![]() |
|
||||||||
| Portal | PhotoPost Gallery | Register | Blogs | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Design 1.
![]() ![]() Design 2. ![]() ![]() ![]() Last edited by imcosmokramer; 03-02-2012 at 08:41 PM. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Personally I would go with design #1.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
#1. just in case you want to cover up the overflow.
__________________
Wow! That's Crazy! Why would you spend that much and go through all that trouble? |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Design #2 For me. It looks more "finished" rather than an "add-on" overflow.
__________________
It all started with ............. "Finding Nemo"
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
1 is the standard, a tank builder will question the reasoning for design 2. Also I'd make the overflow extend down further, not much room for standpipe design.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1. might be stronger since there return holes are not drilled in a 5x5 section on the top left/right of the pane 2. improved surface skimming but don't worry, I have reasons for design 1 as well, lol. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I like design #1.
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
I like design #1 as you wouldn't have go over the top somewhere for the returns.
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
in #2, the would go right over the wier and then to the left or right. The two outside holes would be the returns. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
As for improved surface skimming, you may be right but 20" is pretty big already. I good alternative if this is what you're looking for is take design 1 and increase the length of the overflow and move the return lines into the overflow like design 2, then you accomplish both your goals. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|