Xref: utzoo alt.aquaria:5598 rec.aquaria:184 sci.aquaria:292 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!husc6!m2c!jjmhome!cpoint!alien From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: alt.aquaria,rec.aquaria,sci.aquaria Subject: Re: Getting a bigger tank. Filter? Airpump? Message-ID: <3523@cpoint.UUCP> Date: 16 Jan 90 13:55:14 GMT References: <24777@gryphon.COM> Reply-To: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) Followup-To: alt.aquaria Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass. Lines: 31 In article <24777@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <90015.000606NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >>I plan on getting a second tank. As it stands now it will either >>be a 50 gallon high or a 65 gallon high. Probably the latter. Both are >>3 feet in length and the same width. The height difference is 6 inches. >>The 50 is 18 inches high, the 65 is 24. > >Always get the biggest tank. Get the 65. > >>Side note: since I might be transferring all my fresh water fish to the new >>tank, plus get somemore, I will be converting my 20 gallon high into a marine >>aquarium; > >Make the 65 the marine tank. Your chances of success are far greater. I second Richard's comment about using the larger tank for marine ... but ... For what it's worth, I'd take the 50, especially for marine. A shorter tank lowers the lighting requirements (alternately, a shorter tank increases the effectiveness of a fixed lighting). If you use a UG filter, the filtration is only affected by the surface area. If you are setting up an inverb tank, extra height is pretty useless. Even in community tanks, extra height isn't really used by the fish, where extra length would give more running room, more area for territoriality, etc. All the extra height gives you is some more volume. I'd rather take more volume as length and/or width. -- --------| With Altzheimer's Disease, every day is a new day! Alien | - Earl McKennon --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien