Nano as a reference

[marineaddict]

Perhaps an "All in one's" section is warranted. That way true "nano's" could stay together and the ever popular "AIO's" would have a place as well.

Nano's < 20g - no AIO's
AIO's - any size. These are typically between 12 and 40 gallons.

Just a thought.

 

[gas4544]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14111470#post14111470 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marineaddict
Perhaps an "All in one's" section is warranted. That way true "nano's" could stay together and the ever popular "AIO's" would have a place as well.

Nano's < 20g - no AIO's
AIO's - any size. These are typically between 12 and 40 gallons.

Just a thought.

I made a similar suggestion in this thread that we have subforums for nano tanks and pico tanks within the "nano reef" forum. That way we would be able to accomodate everyone - the "20-gallon or less nano tanks", the AIO's and the tanks less than 35 gallons that are not AIO's.

Gary

 

[fatrip]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14108993#post14108993 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EdKruzel
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.

Gottcha on volume i was just wondering about the 22g being on the boarder of the 20g and under range.

 

[fatrip]

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. [/B]

now please don't get me wrong i am not trying to patronize you.
but if some one has a 15g tank and a 10g sump how does it differ from my AIO tank that has a display of about 16g and a sump of about 6g. just another aspect of looking at the total volumes.

 

[hebygb]

I dont have a choice on mine... it HAS to have a sump. my display is still only 12 gallons. At some point, consideration of the health and welfare of the animals we keep must be factored in... or at least assumed. So yes... my display is a 12 gallon tank... my sump is a 20L. All water drains through filter socks. I run a skimmer, and a phos reactor, I may even add a fuge. I have a Mag 9.5 as the return pump.

The key in my opinnion is the fact that the display is still 12 gallon. lighting is still sized to that size, coral compatibility is still in those contraints, as is fish. Having more water volume does not allow me to have a tang in my nano.

The definition of a nano tank should not be defined by being labor intensive or "on the edge health" of the livestock. It should be about working within the constraints of a small environment that is appropriate to that size environment. Nobody that sees my nano gives a cr*p about the sump or whats in it or what is it for.

Very few of us would stare at a mountain and give two thoughts about whats underneath it (as long as it isnt us).

 

[Whacked]

I forgot that on a different forum I asked many moons ago what makes a nano a nano. I dug it up and heres one reply:

I think it was Julian Sprung who originally coined the term "nano tank" and defined it as a tank under 30 gals. Sumps, and filters which add volume typically don't count towards it, but if you're using a 30 gal. display with 125 gal. sump, well, you might not exactly have yourself a nano tank.

And if you trust Wikipedia, they say a Nano is less than 30 gallons is the acceptable limit.

Just thought i'd throw it out there. Take it as you will.

 

[fewskillz]

[violation]

You really think you are that clever.

One more post like the one you had and you will have to look for a new board.

Carlos

 

[gnarlyswine]

id say the 20g or thereabouts cutoff sounds reasonable - but we do need a forum for tweenies - or average sized tanks - medium tanks - whatever over 20 under 180. not just the general forum. that is a catch all for everything and not dedicated to a size range of tanks. Id bet its where the majority of tankowners on the forum fit - but arent represented.

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14116417#post14116417 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fewskillz

[violation]

I see what you did there. Been there, done that...no thanks.

 

[fewskillz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14116499#post14116499 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gnarlyswine
id say the 20g or thereabouts cutoff sounds reasonable - but we do need a forum for tweenies - or average sized tanks - medium tanks - whatever over 20 under 180. not just the general forum. that is a catch all for everything and not dedicated to a size range of tanks. Id bet its where the majority of tankowners on the forum fit - but arent represented.

Yes, there definitely needs to be a tweener section. for the 30-180 people. Too many tanks get lost in the Reef Discussion section.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14116535#post14116535 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sugar Magnolia
I see what you did there. Been there, done that...no thanks.

I understand it's not for everyone, but at least there people are helpful and not caught up with whether or not you're deserving of the nano title or not.

 

[lat0403]

I agree that there should be another forum. You can say reef discussion is the place they belong, but unless people with nano or larger tanks are forbidden from posting in that forum, it's not the case. But maybe reef discussion isn't really open to everyone and posts about tanks that don't belong are moved to the appropriate forum.

I also agree that total volume should be the way nano tanks are defined. Display size is easier to govern, but if you're really serious about the meaning of a nano tank, total volume really matters. Is a 10 gallon tank plumbed into a 150 gallon main tank with sump and fuge a nano?

 

[gas4544]

Let's bump this to the top so we can get more responses.

 

[ScarabRa]

....." Perhaps we could start a sub-forum within the current Nano Reefs forum for systems with a total voulume of 20-gallons or less. We could also add another sub-forum for systems with a total volume of 5 gallons or less. That way we could be inclusive to all "nano" tank keepers and also provide more specific sub-forums."......


+1 sub forums:


the SIG area is not seperated properly as it is, look at how many posts in each area, and the lack of special areas.
If you dont post, your update ends up on page 3 by noon....lol

My Pico is all dialed in the nanno area (5 gal) But theres no special place for both of my other tanks, so ive been hesitant to post tank threads for them (55 and a 125)

My Proposed New Lineup:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Large Reefs" --------> Larger than 180gal Total Volume
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Medium Reefs" ------->- +30 gal to 180gal Total Volume
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Small Reefs" --------> Tanks Up to 30gal Total Volume
----- SUB--"Nano" ----------------> +5 gal to 30gal Total Volume
----- SUB--"Pico" -----------------> less than 5 gal Total Volume
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

you can sub the othere areas, but at least seperate them up.
Soo many posts per day and you cant find anything usefull by browsing. It keeps me on here all night looking some times, but maby thats the plan...lol

My 2 Cents

Also maby a poll would be in order, as there will be too many "quarterbacks" if you keep it like this...lol

 

[inkmates]

I think its ridiculous that tanks in the general area of 30g can be nano's trying to compete with them for ntotm is impossiable. Its like trying to drag race a moped against a tricked out vtwin. Don't take me wrong the tanks that have been selected are increadiable tanks but some one with a smaller tank just doesn't have the real estate. a definite division needs to be made personally I think a poll would be the best option to hear everyone's thoughts on the situation.

 

[Agu]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14149620#post14149620 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inkmates
Don't take me wrong the tanks that have been selected are increadiable tanks but some one with a smaller tank just doesn't have the real estate.

I'm of the opinion most nano tanks are grossly overstocked with corals but that's another discussion.

Diluting the forums with further subdivisions only dilutes the information base IMO.

 

[Illuminati]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14149620#post14149620 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inkmates
I think its ridiculous that tanks in the general area of 30g can be nano's trying to compete with them for ntotm is impossiable. Its like trying to drag race a moped against a tricked out vtwin.

I counted 6 tanks of 14g or less as past nTOTM winners and I wouldn't consider any of them a moped

 

[gas4544]

In a little over two weeks, we have 55 posts in this thread from 24 members. Compare this to the 236 votes we have for the January NTOTM poll.

I figured that there would be more points of view expressed in this thread. After all, what is being discussed has to potential to lead to significant changes in the Nano Reefs forum.

I am not a moderator, but it would be great to hear from more of the Nano Reefs regulars who hang out here.

Gary

 

[inkmates]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14150500#post14150500 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Illuminati
I counted 6 tanks of 14g or less as past nTOTM winners and I wouldn't consider any of them a moped

I counted nine under 20g, but you have to go back three years to get that many that just proves my point that it's very hard to compete with larger tanks that have more real estate because real estate = diversity and diversity = attention and attention = votes. I agree that the smaller tanks that have won are very nice any tank that has won is nice but can your nano old its own against a system at a zoo highly unlikely that anyones could. In another aspect someone with a smaller tank has totally different bridges to cross. with my 2.5g I have alot less premanufactered equipment at my disposal. I have to fab up just about everything I need. Someone with the larger tank just plugs and plays. Its two totally different devotion levels that aren't even in the same class imo.

 

[EdKruzel]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14151676#post14151676 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inkmates
I have to fab up just about everything I need. Someone with the larger tank just plugs and plays. Its two totally different devotion levels that aren't even in the same class imo.

And that was my exact point when beginning this thread. There are many fine tanks out there, but the title Nano should have standards not compromises. None of us started out in this hobby as experts and many will never be able to state that level. Why compromise someone's hard work and dedication for those that haven't achieved that level yet?

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

The "plug and play" aka all in one tanks; biocubes and the like make it ever so much simpler to keep a smaller tank. Back in the day before all of those AIO tanks arrived on the scene, it was up to us who wanted to keep a nano, and keep it thriving, to come up with ways to incorporate some of the bells and whistles that the larger reef tanks use. Hence my Aquaclear DIY mod, found in the sticky link at the top of this forum. Granted, I didn't invent the DIY project, but decided to create a how to so that others could make one themselves. Now a days, witht the AIO tanks, you have a nifty little chamber in the back to stuff your macro in.