dga Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 My investigation in regards to the 12 gallon AQUAPOD netted the following email from there support line: Dear Daniel, The thickness on our 12 gal. Aquapod is 3mm, the thickness on our larger 24 gal. tank is 5mm. Sincerely, Ike Ike Eigenbrode Current USA, Inc. www.current-usa.com Ph: 760-727-7011 Fax: 760-727-7066 so basically there current aquapod model is the same thickness as the older models of the nanocube that had the cracking issues. the 2006 model of the 12 gallon nanocube is 4mm. below is the "print screen" image of the above email. Link to comment
kinetic Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 how sad! not a very impressive improvement. definately hyped up =( Link to comment
dga Posted December 28, 2005 Author Share Posted December 28, 2005 I agree. based on my other post "real glass thickness of the aquapod" it appears some bogus information was interpreted from the sites I listed. It spreads and spreads until everyone believes what they read without sourcing out the information and obtaining actual facts. "REAL glass thickness of aquapod post" Link to comment
stoney waters Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 Good research dga. Maybe that will put an end to some of the trash talk. Link to comment
artarmon42 Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I'm no glass expert, but isn't glass strength dependent on how it was created/bent? And also how the unit is packaged/transported? I'm not saying one brand is better than another, merely saying that thickness is only one of many factors to be considered? Link to comment
DevilBoy Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 hmm weird... they answer emails about glass thickness... but cant answer emails or phone calls about why the lights on my aquapod are screwed up.... intresting Link to comment
icenine Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 So... what is the glass thickness of the 24 gallon nano cube? Link to comment
DevilBoy Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 My investigation in regards to the 12 gallon AQUAPOD netted the following email from there support line: Dear Daniel, The thickness on our 12 gal. Aquapod is 3mm, the thickness on our larger 24 gal. tank is 5mm. Sincerely, Ike Ike Eigenbrode Current USA, Inc. www.current-usa.com Ph: 760-727-7011 Fax: 760-727-7066 so basically there current aquapod model is the same thickness as the older models of the nanocube that had the cracking issues. the 2006 model of the 12 gallon nanocube is 4mm. below is the "print screen" image of the above email. um 5mm.... its in the email Link to comment
icenine Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 um 5mm.... its in the email Read slowly db... the nano cube. The '05 model in particular. Link to comment
reefs_r_mylife Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Good work dga - I wonder why Nanocustoms chose to use the Official Current USA spec sheet, while the others typed or inserted their own commentary about the subject... When you misrepresent a product, especially when related to safety, its very misleading. Has anyone thought of notifying these other sites to get them to correct the information? I am a proud supporter of nanocustoms (as my wallet can attest), and am happy to see that they haven't tried to capitalize on this glass thickness issue as much as the other guys. I think that some of the others are looking to capitalize on the hysteria surrounding nanocubes, and I feel that this is wrong. But once again dga, a great post and a great demonstration of how someones misinterpretation or misinformation can be disseminated so easily. Regardless, I look forward to the future of the hobby. Rick Link to comment
randygsx Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 from my understanding, the whole glass thickness issue was mainly with the 24g nanocube and not the 12g. It seems that the majority of cracking issues were with the 24g tanks. I'd also be interested to find out what the thickness of the 24g nanocube glass is. ~randy Link to comment
dga Posted December 29, 2005 Author Share Posted December 29, 2005 hmm weird... they answer emails about glass thickness... but cant answer emails or phone calls about why the lights on my aquapod are screwed up.... intresting Thats probably because they thought they may have another sale. Link to comment
Regal Tang Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 the real thickness....is 5mm...yea i got one for Christmas..but it had a deep scratch in it so we took it back..and then my dad broke it when he took it out of the car into the store(oh yea i broke the lights and said it came like that haha....THE LIGHTS BROKE CAUSE I PUSHED 2 LITTLE A*S CORDS SOFTLYwouldnt work...my fault)....im ###ed...so i think we will know if they will give us a new one tomarrow or what...i think mine was a defect LMAO! Link to comment
dga Posted December 29, 2005 Author Share Posted December 29, 2005 from my understanding, the whole glass thickness issue was mainly with the 24g nanocube and not the 12g. It seems that the majority of cracking issues were with the 24g tanks. I'd also be interested to find out what the thickness of the 24g nanocube glass is. ~randy as per nanotuners website the 24 gallon nanocube is 5mm now. im not sure what previous models were. the below link is from nanotuners site. i am unable to verify when jbj issued this information, as jbj's site currently does list the glass thickness. glass thickness chart Link to comment
Regal Tang Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 previous models were 3mm on the 24g.....i think LMAO JBJ IS THICKER THAN AQUAPOD...LMAO ALL THOSE THIN GLASS RANTS FOR NOTHING!!! Link to comment
chieferich Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I may have changed my mind about buying an aquapod. Considering that if the company had done their research and discovered that it's competitor (the nanocube) had complaints and issues over glass thickness and breaking, they would have taken advantage of it by giving the consumer what they wanted (a fix). 1mm more, or even claiming a better quality glass would have been welcomed by "our community" and probably boosted their sales. Perhaps the thickness is not even the issue... only time and our own experiences will tell. Link to comment
icenine Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Well... I hardly think that current has misrepresented the pod. The 24 pod has thicker glass than the old 24 NC. And I don't recall anything from current that says "we have thicker glass than jbj. jbj did not make adjustments to the 24 till current was about to put an improved product on the market. It was the 24 and 6 gallon models that had cracking issues, not the 12. There is not much reason to think that glass thickness is not just fine for the 12. In a nutshell, I've used current products and found them reliable. I don't see a whole lot of complaints about current products on forums like this. jbj? not so reliable and there are lots of complaints about their products and business practices. I would still like to see more of the 24 gallon pod. Link to comment
danskim Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I agree with icenine. Link to comment
spark Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 It is good to see some competition in the nano market. Without the Aquapod launch, I doubt JBJ would not have improved thier product line to the extent they are with the 2006 line. But with some competition, they are pushed to do something to keep thier market share up. I think the Aquapod, since it is a new product will have some small issues, but hopefully not cracking issues like JBJ. Only time will tell... Current will likely have all sorts of improvements for thier next launch to remain competative, just like JBJ in 06. They are both manafactured in China and for all we know, the glass parts could be produced in the same facility that has two contracts to produce for each company, just with different specs. Then assembled in thier own separate facilities. So the specifications and quality standards are pretty important as they likely are just producing to whatever defined specs they are given on the glass, bending, etc.... Many posibilities and a lot of factors are involved besides the glass thickness alone such as the quality and strength of the glass used, and the process used, etc... Link to comment
icenine Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Yep.... they may actually be assembled in the same facilities for that matter. And yes, you can expect the first generation of any product to have a few bugs (lets hope that cracking and flooding your home is not one of them). I'm still real interested in seeing if the 24 will have the fan issues (noisy and inefficient) that people are talking about with the 12. db's lighting issue is kinda strange, since they are on separate ballasts. I wonder if he has taken a good look at how they are wired up to see if things are crossed or touching there. There still may be some kinda pilot error in play with that issue. Link to comment
spark Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I have a 12g Aquapod and I switched out the fan. Yes, there was only one fan. I was surprised. I put in a second fan. I also looked at the ballast on a Sunpaq retrofit that uses a 32W bulb. So I put two 32W bulbs in place of the 27W. Link to comment
Lemec Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 I have an older model of the jbj 24 gal...I'll take out the calipers and measure just how thick the glass is and at different spots, ie the bends. Link to comment
dga Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 My information gathering has garnered some interesting finds. for example the above issue concerning the alleged 5mm 12 gallon aquapod, and now jbj's current website does not show in detail the glass thickness of any of there nano's. the thickness numbers came from the current nanotuners site. maybe Chris from nanotuners/nanocustoms can post in here to explain where these numbers originally came from. I have a yet unreplied to email to chris at nanotuners about the numbers listed. (although it was just sent a couple of days ago). you wouldnt think that this numbers game would be such an issue with owners, but with the failing of these tanks, in this case the nanocube, numbers are everything. nanotuners site showing glass thickness chart current jbj site of the 12 gallon Link to comment
spark Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 JBJ has it posted on a different page. http://www.jbjlighting.com/nano_flyer_2006.html They show the thickness of the 6,12 & 24g in a chart. But that is for the 06' models. Link to comment
skripo Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Well... I hardly think that current has misrepresented the pod. The 24 pod has thicker glass than the old 24 NC. And I don't recall anything from current that says "we have thicker glass than jbj. jbj did not make adjustments to the 24 till current was about to put an improved product on the market. It was the 24 and 6 gallon models that had cracking issues, not the 12. There is not much reason to think that glass thickness is not just fine for the 12. In a nutshell, I've used current products and found them reliable. I don't see a whole lot of complaints about current products on forums like this. jbj? not so reliable and there are lots of complaints about their products and business practices. I would still like to see more of the 24 gallon pod. So how many outsourced thinner glass Aquapods have you set up exactly? Now that the Aquapod glass thickness issue has been settled in favor of JBJ you claim that the Aquapod will still be better because you had a good experience with their lights? Did I misunderstand? No complaints about Current USA products? Have you seen 25 page Fission Skimmer thread? I have no particular attachment to either vendor by the way, I am just against the unsubstantiated bashing OR pimping of products or vendors. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.