tall x 36'' front to back. I like it better than the 8', a little more personable. The room front to back is the most important to us. We love the flexibility.

Its all a matter of what you like :) A fish only w/ a small amount of LR would work I suppose. I guess anything you did that didnt require rock work would be okay in that space :)

If I were to get another smaller tank, it would be a 24x24x48 which I think is a 150g. But next might be another in the wall, but 500g :idea:


Have fun with it!

Chris
 

Solov

Ez reefer
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
115
Location
Bothell, WA
Well, basically, even though I know "the more water the better" is a rule for reef keeping, I was just thinking of something that is not yet in the "monster" range (120 Gal +), but has enough length for tang to swim.

Most people agree that 55 Gal is still too small for a tang, but it's 48" and the first 72" is 120 Gal which is almost 3 times by volume!!

Well so far my rock work requirements were mostly about 1 line of rocks, where in 24" you can easily put two with arcs and what not in between, but then how would you provide "top view" of tank? :) That is why I assumed that 15" width is kind of sufficient.

I can see the point about cost for 75 long is close to cost of 120 though.
 

Solov

Ez reefer
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
115
Location
Bothell, WA
LOL, as in from >100G it evaporates less? :D

No... I know what you mean... ratio evaporation/volume, but surface of that tank would still be less than 120 Gal one, so not really sure about that. It would be higher, true, but would it be really that bad? Math says that it should be 25% more than regular 75 Gal tank. (1080/864 square inches).
So 1-1/4 Gal against 1 Gal doesn't sound too bad to me, and doesn't really matter with auto compensating systems.

But on contrary just think of all the oxygen coming into water through that surface! :)
 

Minh Nguyen

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
95
72X15X16 would make a terible reef tank. How am I going to aquascape it? I ma with mike, it ould make great prob tank for low light frags (not easy to light with MH but the lenght make it easy to light wiht VHO)
 

Solov

Ez reefer
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
115
Location
Bothell, WA
Can you tell a bit more about problem you foresee with aquascaping?

I was thinking of this as just two 30 Gal tanks connected. Thus, if you can aquascape 30 Gal tank, why you would have problems with this one?

As for lighting - you will have 3 sections by 24", shouldn't be a problem to put some good lights in it.

Like 175W MH x 250W MH x 175W MH,
plus PCs with (2x65W)x(2x65W)x(2x65W).

You can put two 175W MH in the middle section if you think of putting more stronger light corals in it.
 

Minh Nguyen

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
95
IMO, each MH optimally light an area of 24X24 inches. This make lighting an 15 inches wide tank dificult with MH.
My SPS grow really fast. An area of 15 inches wide will be fill with one colony in 1.5 to 2 years thus one can only have all the colony all in a roll from one end of the tank to the other.
I guess I am use to aquascape larger tanks. I think the Ideal tank is a standard 120 g. 48X24X24. Small enough to manage easily and large enough to make it looks natural and nice.
Minh
 

Solov

Ez reefer
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
115
Location
Bothell, WA
Thanks a lot! That's the kind of information I was looking for! :)

Because I was sure there got to be a good reason nobody uses those types of tanks.

But your comment is also kind of questions usability of even 125Gal 72" long tank (72x18x22), which means that only 180 (72x24x24) is the way to go. Or am I missing something again?
 

Minh Nguyen

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
95
Solov said:
Thanks a lot! That's the kind of information I was looking for! :)

Because I was sure there got to be a good reason nobody uses those types of tanks.

But your comment is also kind of questions usability of even 125Gal 72" long tank (72x18x22), which means that only 180 (72x24x24) is the way to go. Or am I missing something again?
The narrower the tank, the more dificult it is to give the aquascape any dept. But beauty is all in the eyes of the beholder.
I have friend who think that keeping a pair of Oscars in a bare tank as being beautiful.
IMO, a 72X24X24 without center brace is a very nice tank. Certainly beter than the 125 g long. The 125 long is not useless by any mean. However, if I can, I prefer the 180 g or even the standard 120 g tank.
Minh
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.
Top