How much water volume will be safe by 5mm thick tank

[DDK]

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Pressure is a factor associated with depth, not surface area!
The glass is not rigid, but flexible; hence the bowing of the front pane easily noticeable on any standard 55 gal tank which by-the-way is 22" high and almost always 5mm tempered glass. It is this "larger surface area" which is of immediate concern due to the amount of flexing or bowing that a 42" length of non-tempered 5mm glass will do! This aspect of the design is exactly why everyone has expressed concern and why many have recommended center bracing it. As for the bottom being only 5mm also. Easy fix...
Get a depth guage and find out EXACTLY how recessed the bottom is from the bottom of the frame (if it even has one). A set of highly effective and inexpensive braces may be made with 1/4" slats of acrylic epoxied to the underside in concentric rectangular pattern or X pattern cross the center with a few parallel strips (V's from each of the sides) for added piece of mind.
The height of the strips should be just a hair less than the recessed depth measurement taken earlier in order to accommodate the epoxy fill.

And FYI... At 48" long (6" more than the tank of concern), a standard 55gal has 5mm tempered glass on all sides and bottom glass too.
A standard 40B also has thinner bottom glass than the sides and again...Tempered.
If he used tempered, ok... salvageable... if not - it's a dangerous setup - especially for the occupants.

I really dont think you read the posts.

I stated this correct?

There would actually be less pressure on the glass at 12.5 with the new dimensions as the pressure is distributed throughout a larger surface area.

You've stated that pressure is associated with depth correct? Did I change the depth? No. I said at 12.5. Your whole post is flawed logically stating or rather assuming incorrect things from my posts.

There are many people who have built tanks with near dimensions and glass thickness as I have mentioned. As I posted above here is the link again.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/glass-thickness-guide.139898/
You should look at it.

This member has built 36,000 tanks and not one has busted due to glass thickness. As I mentioned earlier, those online calculators are "incorrect". They give a conservative result. You are fine pushing the limits within a degree. And pressure regarding depth only really matters at around 20-22 inches and above. The pressure up till 20-22 inches is nearly linear to the glass thickness. Once you past 20 inches in height you need a lot thicker glass to compensate for the pressure. Were talking about 15/16inches where depth is linear.

 

[ShadowP]

I really dont think you read the posts.

I stated this correct?


You've stated that pressure is associated with depth correct? Did I change the depth? No. I said at 12.5. Your whole post is flawed logically stating or rather assuming incorrect things from my post.

There was no flaw in my cognition.
These are your words and your specific reference "AS THE PRESSURE IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS A GREATER SURFACE AREA"
There would actually be less pressure on the glass at 12.5 with the new dimensions as the pressure is distributed throughout a larger surface area.

Correctly stated, it should have been that the water volume is distributed across a greater surface area.

As to your comment to the linearity of the pressure at lesser depths, the simple fact is that the pressure gradient is linear.
For freshwater that pressure gradient is .03606061 pounds of pressure for every inch of depth such that at a depth of 12.5 inches the pressure at the bottom of the side panels is .4327 lbs per square inch (as measured one half inch from the bottom edge). The pressure at the top being a mere .0180303 lbs/sq in (measurement taken 1/2 inch from the water surface).

You also stated the pressure is linear for the shallower tanks, but it is not the pressure which is linear... it is the pressure gradient or in layman's terms... the change in pressure which is linear in reference to the change in depth.
At no time may pressure be referenced to any greater or lesser surface area as you so stated. Pressure is and can only be properly referenced to depth, unless a mechanical means such as hydraulic pistons or such other non natural methods are applied to the the water column within a given volume of water.

BTW... Congratulations on owning equipment that has built 36,000+ tanks.
I build mine by hand.

 

[DDK]

There was no flaw in my cognition.
These are your words and your specific reference "AS THE PRESSURE IS DISTRIBUTED ACROSS A GREATER SURFACE AREA"
There would actually be less pressure on the glass at 12.5 with the new dimensions as the pressure is distributed throughout a larger surface area.

Correctly stated, it should have been that the water volume is distributed across a greater surface area.

As to your comment to the linearity of the pressure at lesser depths, the simple fact is that the pressure gradient is linear.
For freshwater that pressure gradient is .03606061 pounds of pressure for every inch of depth such that at a depth of 12.5 inches the pressure at the bottom of the side panels is .4327 lbs per square inch (as measured one half inch from the bottom edge). The pressure at the top being a mere .0180303 lbs/sq in (measurement taken 1/2 inch from the water surface).

You also stated the pressure is linear for the shallower tanks, but it is not the pressure which is linear... it is the pressure gradient or in layman's terms... the change in pressure which is linear in reference to the change in depth.
At no time may pressure be referenced to any greater or lesser surface area as you so stated. Pressure is and can only be properly referenced to depth, unless a mechanical means such as hydraulic pistons or such other non natural methods are applied to the the water column within a given volume of water.

BTW... Congratulations on owning equipment that has built 36,000+ tanks.
I build mine by hand.

OK I read your BTW and I don't own anything that builds tanks lol. Check our usernames or even the posts. I never said I built any thanks silly. Just for that I'm not going to read what you posted lol. If your not going to take the time to actually read instead of going off false pretenses then you just wasted some time typing that lol. Good try though guy.

 

[ShadowP]

OK I read your BTW and I don't own anything that builds tanks lol. Check our usernames or even the posts. I never said I built any thanks silly. Just for that I'm not going to read what you posted lol. If your not going to take the time to actually read instead of going off false pretenses then you just wasted some time typing that lol. Good try though guy.

No false pretense... my presumption was based on interpreting what you wrote since your writing style incorporates dangling modifiers.
Sorry... I thought when you phrased it "this member", that you were referring to yourself in the third person singular format. You could have more clearly stated the reference by actually utilizing the other members name.
In any regard - I noticed you are no longer harping on the "pressure points".
My intent was never to "prove you wrong", but rather to ensure that fellow members have a good foundation based on facts.
I will still read your posts even though you claim to have found some justifiable reason to ignore mine whilst ignoring the original issue.
And yes, I know you're kidding.
So here's mine back at cha!
(I find your convoluted defensive posturing somewhat humorous).
If there be any additional benefit gained by the readers of any of these additional off topic comments; may it be that they remind themselves that clarity in writing is also essential when presenting facts to others.
It's all good.
Loved the discourse.

 

[DDK]

No false pretense... my presumption was based on interpreting what you wrote since your writing style incorporates dangling modifiers.
Sorry... I thought when you phrased it "this member", that you were referring to yourself in the third person singular format. You could have more clearly stated the reference by actually utilizing the other members name.
In any regard - I noticed you are no longer harping on the "pressure points".
My intent was never to "prove you wrong", but rather to ensure that fellow members have a good foundation based on facts.
I will still read your posts even though you claim to have found some justifiable reason to ignore mine whilst ignoring the original issue.
And yes, I know you're kidding.
So here's mine back at cha!
(I find your convoluted defensive posturing somewhat humorous).
If there be any additional benefit gained by the readers of any of these additional off topic comments; may it be that they remind themselves that clarity in writing is also essential when presenting facts to others.
It's all good.
Loved the discourse.

Lol I posted a link on the first page staying this.

Here's a guide, http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/glass-thickness-guide.139898/
dimensions i mention fit in there

I state is a guide and then refer back to the link staying "this member". There is no confusion, you simply have poor reading comprehension or don't fully read posts lol, don't give yourself excuses. The clarity of that is black and white.

One question though. Why would someone refer to themselve as "this member" rather than first person as in I? The are no "dangling modifiers" in those sentences so there is no logic to your madness.

But having cleared up that you don't read, I'd rather trust someone who has built countless tanks rather than your opinion with your "tanks you've built by hand".

 

[ShadowP]

Lol I posted a link on the first page staying this.

I state is a guide and then refer back to the link staying "this member". There is no confusion, you simply have poor reading comprehension or don't fully read posts lol, don't give yourself excuses. The clarity of that is black and white.

One question though. Why would someone refer to themselve as "this member" rather than first person as in I? The are no "dangling modifiers" in those sentences so there is no logic to your madness.

But having cleared up that you don't read, I'd rather trust someone who has built countless tanks rather than your opinion with your "tanks you've built by hand".

"WHY?" is an excellent question but still does not change the fact that many self professed "higher educated" people refer to themselves in the third person singular when they really get into debating, so in a sense, I associated your wordage with that style and mentality. You direct assertion that my intellectual comprehension is a form of madness would indicate otherwise as to your limited view of communication styles and grammatical forms.
We all have room for growth and wisdom dictates that my responding furthur to you in regard to perceptions and cognitive skills (yours or mine) is a mute point and off topic from my original disagreeance with your pressure related to surface area comment.
Side comments aside... this current dialog between us (or do you prefer betwixt?) is of no significant benefit to the members and I withdraw from this whimsicle debate.
It's been fun.
Take Care

 

[DDK]

"WHY?" is an excellent question but still does not change the fact that many self professed "higher educated" people refer to themselves in the third person singular when they really get into debating, so in a sense, I associated your wordage with that style and mentality. You direct assertion that my intellectual comprehension is a form of madness would indicate otherwise as to your limited view of communication styles and grammatical forms.
We all have room for growth and wisdom dictates that my responding furthur to you in regard to perceptions and cognitive skills (yours or mine) is a mute point and off topic from my original disagreeance with your pressure related to surface area comment.
Side comments aside... this current dialog between us (or do you prefer betwixt?) is of no significant benefit to the members and I withdraw from this whimsicle debate.
It's been fun.
Take Care

*Gets caught out for bad reading comprehension, says hes done* Bye now, just know that your probably part of a special hand full of people who mistake

This member

with the person posting about him. At the end of the day it's two people, one is talking about the other member. This member means THIS MEMBER haha! Not whatever you think it means in your delusional mind. But bye now!