George's Nano Journal

No probs George.

Neal: I all the media you see in the picture has been added by myself, the media that comes with the HOB is basically non existent IMO so modification was needed!
 
the media that comes with the HOB is basically non existent IMO so modification was needed!
That's interesting. Luckily I have plenty of old Juwel sponges (coarse and fine) leftover.

I reckon I'll cut them up into small cube-like shapes to increase surface area for maximum bacteria capacity.

I'm off to play with stones now! :lol:
 
Slowly but surely my skills are improving. Here's two layouts that I think are further improved - one is five stones, the other three.



This is the three but I've improved this too. I'll get a photo tomorrow hopefully.

I reckon I'll nail it in a few days.



Note the new overtank supports too. Also scrap parts off an ejection seat!

Comments more than welcome as usual.
 
Looking good mate...I think the better one is the the one with 5 stones!
..dont take all those seats parts though!...how am i supposed to finish my diy hood? :shifty:
 
Ditto, the one with 5 stones is the best, however you have to think about if the glosso behind the stones will get enough light, etc.
Looking really good so far mate, I can see this has lots of potential.

Neal
 
I think the layout with three stones makes the tank look larger. Five stones is a bit crowded, especially if you're only going to have glosso. I agree with Neal about the glosso getting enough light with that many rocks. Both layouts, however, are an improvement over your first few layouts.

llj :)
 
Hi George, I hoping to see how the tank evolves with the glosso.

But there is something I dont get it, why the rule of 3/4 wpg doesnot apply to small tanks? I mean what make the things so different?

Cheers
Marna
 
I liked the layout with 5 stones. It has the effect that the smaller ones bow to the larger stone. I'd alter the top right stone though to be more like the others. Looks too upright.

Marna - It's to do with the surface area of the tank. WPG is only a rough estimate and can only be used as a guide on larger tanks. This site will explain:
http://www.rexgrigg.com/mlt.htm
 
definately the 3 stone, less cluttered and i like the way the big stone points one way and the little ones point the other. Dont like the 5 stone for some reason :/ might be because they all point same way apart from little one on left. Funny how you will never please everyone :)
 
Hi George,

Looks like this tank is going to be a stunner !

I'm undecided about the 3 or 5 stone design, but I do prefer the way you have the larger stone positioned in the 3 stone layout, the shape just looks a little more natural.
Not sure why, but I think it's becuase in the 5 stone design there is more of a dark shadow and it is central in the tank, acting like a 'focal point'.

As regards the HOB filter, I've been running one for a few weeks now and they are ideal for nano tank. I did have a problem with the media to start with, but got a few tips from Moody and it's fine. Interesting that the place that sell the filter, doesnt seem to stock replacement media for it .... not a big issue as DIY media as Moody has done is far better.

The only problem I have with it is that it doesnt seem to push the CO2 around the tank quite as well as I'd hoped, maybe this is down to the water flow around the larger rock in my layout ..... If Moody's is doing it Ok then I think I need to experiment with the filter position !


Cheers
Al
 
I like both layouts, i much prefer the one with 5 stones as i think it makes the tank look bigger(as opposed to lljdma06), but fishkiller and lljdma06 make a good point about it being too crowded with glosso. I'd go with three stones :) .
 
Thanks for the input everyone. I'm sticking with three stones for the time being. I'm still tinkering with positions but I think I've chosen my final three.



Excuse the colour difference, they should look the same when they're all wet.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top