[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (2', front to back)
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:15:25 -0700
> From: Roger Miller <rgrmill at rt66_com>
> Well, any tank that measures 2 feet front to back is going to be a fairly
> large tank.
> > I think you'll find that, once set up, that tank will
> > *drip* with perspective, and ambience....(no pun
> > intended;) despite the compromise/sacrifice of living
> > space vs. tank space. I'm excited for you to have such
> > a cool project.
> I think it will be great. I'm also not sure I'm ready to do justice to the
When viewing a tank from the front, the apparent distance to the back is
shortened by the index of refraction of the water. Height and length are
seen in normal values, but anything seen looking through the water is
compressed to an apparent 2/3 its normal distance in the viewing direction.
We learn to more-or-less ignore this, but it has an aesthetic impact,
anyway. That's why 55G tanks seem so thin when we try to plant them.
BTW, am I the only one bothered by the use of the term "depth" to describe
any dimension but the substrate to surface one? The depth of water is a
pretty-well understood term, and to use it to describe the front-to-back
dimension of a tank often leaves me confused if there is no other context to
get it untangled. [I know. I'm easily confused!]
Wright Huntley -- 650 843-1240 -- 866 Clara Dr. Palo Alto CA 94303
Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote
learning, why don't they pass a constitutional amendment
prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as
good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five years we would
have the smartest race of people on earth. -- Will Rogers