Warren

Thanks for this info - I had no idea there has been a 1 year gap in any communication from HBAS. There have been several occasions where we did receive communication from the FNZAS, discussed it at club meetings or committee meetings and instructed our secretary to send a response as per our minutes. Upon checking with our secretary he confirmed having sent the information. We will now have to invsetigate what has gone wrong and why you never received our replies. Please be assured the lack of communication from the HBAS is for some reason other than the club deliberately not responding - I know the HBAS is keen to participate in the FNZAS activities. I'll follow this up and let you know the outcome out of the public forum...

Instead of being bloody difficult you could have stated this when I first raised the issue - nice, good on you. Instead you string me along for some reason - not a very good look for the FNZAS Secretary... Thanks for finally answering my initial concern - and thanks Caryl for responding - level headed as usual. If it hadn't been for your reply... I'm glad to be proven wrong as it means the AGM can proceed as planned. I've checked with a couple of HBAS members and the resolution correspondence was never raised at our committee or general meetings. This is an internal matter for us to deal with. Had I known about the resolution at the time it was sent out I would have supported it and recommended to the HBAS it be accepted.

There is not time to discuss it with the HBAS committee before the FNZAS AGM. For some reason you are being incredibly short-sighted about what could be a very serious issue affecting the validity of the upcoming AGM. It would be very stupid of the FNZAS to directly ignore an issue raised which is intended to help ensure the recent proposed change is actually valid and cannot be contested by anyone in the future. Given the time frame it's not practical to go via the HBAS and you should be treating the issue with consdierably more seriousness than you are. Treat the matter as official and urgent correspondence directly to the committee - this is possible and a club need not be involved. You could be wasting a lot of peoples time and money travelling to Dunedin if the AGM is legally deemed to be null and void at a later date. It's the FNZAS duty to treat this as a serious matter and failure to do so questions the committee integrity. Now the issue is raised you have to ensure you are not breaching your own constitution. Ignore it if you wish but if it comes back to bite you in the arse later you were warned... It's now up to you as I'm having no further input into the matter.

Not sure if the HBAS actually responded - Adrienne would know if they did or not. I missed the Feb meeting and the resolution/remit has not been raised at any HBAS committee meeting I'm aware of (yes I'm on the committee). My first response yesterday was the first I knew about the resolution/remit. Irrespective of whether the HBAS responded or not, it's been noticed now with little time left before the scheduled AGM so what does the FNZAS plan to do about it?

I'm not going to do that - you've been advised there is a potential issue and whether you take action to make sure the FNZAS is not legally exposed or not is up to the FNZAS committee. If you choose to do nothing about it I will not lose any sleep over it. Also, by the time you get the response from the HBAS since we had our meeting last night it will be end of next month - after the AGM. However, it's probably a bit pig-headed of the FNZAS to ignore the possibility they have accidentally breached their own constitution and really should be taking this pretty seriously given the coming AGM could be ruled null and void if it's not sorted out prior - your call and risk. You should at least discuss it given the importance and timing...

Thanks for the documents. The wording of the document and its filename are confusing. The document is titled 'Resolution' but the document states it is a 'Remit'. As per clause 27, remits are to be considered at the AGM only otherwise clause 27 would state a remit can be considered any time of the year. Because the document has been titled 'remit' the vote can only be considered at the AGM. It's clear however the intent was to actually create a 'resolution' which can be considered any time and the mistake has been made putting the word 'remit' on the documentation. I'm not legal savy enough to know whether this causes a legality problem with what has been done or not. I suggest you get the legality of the method used and whether having included the word 'remit' causes a problem so as to protect the decision, then discuss and document it into your next meeting minutes. It may be as simple as stating the intent was to create a resolution rather than a remit and ask all affiliated societies to accept it... Hopefully it pretty easy to sort out.

Looks like what you are actually trying to do is this: ALTERATION TO THE CONSTITUTION 39. This Constitution shall not be altered, added to, or rescinded except by the following procedure: (a) Any Society may by resolution recommend to the Federation through their delegates proposals for the amending of the Constitution. Such proposals must be submitted to the Federation Secretary in writing. (b) Upon receipt of such resolution the Federation Secretary shall send copies of such resolution to all Societies. © The resolution will be considered by the Federation after a period of two months has elapsed after copies have been sent to Societies and the proposals shall be ratified and written into the Constitution if a majority of the Federation approves them. In this case you must remove the word 'Remit' from all correspondence and the wording of any documents sent to the clubs and refer to it only as a 'Resolution' or it will need to follow the proper remit process. The word remit stuffs up the process of a what is actually a resolution in this case. Have you received a majority response yet? Having not seen the 'resolution' yet I can only guess it's to change the date of the AGM in the constitution to allow it to happen in April or some other date range to give more flexibility than the current rather rigid 'June' requirement. If you still only have 2 replies then you'd best get a majority of clubs to agree to the change pronto or the Constitution will not get changed in time to allow the AGM to proceed at the planned April 12th date...

Please check the FNZAS constitution: 27. All remits to be considered at the Annual General Meeting shall be forwarded by the Societies to the Federation Secretary by the 14th day of March in each year or such later date as may be agreed upon by the Executive. The Federation Secretary shall thereupon cause a list of all such remits to be sent to all Societies within 14 days. There is no need for any club to respond with their vote until the AGM where their delegate will present the vote of their club. Could you please resend the remit details to the HBAS secretary as he has yet to table this information at a meeting. Maybe you could also email to me so I can push it along...

Did you guys miss the bit in the FNZAS constitution about the 'AGM is to be held in June' (clause 24)? I'm not sure what happens from a legal perspective if the constitution is ignored and the AGM goes ahead at a different date - does it void the meeting outcome? Has someone checked?

24V 10A = 240W so a decent sized transformer. If the output is being rectified to DC you'll need to allow for the increased RMS due to the very peaky rectifier current. Given the next frame size up from 250VA is 500VA you'll be looking at $100+ Do you want 24V 10A AC or 24VDC at 10A? If it's 24VDC at 10A then the above applies + you'll also need about 18VAC as rectified, allowing for diode drops and under load this will come out at about 24VDC (depending on the VA, transformer regulation and the impedance of the filter caps). You may be better off with a switchmode supply - more expensive but nicely regulated and PFC...

Yay, do you need any help? Sorry to hear nobody in Auckland can be bothered with having a club...

Sorry, as usual you are mis-informed. I never left... You must only be able to climb very small and very few steps or are you now just looking for excuses? You seem typical of so many who are prepared to make a big noise but do bugger all to actually help. Shall I'll expect your membership application shortly then - no, well best you keep quiet unless you have something constructive to add.

Sounds like you need to join an affiliated society and step up to the plate. Put your money where your mouth is...

Yeah, dead straight with big loads is very difficult to do cheaply and requires big steel with lots of legs and bracing. I thought the beams you were talking about were rated at 2400kg each so 4800kg total. Is the rating on them actually for the pair? If so then I've seen many of these racking systems seriously overloaded!! At my old job the stores would put 2 pallets of batteries on each shelf totaling about 3000kg. Sounds like they were pushing it a bit!!

Have you ever seen the bend in this type of racking system with 3000kg evenly distributed across 2 x 2400kg bearers? It's around 7-8mm sag in the middle - way too much for an aquarium. You want less than 0.1mm or the load will start to appear on the glass and silicone. At 0.25mm bend almost 100% of the force is on the glass and silicone and 0% on the bearer.

Here's what I'm considering for the new tank. Now I'm not travelling at all I can think about getting into it again. It's an AutoCAD design so possibly not so clear as a jpg... The dimensions are: 1550mm wide x 1568mm tall x 850mm depth. The internal tank dimesions are: 1546mm x 810mm x 800mm = 807 Litres The front viewing window is: 1490mm x 710mm x 15mm low iron toughened (safety factor 31.25) - only going this crazy because I can It also has a lowered bottom area for the gravel - why use up expensive window space!!?? Design safety factor for the tank as a whole is around 8 which means the house will fall down first. It's only this high because the materials are strong for the size of the tank so little to no compromise is required. The design will use tig welded stainless steel angle for the bulk of the frame and earolam back and bottom panels with a fibreglass sealing coat. Earolam is 12mm thich honeycomb with kevlar on both sides. It's one of the composite products used on America's Cup boats. It's incredible strong for its thickness.

What isn't shown or mentioned above is there are also 2 bolt-on top braces that go front to back at 1/3 and 2/3 along the length. This was required because even 100mm x 50mm x 6mm RHS bends quite a bit with the force from the water. These braces meant there was only 0.25mm bend in the steel between the braces ensuring the top edge of the glass was properly supported to preserve the design safety factor.

Here's the original photo's taken just after the 19mm thick glass panel was siliconed in place. I used this tank for about a year then had to move. It was a wee bit too big so I sold it to the National Aquarium where it still lives today as the NZ Native Fish display tank. It's made from 200mm x 100mm x 6mm RHS for the base. The corner uprights are 75mm x 75mm x 6mm RHS. The top is 100mm x 50mm RHS. The rim around the inside of the frame is 30mm x 10mm solid bar - this retains the glass and plywood. The bottom has 7 front to back supports evenly spaced of 75mm x 75mm x 6mm RHS to support the bottom plywood. All the plywood is construction grade, 2 layers of 19mm laminated to 38mm thickness glued and screwed into the frame. There are no diagonal braces as the plywood provides the bracing. This was coated with 2 layers of boatcloth and epoxy resin prior to installation. The whole interior is then covered with 3 layers of chopstrand and epoxy with 2 coats of matt-black gelcoat to finish. Overall finish size is 3000mm x 1200mm x 1000mm (W x H x D)with the front viewing window 900mm x 2790mm. The bottom of the tank was 100mm below the bottom edge of the glass so the gravel sat at the bottom of the viewing area - why waste window space?? The side could also have been glass with no loss in strength but 19mm glass is pretty expensive so ply was my cost saving compromise. All up painted this tank cost just over $2k.

Yeah, like option B but with diagonals between every vertical support. The diagonal bracing round the sides and back can be welded and bolted along the front. You could also make one or two front legs bolted so the sump could be accessed (the tank would need to be empty or close to empty to remove the legs though). The wooden stand looks good. You might have been able to use it if you'd put a filler-glue between the layers and a couple of layers of ply on top with the same filler-glue to take up the uneven spots - depend just how uneven it was. By sitting the tank on top of the wood while the glue was curing it would have forced the ply to conform to the bottom of the tank pretty evenly. The downside with wood vs steel is there is usually no space for a sump under the tank...

I went timber on my last stand because overall it was cheaper but still gave the strenght required. What you suggest will work but you should also have a full-length member going down the middle as well as lots of front to back supports. Then I started integrating the stand into the tank with all-steel frames... If using steel, 63mm x 50mm would be ok if the spacing was reduced a fraction. Support from a flat bar-type member reduces at a rate of the square of the distance change. Say you need 400mm spacing of the legs for 75mm material, as an approximation you would need to go to 63² / 75² = .7056 so 400 x 0.7056 = 282mm spacing for the thinner profile steel. Another option would be to make the corner legs out of 50mm x 50mm and every second leg out of 38mm x 38mm (or even 25mm x 25mm x 3mm RHS). As long as it can support the weight the main legs and diagonal braces will stop the frame from pancaking. All the diagonal members can also be thinner material. Ideally the structure under the tank made from the 63mm x 50mm or 75mm x 50mm should be replicated at the floor as well to ensure equal loading of all the legs to the floor although this could be made from 50mm x 50mm. Once the diagonal braces are welded in place it then also means the whole frame start to behave more like a single beam rather than a thin floppy base with legs on it.

I think the reason why is the regulators get complacent. They haven't had an earthquake for so long they relax the codes. In South Korea it's more mountainous than NZ and the mountains were formed by significant seizmic acivity. But, because they haven't had a big event in over 1000 years they make their buildings just strong enough to stand up by themselves - NZ buildings are way stronger. If there was a big earthquake there would be a disaster. It also costs a lot more to build a good stand vs one that will stay up by itself. Everyone wants to focus their spending on the tank and spend as little as possible to hold it up. This is why we have most stands sub-standard. I'd like to see the statistics on the Christchurch earthquke for how many tanks survived vs how many broke due to stand failure...

Yikes!! If in the Christchurch earthquake this tank had stayed together and not ruptured down the seams or the tank had not slid off the base due to no restraints or not tipped over due to not being bolted down then the stand would have collapsed. The small diagonals are almost useless and add only minor strengh. To do it properly the diagonals need to go from top corner to opposite bottom corner. The 50mm x 50mm x 3mm steel is ok for this tank as the acrylic can flex more than glass can without rupture so a small amount of give in the stand is ok. It will load up the acrylic glue joints a bit so there's high-stress points... Yes, you do need stupidly sized structual members to support big tanks. The stand must have no flex in it under all conditions or stress gets transferred into the tank from the frame. The tank will already be under enough stress from the water force on the silicone. If you add more force you risk rupturing the joins or breaking the glass. This tank would fail in a decent earthquake - if the tank manages to hold together or not slide off the the stand then the stand will break followed by the tank as it comes crashing down. If you'r not interested in building a seizmic-proof stand then you get 'get away' with something fairly flimsy like this stand although for a glass tank it should have more legs down the front and back + another row of legs down the middle. I wish these guys luck with this stand - they're going to need it.

No, you're not getting it - as per my previous post(s) - the calculator already assumes the top edge has a hefty brace - the equivalent of about 100mm x 100mm box steel or bigger!!! So no, it will not improve or change the safety factor in any way whatsoever... In saying that, 0.1 should be fine.

The surface of the board is relatively flat. It must NOT conform and remain perfectly flat so it's perfectly aligned to the bottom glass of the tank. Only then will there be relatively even pressure over the entire surface between the glass and wood. The no-more-nails acts as a filler and will vary in thickness and take up the errors in the stand construction. The support under the glass must perfectly match the tank. If you screw or fix the board other than using glue as a filler and let the board sit naturally with the tank on it then is will not be matched to the bottom of the tank and there will be high-pressure points under the tank - even with poly (of any thickness) between the glass and board. Don't cut corners with big tanks and big stands!

Don't skimp on safety factor!!!!!!! As tanks get bigger the safety factor has to go up. Going below the recommended minimum of 3.8 is risky. Bigger tanks have more overall force. An small errors or movement transfers more force to specific points of the tank than in a smaller tank with the same safety factor. Therefore the risk of it going po goes up also. The value of 3.8 is based on statistical analysis of aquarium failures in the USA and Europe (not NZ shakey-land). It's used by all commercial suppliers of large public displays as it ehsures public safety is met. I don't know the statistical value of tank failure when a tank is built with a safety factor of 3.8 but it will be a pretty small number if it's based in the US. Think of safety factor as insurance. Why skimp a few hunder dollars on glass thickness when there's thousands of dollars of fish at risk???