# Fluval edge stand is inadequate?



## TLE041 (Jan 16, 2010)

It supports the center of the tank where all the weight is. It's kind of like holding a phone book with your hand (palm open). There's very little weight on the edges so no support is necessary.

When filled with water, the tank is very stable.


----------



## MlDukes (Nov 24, 2009)

No worries. Hagen would have never let it hit the market if the design was flawed.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

TLE041 said:


> It supports the center of the tank where all the weight is. It's kind of like holding a phone book with your hand (palm open). There's very little weight on the edges so no support is necessary.
> 
> When filled with water, the tank is very stable.


All the weight isn't in the center though. You have water and gravel, etc... putting force on the entire tank. When you hold a phone book in the center the edges droop. There is indeed extra force on all the edges outside of the area of the bottom stand.



MlDukes said:


> No worries. Hagen would have never let it hit the market if the design was flawed.


Sorry, many companies release products with flaws. What makes you think Hagen is any different?

Maybe there isn't much need to worry with a tank this small, but I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with extra force being exerted on the corners. It's just like if a stand is uneven, etc...


----------



## PinoyBoy (Mar 14, 2008)

Just make the focal point (the scape) of the tank around the center. If you're that worried about it but still LOVE the fluval edge look... Maybe you can take out the bottom stand, place a flat sturdy even sheet of something on the bottom of the tank itself, and then put it back on the stand. Seems to be the only way. But 6 gallons shouldn't do anything bad to it.


----------



## MlDukes (Nov 24, 2009)

I dont know.... With such a small tank IMO there's nothing to worry about. 

Google it. If anyone has had one of these tanks break at the seams im sure theres a blog about it.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

This is a small volume and seems to be well built. I am sure they engineered it to prevent them from being sued over and over....


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

PinoyBoy said:


> Just make the focal point (the scape) of the tank around the center. If you're that worried about it but still LOVE the fluval edge look... Maybe you can take out the bottom stand, place a flat sturdy even sheet of something on the bottom of the tank itself, and then put it back on the stand. Seems to be the only way. But 6 gallons shouldn't do anything bad to it.


Well, that would help I'm sure, but the extra force would still be there, though lessened unless whatever sheet you put was very rigid.

That brings up a good point though and it was something I meant to ask about. Is the bottom stand easily removed?

Does anyone know the thickness of the glass? 

Maybe they went a little thicker on the glass to make this a non-issue.


----------



## MlDukes (Nov 24, 2009)

over_stocked said:


> This is a small volume and seems to be well built. I am sure they engineered it to prevent them from being sued over and over....


+1 


----

"That brings up a good point though and it was something I meant to ask about. Is the bottom stand easily removed?"

The "base" of the stand and rear column are NOT attached in anyway to the tank.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

MlDukes said:


> +1
> 
> 
> ----
> ...


Thanks, and thanks to the other poster who brought it up as I was meaning to ask that in my OP.

Anyone know the glass thickness?

I might go pick one of these up today and look forward to getting one going if I do.


----------



## Curlyriff (Sep 7, 2010)

You don't have to worry about it. The load is spread over the base and does not cause point loads. The place where you get most load is where the edge of the stand finishes not near the silicon edge. you could load it front heavy and not worry. 

As long as they have used the correct thickness of glass then you are fine.

Stress loads will be higher if you load the tank at front but this shouldn't be a problem and where you have normally high loads at back i.e. your feature or lots of rocks, plants the base is full depth. 

This is only my opnion but I work as a structural engineer and own the edge tank and do not see this as a problem. Pains of glass take allot of load. You will find that even in larger tanks its the base itself that gives way (without taking into account a large fish cracking it) under pressure from the water etc.

Hope this puts your mind a rest a little not to worry. That and I haven't heard/seen a single one fail in this manor. You just can't get loadings high enough for this amount of water and they are talking about bringing out a larger version so must work with that as well.

Edit: The glass is 5mm thick approx and yes you can easily remove the bottom but the back piece clips into this so you need it there. A 0.2mm thick sheet of stainless steel could be placed in between and help to carry the loads if your really worried.

Kind Regards,

Adam


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

Curlyriff said:


> This is only my opnion but I work as a structural engineer and own the edge tank and do not see this as a problem.


Well, I'm inclined to take your word for it then as you would know far better than I.

I have a question though. You said the load would be higher at the edge of the base, which I can see what you mean, but if there is extra load there it would seem that there is at least some further out from the base as well. Earlier you indicated there is no extra load in the corners and that a piece of metal under the tank would help as well.

I'm inclined to think it's a non-issue from the start, but from an academic point I'm still curious. Not saying the load is an issue, but merely that it seems there would be some extra force away from the base.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

Oh, and thanks for the glass thickness. I'll have to look it up, but I believe that is a bit thicker than other tanks of this size.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

I'm telling ya... no way would a huge company sell a product like this if it would risk them getting sued over and over for destroyed property.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

over_stocked said:


> I'm telling ya... no way would a huge company sell a product like this if it would risk them getting sued over and over for destroyed property.


What's your point? Even in my op I stated this as a question. I've gone onto say several times that it's probably a non-issue and merely was curious about the forces at play here. An engineer happened to post so I thought I would get his thoughts. That's what forums are for.

Clearly there are uneven loads here, the engineer who chimed in even pointed this out. However, it doesn't mean they are cause for concern, but it also doesn't mean I can't be curious about them and want to learn.

What was it you were saying again?


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

over_stocked said:


> I'm telling ya... no way would a huge company sell a product like this if it would risk them getting sued over and over for destroyed property.


Also, your thought process if flawed here. Ever hear of Toyota? Ever see the problems with ADA tanks?

Once again, I'm making no claim that this product is faulty, I never did. However, to just say that companies only sell products without severe flaws is naive.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

aman74 said:


> What's your point? Even in my op I stated this as a question. I've gone onto say several times that it's probably a non-issue and merely was curious about the forces at play here. An engineer happened to post so I thought I would get his thoughts. That's what forums are for.
> 
> Clearly there are uneven loads here, the engineer who chimed in even pointed this out. However, it doesn't mean they are cause for concern, but it also doesn't mean I can't be curious about them and want to learn.
> 
> What was it you were saying again?


my point relates directly to THIS:


> I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing here and maybe the tank has been designed to account for this.


yes, you've missed that there is no way that they would put this tank out if it was going to start popping seams. 

Rimless tanks in particular are designed differently than rimmed tanks and the weight rests on the bottom pane, not the rim. 

And the problems you mention are manufacturing defects... they happen to anything. But have you found one instance of an Edge tank popping a seal yet? 

No reason to get your panties in a bunch just because someone says you're over thinking this.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

over_stocked said:


> my point relates directly to THIS:
> 
> 
> yes, you've missed that there is no way that they would put this tank out if it was going to start popping seams.
> ...


You're wrong on several points and I'm not going to waste my time addressing all of them besides 2.

The ADA issues may be attributed to design and being under engineered for the task, not a failure of execution in the manufacturing process.

I got my "panties in a bunch" because you chose to chime in and say the exact same thing again after I clearly explained yet again that there's probably no issue with the edge and merely asked for further thoughts by the engineer who joined MY thread and offered some much welcomed help.

I heard you the first time. Please don't post in my thread again. I'll be putting you on my ignore list and I won't be purchasing anything from you either. I see why your post count is so high.

Do yourself a favor and read again what I wrote and not read into it what you want to hear.


----------



## TLE041 (Jan 16, 2010)

OP, you should consider taking a less confrontational tone if you expect to get serious answers.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

TLE041 said:


> OP, you should consider taking a less confrontational tone if you expect to get serious answers.


I'm sorry you feel that me merely sticking up for myself is being confrontational.

What I said was clearly disregarded and the poster chose to merely post the same thing in my thread twice. That, to me, is rude. Not to mention I was told I was getting my panties in a bunch when I clearly was open to constructive information. Again, rude and unwelcome.

I don't know, but maybe you've bought into the typical forum behavior that vendors and frequent posters can do no wrong and say and do as they please.

In light of the way I was treated I'd say my post was very restrained.

I'm not going to sit by and let someone put words in my mouth. It's all right here in black and white, please tell me where I was incorrect?

I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone on a forum without being rude. Apparently others are not.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

Since you've ignored me, you won't see this..... But what you are missing is that you took something as a personal attack that was completely the opposite. All I said is that it is designed to work this way. I wasn't rude in any way shape or form. 

I'm sorry you seem to think I came in here and wronged you in some way by posting the same statement twice. Like you said, this is a public forum... If you want to have a conversation with one person, I suggest you keep it off of public forums. 

I'm honestly not sure what has gone wrong here... 

And as for vendors and frequent posters doing as they please... ask the Moderators here... I've been warned and even suspended in the past--for times where I actually did something wrong. 

There is no need to turn this into a woe is me story because you feel like me saying the same thing twice was somehow disrespectful. I'm sorry you feel like I said some horrible things... but I am not going to apologize for anything else.


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

over_stocked said:


> Since you've ignored me, you won't see this.....


Cute, you sent it in a PM as well to make sure I would.



> All I said is that it is designed to work this way. I wasn't rude in any way shape or form.


Really? Is that all you said in this thread?

Why did you post it twice then? You posted it again after I asked some more questions about it that had nothing to do with me saying that there was danger of the tank leaking due to a design issue. You posting it again can only imply that I was saying that they have released a faulty design, which I never even said in the first place. There are increased loads, but that doesn't mean there is an issue if they have been designed for. That's all I ever wanted to discuss.



> I'm sorry you seem to think I came in here and wronged you in some way by posting the same statement twice. Like you said, this is a public forum... If you want to have a conversation with one person, I suggest you keep it off of public forums.


Yes, it is a public forum, but did I state that somewhere? Maybe I did, I don't recall. 

I don't want to have a discussion with one person, but I do want to keep my threads constructive and not be insulted.



> I'm honestly not sure what has gone wrong here...


Ok.


> And as for vendors and frequent posters doing as they please... ask the Moderators here... I've been warned and even suspended in the past--for times where I actually did something wrong.


I believe it.



> There is no need to turn this into a woe is me story because you feel like me saying the same thing twice was somehow disrespectful. I'm sorry you feel like I said some horrible things... but I am not going to apologize for anything else.


Lol! What did you apologize for? The typical passive aggressive "I'm sorry YOU took what I said the wrong way? Are you serious man? You think you're being subtle, but it's clear to see what's going on.

And how is telling someone they have their panties in a bunch over something they wanted some info about supposed to be taken exactly?

Also, I asked you not to continue posting in my thread, yet you couldn't respect that either.


----------



## PinoyBoy (Mar 14, 2008)

This is a plantedtank forum, beef doesn't belong here unless you're feeding it to the tank inhabitants. (Bad pun I know)

So yeah... Since the tank is seperable from the stand, maybe you can use those cheap acrylic sheets they sell at home improvement stores. Just cut the to the same footprint of the aquarium and make maybe 2 stack of them if you don't feel safe with the preasure points. And then color the edge of the acrylic sheet with the same color of whatever you fluval edge is.


----------



## Curlyriff (Sep 7, 2010)

On my comments regarding the tank earlier.

What you have to see is that the tank will create a shear load where the stand finishes. This is worked out by the weight of the water against the thickness of glass, the leaver arm and the back support.

Due to the edge being a cube design with a stand that is smaller than the base of the tank itself you will always have a shear key point.

Difference is that you have only got about 1/5th of the tank over shooting so this will help to reduce the pressue at the edge of the tank. You also have an upright (front face) and side supports (both ends) to help distribute the load. 

Assuming that the silicon is good quality it will actually transfer a small amount of the load and stop the shear stress from causing cracking. 

This tank also has thicker glass as you have mentioned if glass is 3-4mm thick then it does not always mean that the glass at 5mm thick will only be a quater stronger. It could be twice as strong as a 4mm pain of glass because the way forces react through different thickness of pain.

Yes you are right there is still extra load from a standard tank but this is no way enough for you to be worried about due to the amount of water and force that is created or that would instantly cause this tank to fail in any way. 

As I said before you have no more than 1/5th of the tank load can actually transmitted back through the glass allot longer than that of the edge tank.

A 3mm piece of glass I believe would support the water itself but you wouldn't have as much of a bond with the sealant used and the stress where the stand finishes would be greater and these two would be the cause of a failing point just after the tank stand finishes.

You sealant to the front pain on a 3mm sheet may well not be enough and is why they have used 5mm to gain more surface area for the contact points.

Hope that helps.

Adam


----------



## aman74 (Feb 19, 2007)

Thanks a lot Adam.


----------



## Curlyriff (Sep 7, 2010)

Thats alright. Hope it all made sense, was just leaving to work as I replied. If you have any further questions let me know. 

Kind Regards,

Adam


----------



## trackhazard (Aug 24, 2006)

Curlyriff said:


> You sealant to the front pain on a 3mm sheet may well not be enough and is why they have used 5mm to gain more surface area for the contact points.


I think this is key with this particular tank. I don't own one but I've looked at a couple very closely at the LFS and the glass cube seems pretty solidly built. People don't realize how strong glass can be (typical working tensile strength of glass is around 1000 psi or so.) However, the weak point in most tanks is the seam. Thicker glass equates to a thicker seam which helps the tank hold up better to improper loads. Most of the rimless tanks out there could probably go with thinner glass in terms of strength but would probably end up leaking at the seams due to the small amount of silicone holding it together. FYI, most of the small ADA tanks are 5mm glass.

There is a youtube video of a guy loading up an aquarium suspended between two boards with a load of rocks and then eventually stepping inside of it without the bottom giving way. Pretty intense.

-Charlie

EDIT: I am not an engineer but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn.


----------

