is 45g still nano?

Delphinus · #1 04-17-2008, 05:44 AM

I dunno, I wouldn't have thought it as nano myself but I guess everyone will have their own definition of what constitutes nano.

One of my tanks is a 40g semi cube, 24x24x12 ... it's more of a frag tank shape than anything because of it's over the top shallowness. It houses two carpet anemones, which, well, most people won't agree that a carpet belongs in a "nano" let alone two so to ease my shame I don't call it a nano as long as they're in there.

But if I had made it into a mini reef with multiple colonies of whatever, then I might have called it a nano.

I always thought the cutoff was more around 30g but I guess I see Todd's point in that cube tanks tend to be smaller in stature so the cutoff is higher for those. I'll disagree on his cutoff point at 100g because that would make my 110g cube nearly a nano and at 30x30x30 it's quite a behemoth of a tank and it happens to be the largest tank I have with water in it.

I'm thinking maybe a 24" cube is more the max of what I'd call "still a nano" and that's more in the neighbourhood of 60g, so I'll call that "my" cutoff.

Todd · #2 04-17-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphinus

I always thought the cutoff was more around 30g but I guess I see Todd's point in that cube tanks tend to be smaller in stature so the cutoff is higher for those. I'll disagree on his cutoff point at 100g because that would make my 110g cube nearly a nano and at 30x30x30 it's quite a behemoth of a tank and it happens to be the largest tank I have with water in it.

I'm thinking maybe a 24" cube is more the max of what I'd call "still a nano" and that's more in the neighbourhood of 60g, so I'll call that "my" cutoff.

I was exaggerating a little on the 100g cutoff...

Delphinus · #3 04-17-2008, 06:06 AM

no worries, 'sall good... I never thought about it that way though, I agree though that cubes are just "smaller per unit volume".

To be honest I've never really understood the distinction of a nano tank versus not a nano. I guess a 5g tank has different considerations than a 500g tank, so I see that there really are two distinct categories, but I've never really thought much about where the boundary really is. A 5g is easy to classify and a 500g is easy to classify but how does one define say a 50g?

daddy01 · #4 04-17-2008, 02:08 PM

Hi,
I have a 33G setup with sump/refugium and am no fanatic (can't afford to be). My idea of a Nano tank would be a small system that has a mini support filtration system ie 10-20G sump/fuge. Not a system that has a seperate area containing a elaborate filter and chemical balancing area specifically for maintening the main tank.
JIm

Brent F · #5 04-17-2008, 03:45 PM

I have three nanos hooked in together (82 gallons total). I still think of it as a nano system because it is too small of swimming space to keep a tang.

It's just easier to maintain with them hooked together.

ElGuappo · #6 04-17-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent F

I have three nanos hooked in together (82 gallons total). I still think of it as a nano system because it is too small of swimming space to keep a tang.

It's just easier to maintain with them hooked together.

I agree i think the best way to difine would be the LS you are keeping in the tank. IE What fits.

kwirky · #7 04-21-2008, 05:49 PM

yeah I asked because I think my own tank really sits on the borderline between nano and not-nano. It seems that nano tanks give a sense of pride to people who keep them but for normal tanks it's as though it's "go big or go home".

It's a little bigger than a nano but not big enough for a tang. it's running zeovit in a 1.5L reactor, yet it has a hang on skimmer. the hang on skimmer's in the sump and the sump's pushing aproximately 500gph. so it's really sitting in both worlds the tank