Nano as a reference

[E.intheC]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14077463#post14077463 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EdKruzel


What we're looking at here is the title, "Nano". What's deserving and what's not? I've seen beautiful tanks of all sizes, but the smaller tank (with mature fish and corals) that's thriving gets soooo much more of my respect and admiration that there's no comparing the two. I've had large reefs with all of the bells and whistles, auto top off, DSB, Kalk reactor, etc... That tank was left for over three months with a fish sitter coming in once or twice a week to feed the fish. When I got back some corals were larger and really nothing else; can you get away with that with a nano? Very doubtful.

I agree with this mostly. However, I feel that even a 30 - 35 gallon tank will also need constant attention. I wouldnt' be comfortable having someone 'sit' for my tank for more than a night or maybe a weekend max. I can't imagine the 30 gallon tank being a whole lot more stable. You still need to have an incredible attention to detail, self restraint, and knowledge about the hobby to make it work. My 2 cents

 

[Agu]

You still need to have an incredible attention to detail, self restraint, and knowledge about the hobby to make it work. My 2 cents

The point is that as "nanos" get bigger the less important those issues become, because they're not nano tanks. Instead they become "little big tanks" with all the bells and whistles of a big tank.

My sig is "Less technology,more biology" and that's where I see small tanks and their keepers leading the way in the hobby. Incredible attention to detail, self restraint and knowledge define what keeping small tanks is about.

 

[hebygb]

I like what I have read here in this thread. I definitely find my tanks fitting in two categories... One fits in what would be considered a medium or general size tank (65gal display)... but my other is a 12gal zeroedge that HAS to have a sump. The very nature that it has a sump may push it out of Nano category by some... but I assure you, that while my reef may benefit from the additional water volume, and perhaps space to add slightly larger technology solutions (i.e., skimmers, filter socks, more live rock), I still face the same confines and restrictions in terms of lighting, coral selection, space concerns, and living space for my livestock.

I have learned from reefers in all size applications. While there is no way I can use the same technology that a reefer with a 300 gallon and a fishroom can, I can learn from the challenges and the solutions that they employ.

I like that there is a Nano section on RC... Despite the eventual range that is decided to define Nanos, I appreciate the way posters include the size of their systems in the thread titles, because that helps me determine if that thread is applicable to either of my systems, or for that matter, my woe for that particular day.

Good reefing everyone!

 

[E.intheC]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14088111#post14088111 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Agu
The point is that as "nanos" get bigger the less important those issues become, because they're not nano tanks. Instead they become "little big tanks" with all the bells and whistles of a big tank.

My sig is "Less technology,more biology" and that's where I see small tanks and their keepers leading the way in the hobby. Incredible attention to detail, self restraint and knowledge define what keeping small tanks is about.

Right.. this is pretty much the point I was going for in the orig. post, just worded a bit differently. I agree especially that you have to rely more on your knowledge, restraint, etc w/ smaller tanks than you do on a larger tank, for sure. You're right with the "less technology, more biology" statement. I also think of it this way: (an example...) if you have a small fish die, or your water change isn't matched perfectly, or you mess up with water top offs (in my case, let that go more than 1 day)... etc etc .. in a nano, you have to react much quicker and more decisively than if the same thing were to happen in a large tank. They're important issues regardless, but much more important in a nano tank.

Further, one thing I have noticed is that when I'm trying to make a livestock decision, it's much, much tougher in a nano. Aggression issues are typically more important, size is a huge factor.. you have to worry more about their feeding habits, how they swim.. the smaller you go, the more restrictive the choices will be.

 

[phenom5]

Well, I'm in limbo in terms of how my tank is defined (not that I really care ). 20g long for the display...cool, it's a nano. With a sump that push my water volume up o around 27g...uh-oh.

I face a lot of the issues that any nano keeper faces. Livestock selection, keeping parameters good, etc. But I do have a little more breathing room.

Personally, I think 30g and less is a nano, and not because my tank would fit. I think that includes most of the AIO's, and 30g is still small enough that you have to deal with the unique issue of small tanks.

One thing that I absolutely agree with Agu on, I hate the fact that the term nano has become synonymous with AIO tanks. Can we just stop with that.

 

[Agu]

One thing that I absolutely agree with Agu on, I hate the fact that the term nano has become synonymous with AIO tanks. Can we just stop with that

Thank you

I have no problem with AIO tanks as nanos if they're small tanks, but defining an AIO as a nano is just wrong when it gets to larger AIO setups.

 

[ducklabdad]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14094513#post14094513 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by phenom5
Personally, I think 30g and less is a nano, and not because my tank would fit. I think that includes most of the AIO's, and 30g is still small enough that you have to deal with the unique issue of small tanks.

One thing that I absolutely agree with Agu on, I hate the fact that the term nano has become synonymous with AIO tanks. Can we just stop with that.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above post.

I think of a Nano as 'less than 30gallons" and I think that takes in "most" of the post on the Nano forum, and most of the "commercial aio tanks.

I love this forum and it inspired me to realize that I did not have to go "bigger than my 55" (although I lust after the room to put in a 300gallon)

I admit that the little 5.5 DIY all in one that I built and have had running now for several months has truly given me a great feeling of accomplishment. But above 30 gallons that is NOT a Nano in my opinion. And AIO certainly does not make anything a Nano.

I Love my 55, but its NOTa large tank and above a 30 is NOT a nano, but that is "my" opinion which as my dad said is just my opinion and like belly buttons and *** holes we all have them and they all stink"!!!

But if someone else wants to call there 30 to 40 a nano, Thats OK, we just smile, welcome them to participate, and "roll on".
:rollface:

Keep up the good work RC!!

 

[chrishet]

and now for something completely different.....
I've got a new designation method....an mnemonic trick from my EE days at MIT...

That - Tera Tank - Less than 1000000000000 gallons (The Red Sea)
:inlove: Girl - Giga Tank - Less than 1000000000 gallons (Sea World)
:spin1: May - Mega Tank - Less than 100000 gallons (Arnar's 2k Tank...but that is another SIG )
:smokin: Kiss - Kilo Tank - Less than 1000 gallons (Melevs Sump)
:jester: my Uncle - u - micro Tank - Less than 10, -3 gallons (my Flu shot from last week)
:uzi: Neds - Nano Tank - Less than 10, -6 gallons (a drop of sweat off my upper lip)
:dance: Pickle - Pico Tank - Less than 10, -9 gallons (The total amount of water on Mars....):smokin:

All in fun...its late....

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

[chimp]

Oh Chris!

 

[chrishet]

sorry about that...but seriously...I did not get a chance to hear Julian speak here in Atlanta at MACNA, would have been a great question to ask him...did anyone here go? I understand he also spoke in Dallas a few years back about Nano's...BTW, didn't he have a large sump with that famous 15 gal nano???

 

[lat0403]

I've always really thought as a nano as 20 or under, but mine is a 33 gallon long and I consider it a nano. The tank is four feet long, but the other dimensions are 12x12. If we're only talking about water volume, it doesn't fit. I think the difficulty of taking care of a nano is about more than just water volume, though.

On the other hand, I don't believe the Red Sea Max or any of those other large AIOs are nanos. I'm not sure how I can say mine belongs when theirs doesn't.

 

[Agu]

On the other hand, I don't believe the Red Sea Max or any of those other large AIOs are nanos. I'm not sure how I can say mine belongs when theirs doesn't.

That's the conundrum we're facing. We don't want to exclude members but we don't want large tanks in the nano forum.

(Large being a relative term btw)

 

[EdKruzel]

Remember that anyone, members and guests, can view all of the public forums. Showing off a larger tank or even competing for a NTOTM would have to fall in with parameters as that's only fair, but posts/questions/comments are always welcome in every area.

A 30 may not seem much more than a 20, but the possibilities of mature corals kept can be huge. Go up to a 40 breeder (also mentioned here) and that's way out of the ballpark. I can take a 40 breeder and with regular maintenance and minimal cutting on corals and have a tank to compete with most larger 100 and up tanks.

 

[gas4544]

How will a decision be made regarding the volume limit for tanks that will be allowed to be displayed and discussed in the Nano Reefs Forum?

Gary

 

[GoingPostal]

I kinda agree, maybe it's because I've always ran "smaller" tanks but I don't consider my 33 to be a nano, to me that's the big tank. It's got fish and a skimmer, I even tried a fuge out for a while.
My first nano was a 2.5 gallon with a little hob, live rock and some softies. That ran for about a year than due to space we went to a 10 gallon. The 10 gallon has came and went due to moves and I bought a 12 gallon Aquapod for "my" tank. I don't really consider a nano to be a tank full of fish with a big fuge and fancy equipement keeping it going. My nanos have always been pretty low maintanence with no fish and weekly water changes, just gotta keep the glass clean and there's a regular moving of corals as they grow and start attacking each other.
And now there's so many large "nano" aio tanks with auto top offs, skimmers, fancy lighting, built in fuge. Gotta make nanos easier for the masses? Mine have all been rather ghetto with a filter for flow and live rock, plus whatever cheap light I could buy for the top. My aquapod back chambers run empty except for the powerhead and heater.

 

[fatrip]

just wondering what the consensus would be on my CAD 22g. also interesting to look at would be that really there is only about 16g of water in my 22g. just wondering...

 

[EdKruzel]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14107312#post14107312 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gas4544
How will a decision be made regarding the volume limit for tanks that will be allowed to be displayed and discussed in the Nano Reefs Forum?

Gary

Basically through general consensus but the comments must have merit. I read plenty of posts and receive pm's and emails from hobbyists that say things such as, "I consider my 40 gal a nano because it's really hard to take care of and I can barely keep anything alive for more than a few months".

Killing livestock doesn't mean you have a nano, it means you're inexperienced. I'm sure I can give those same hobbyists tanks in the 240 and up category and they'd still have similar problems.

 

[EdKruzel]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14107810#post14107810 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fatrip
also interesting to look at would be that really there is only about 16g of water in my 22g. just wondering...

I don't know of any tank that has its maximum volume of water in it; you'd have to fill it to the top and not have as much as a single fish in it for it to hold that amount of water. Without any rock, sand or livestock, it wouldn't be much of a display now would it?

So the understanding is clear, we're discussing tank size, not how much water you've displaced.

In a former tank I built and referred to it as a nano, it wasn't. My ten gallon Rag Tag had a 20 long for a sump. The total volume of water was probably a little less than 15gal, but tank and sump could realistically hold 30gal.

 

[Agu]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14107312#post14107312 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gas4544
How will a decision be made regarding the volume limit for tanks that will be allowed to be displayed and discussed in the Nano Reefs Forum?

Gary

That's what we're asking the members. I personally don't have an issue with large sumps. In a nano you're still constrained by what you can have in the display portion.

In the past we've just moved threads about tanks too large for the nano forum to the appropriate forum. We're looking for consensus and support from the members as to what needs to be moved.

 

[E30 E T A]

Oh god...