90"X36" or 82"X44" Help choose size

[Chihuahua6]

Hi all. To make a long story short, the tank will be inwall and the tank room has an angled wall so that the left rear corner of the tank will eventually come up to the wall. I measured and used a square to come to the sizes I can choose from. The longest the tank can be with a 36" width is 90" which is what I was planning. After reading post after post and seeing tanks get wider and wider I started to rethink everything. It seems 8 inches would have the most impact on the width of the tank as opposed to the length. With a wider tank it will be 7' long as opposed to 7 1/2' which is still pretty long. I am only planning to keep two tangs, a purple and later on a powder blue if I can find a healthy one. I may add a Crosshatch Trigger. I haven't decided yet. Those will be the only larger fast moving fish I will have. The rest will be medium to small species. It seems 7' would be adequate swimming space. There will be plenty of open swimming space as well.
BTW the tank will be 30" high to allow room for a 5" sand bed. (Please no DSB vs barebottom debates. This is what works for me.)

So the question is, how much difference does 8 inches make? Will a 44" wide tank have that illusion of depth that everyone talks about? Which size would you all do?
Thanks.

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

36" would give you depth too....i'd say thats a personal choice, if it were me i would pick the 44" wide one and have 6 halides, but with the 90x36 you might be able to get away with 3 Lumenarcs for the whole tank?

 

[Chihuahua6]

Well lighting is not a concern with regards to either size. I have three Sun Tunnel skylights already installed. The top of the tank will have three openings to accomodate the skylights and both sizes will work. If more light is needed I will add T5s and/or actinics. It may not even be necessary since the sun is strong were I live and we have many sunny days. We'll see in time. The only difference will be with the wider tank the skylights will not be centered. The back of the tank will be further from the light source, hence darker. I think this may add to the illusion of depth and I can use that space for lower light corals or I can add the t5s if needed.

 

[xdusty6920]

personally i would go with wider rather then longer. youll notice the extra width far more then you would the extra length.

 

[yoboyjdizz]

It all depends on what your focus is on. If its more into the reef setup and corals are your main attraction i would go with the extra width. If your fish are your main attraction i would go with the extra length.

 

[Ceak]

I agree, Reef = wider, Fish = longer

 

[Chihuahua6]

Hmmmmm, well both are the main attraction. I am trying to achieve a more natural looking biotope setup. There will be fewer species of coral than the average tank but there will be huge colonies of each with a yellow leather taking center stage. All in all I would say the aquascaping capabilities are very important to me.

 

[just dave]

I like the 44" wide tank size better but as to the one the creates the "illusion of depth" best.......that would be the 44" one because it is wider and that's no illusion. Set up like most tanks neither will give you the depth-less look I think you are talking about. In order to accomplish that you do ,in fact, need to create an illusion and wider tanks work best but you have to be willing to give up some things. A number of things can be done to help create this effect like rounded seamless back corners, translucent back panel with back lighting, gradient painting of the back, dimmer lighting in the back, keeping any seams in the back from being visible, keeping anything from touching the back, keeping the back spotless ,.....etc. My last aquarium was 48" wide and initially was done with this in mind but the tank was not optimized for this and while it was a nice effect it was not complete so I ditched the concept for a latter time and filled in the rest of the tank and added more lights. That time was thrust upon me when the bottom cracked and its replacement will be 72" wide and will be made with this illusion in mind. I'm also going to frame the viewing panels in a way to help force the perspective. When I'm done I hope that my design along with my aquascaping gives me the effect I'm after. We'll see.


The old one below.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Thanks for the ideas Dave. You have given me even more to think about. I was planning to have a black back so I could get a horizontal external overflow across the length of the tank. The black back would hide it completely. If the back was clear you would be able to see stuff in the fish room. You mention a translucent back panel with back lighting. I was thinking of a black back with less lighting. Am I wrong here? What do you mean by gradient painting of the back? Do you mean painting it to allow some light through from the back? How many of these methods have you used on your tank? Have you seen a tank with all of these methods employed? I am very interested to learn more. Having the back corners made seamless and rounded seems like it might be expensive. Have you gotten a quote for this? Thanks again. I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

[Fiziksgeek]

You could always go all out and get both. Angle the end pannel to match the wall. So you would get the full lenght for the front viewing, and can make it as deep as you want.

 

[Chihuahua6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7551988#post7551988 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fiziksgeek
You could always go all out and get both. Angle the end pannel to match the wall. So you would get the full lenght for the front viewing, and can make it as deep as you want.

I have considered this. I was concerned about the angled end looking strange when viewing the tank or that it might detract from the depth of the tank. I may be able to camouflage it somewhat with the rock and the moulding framing the tank. I'm not sure if it would work. Perhaps Just Dave can offer an opinion.
I also think about resale. People might not want an asymmetrical tank. It's not that I plan on selling it but you just never know. I still might do it though. I haven't decided yet.

 

[just dave]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7551844#post7551844 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Chihuahua6
Thanks for the ideas Dave. You have given me even more to think about. I was planning to have a black back so I could get a horizontal external overflow across the length of the tank. The black back would hide it completely. If the back was clear you would be able to see stuff in the fish room. You mention a translucent back panel with back lighting. I was thinking of a black back with less lighting. Am I wrong here? What do you mean by gradient painting of the back? Do you mean painting it to allow some light through from the back? How many of these methods have you used on your tank? Have you seen a tank with all of these methods employed? I am very interested to learn more. Having the back corners made seamless and rounded seems like it might be expensive. Have you gotten a quote for this? Thanks again. I look forward to hearing back from you.

The translucent panel set-ups are just that. A panel (blue is the only ones I've seen) are placed on the outside back and have a fluorescent light behind it. The panel allows just enough light to pass through to give the impression of a endless background. The first time I saw one it was referred to as an infinity background.

Gradient painting is painting the color darker towards the bottom and making it lighter as it goes up and I've only seen it done in blue as well.

As far as seamless back corners go they in of themselves will not create the illusion but they will help because you no longer need worry about trying to hid the seams except for the bottom seam.
I've seen some tanks in public aquariums that did this in fiberglass. TRA vol3 shows one in which a thin plastic panel was installed inside the tank to create a seamless curve from side to back to side. In Alf Nilsen's first volume of his reef aquarium books a tank is shown in which a curved panel is placed behind the aquarium and a disco ball ( that's right a disco ball) was placed over the space between the panel and the tank and spot lights were used on it to create a glitter effect . In regards to having the tank made with rounded corners this is not a problem if you are working in acrylic .

If the tank is wide enough you can aqua scape the front portion in a way that would not allow the viewer the ability to see the back corners or the bottom seam( or any of the bottom behind the rock work) and only light the front half of the tank. You might also need to shield the back half in order to keep ambient light and / or light spillage out. This would not be too difficult as long as only viewing from the front is allowed. This might seem to be a waste of tank space because you will reduce the area you can place corals and such but in truth your tank will probably do much better because you will have a lower stocking load per gallon and you would save money because in most respects you could treat the aquarium like it was smaller in regards to certain equipment selections and live rock usage. If done right you could have a tank that fish appeared to be swimming out of a void into view when swimming back to front and the rock work could make it look like a drop off was behind the structure as fish swam up and over and out of sight.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Thanks Dave. This really sounds like something I want to do however I had planned to run the overflow across the back on the outside as I have stated. Now I would need to rethink things. If I put an overflow across each short end instead it would still cover a large surface area but they would either need to be internal or I would have to shorten the length of the tank even more. If I had them made internally on the inside this would also detract from the depth perception. How were the overflows arranged in the tanks you mentioned? Perhaps I could keep the rear horizontal overflow and somehow hide it with rock (but not right up against the back panel) and start the background just below it? If I made the overflow only 5" tall maybe this would be possible. What do you think? It would be a challenge but perhaps it could be done.

 

[AOWolesale]

I agree width is paramount in true reef simulation.

 

[just dave]

The tank I'm going to do will have it on the side mid way and it will be external.

If you wanted to have one across the back it could be external and run the full length. Running the full length would mean that the cut out would not need to be very deep and would not be very noticeable.

 

[Chihuahua6]

Dave- So are you saying that I could still achieve this effect with the back being clear acrylic and making the curved back panel with the gradient paint? I would think the overflow would still take away from the effect.
I have decided on the size of the tank however. After measuring again I realized that if I did angel the one side panel to match the wall, the angle would be barely noticeable. Since the tank is about a foot away from the wall and would not hit the wall until 36" I can angel it just slightly and make it even wider than the 44" while keeping the 90" length. I have decided to make the tank 90" (front panel) X 48" X 30." The rear panel will be approximately 80." I'm guessing that's around 500 gallons. Once I figure out how to do the back panel I will refigure the overflow placement and plumbing. I may do an external overflow on each end. There would be some space in the gap on the one side but it would be difficult to work around it since it would be against the wall. I'm a small person though so I may be able to find a way.

 

[C.Chadwick]

Width is nice but it will make maintenance of the front glass a little more maintenance intensive. Sounds awesome!

 

[Chihuahua6]

I will have front access with this tank. I don't think it would be possible to clean without access to the front.

 

[Zaxxon23]

As far as long vs. wide, here's one thing to consider:
I just asked a Tunze person about this and longer definitely gives better (bigger) wave performance than wider for the Tunze Wavebox.

But then you may have no interest in the Wavebox, and that won't matter...

Other than for the Wavebox consideration, I'd agree with the others that say reef=wider and fish=longer. But for an in-wall setup, I usually think longer appears bigger - but that's just me.

 

[Chihuahua6]

I decided on the size! 90" X 48" X 30"
The 90" is the front panel. The rear panel will be approximately 80."
I posted this above but it was in the middle of the paragraph so it may have been missed.
Zaxxon thanks for the input regarding the Tunzes. My plan for water circulation is going to be an overhead perimeter manifold as per Anthony Calfo's design, a sump and another closed loop if needed. I haven't decided on waveboxes thus far but I have not ruled them out either. I don't think the quality of the waves would be my deciding factor on this project though.