20L or 20H

FishMachine · #1 03/25/2007, 11:31 AM

im leaning towrds the long because more room to swim horizontally. Anybody have an oppinion?

Krudco · #2 03/25/2007, 12:43 PM

long would be better.
The light waves will penatrate all the way to the bottom better.
I have a tall and wish I had gone for the long. IMO

LNell · #3 03/25/2007, 02:03 PM

I agree with Krudco

Rosseau · #4 03/25/2007, 02:22 PM

conversely... in a tall you can make a pretty cool rock tower sort of arrangement. It's a differentl look that not everyone gets.

K9 · #5 03/25/2007, 02:28 PM

Definitely go with the 20L. Here's a picture of my old 20L:

It had a Maroon clown, a Lawnmower blenny, and a Purple-stripe Pseudochromis in addition to various corals. It was lit by 150w of VHOs.

zma21 · #6 03/25/2007, 02:29 PM

Definitely go tall. If you go long, you can't do a deep sand bed without having like 6'' to work with. I've had both, trust me go with the tall.

K9 · #7 03/25/2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zma21
Definitely go tall. If you go long, you can't do a deep sand bed without having like 6'' to work with. I've had both, trust me go with the tall.

A DSB isn't really functional in a 20g tank. There's not really enough area of sand for it to make a difference. In addition, a skimmer isn't a necessary purchase either. My tank did quite well on just 2g weekly water changes. Just my $0.02 though.

zma21 · #8 03/25/2007, 02:33 PM

There's a lot of nitrogen gas in my bed, so i'd say it definitely makes quite the difference. I've never had trate readings since i put in the dsb.

moonyguy · #9 03/25/2007, 03:55 PM

I had to decide between 20L and 20H. I went with 20H because it was more space efficient.

Here is my tank

Schadiest1 · #10 03/25/2007, 05:24 PM

I had a 20H and didn't really like it. To me the 20L looks better.

10" Red Devil · #11 03/25/2007, 06:16 PM

The problem with long is that you have more surface are to light, ie 30" instead of 24" although I suppose you could make these drop off areas, assuming your lighting will be hanging in the middle low light coral zones or whatever. That being said I have a long and its kind of annoying because my corals within the 24" lighting path that my 150watt DE lights all do great but get them anywhere near the edge of this and they dull in color immensely! So now I am faced with the dilema of getting another 150 pendant or a T5 fixture that is 30" which I do not think they make.

10" Red Devil · #12 03/25/2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K9
A DSB isn't really functional in a 20g tank. There's not really enough area of sand for it to make a difference. In addition, a skimmer isn't a necessary purchase either. My tank did quite well on just 2g weekly water changes. Just my $0.02 though.

Depends on what they want to keep if you ask me. I think 2 g water changes every week on a 20g is skimp if your doing SPS. I do 7 gallons on mine.

Slakker · #13 03/25/2007, 07:17 PM

I think 7g is a little too much, personally...a 7g WC on a 20g tank is nearly 50%...this seems like it would be really stressful for tank inhabitants.

joejoe1055 · #14 03/25/2007, 09:52 PM

i like the 20h for rock stacking and space issues
mine has 1 150w 14k on it looks great
but then again seen some nice 2ol out their

DouglasTiede · #15 03/27/2007, 12:27 AM

what are you ( various people ) keeping that you have 150w or 200w HQI's on a 20 nano?

joedirt54 · #16 03/27/2007, 12:39 AM

20H for the simple 2' rule of lighting...2', 4', 6' foot reefs are better to light than 3',5' etc. Get a 20H, or better a 30 oceanic cube and light it with a single 150w 14k phoenix or 20k DE MH pendant.

Thunderpants · #17 03/27/2007, 11:49 AM

I like 20H myself. And to k9 who said a dsb is useless in a 20g...um...ya. Any literature on that?

MrMexReefer · #18 03/27/2007, 01:49 PM

I love my 20 long. I get total light penetration, so I can put corals anywhere... compared to my moms 45 gallon tank which is as high as a 20 high, which is seeing much slower growth rates.

Heres a pic of mine:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

10" Red Devil · #19 03/30/2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slakker
I think 7g is a little too much, personally...a 7g WC on a 20g tank is nearly 50%...this seems like it would be really stressful for tank inhabitants.

Nah its more like 25% (I have a 18 gallon sump) and if the temp, ca, alk are the same there is absolutely no stress. But hey I mean Im going on what 4 years with the same sps dominated nano so what the hell do I know.

Inflames · #20 03/31/2007, 12:29 AM

20H

Kermit · #21 03/31/2007, 07:48 AM

Long tanks look better imo. I have seen some awesome high tanks, but long tanks especially small ones look bigger and the fish seem happier to me. I have a 20 long and really like the size, although 30 longs are my all time favorites.

dendro982 · #22 03/31/2007, 09:13 AM

It depends.
For efficient use of the light, bigger floor area for corals placement, easier access to the glass and the bottom cleaning, place for the fish to swim - 20L.

For special occasions (more light and extra efforts in efficient voulume use, or for deepwater tank, also for a small spaces) - 20H or 20XH, as here:

Inflames · #23 03/31/2007, 11:39 AM

that tank is seriously lacking live rock.

Kogo · #24 03/31/2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K9
Definitely go with the 20L. Here's a picture of my old 20L:

It had a Maroon clown, a Lawnmower blenny, and a Purple-stripe Pseudochromis in addition to various corals. It was lit by 150w of VHOs.

nice looking tank K9 ... it reminds me of my 20L with exactly the same specs... hmmm...

oh yeah, i vote for 20L!

Brad-DA · #25 03/31/2007, 10:10 PM