I remember this problem from engineering school.
If you look at the cost of material, and the cost of seaming (crimping the
top and bottom, you will find that, to hold 12 oz of beverage
the specific shape of a standard beer (or soft drink) can is the one
that has the least cost. (wider shorter can, more seaming, cost goes up,
narrower taller can, more material, cost goes up - the can size we all
know and love so well is the least expensive container that can be
manufactured and hold 12 oz.)
Now, all this started some years ago when tin was the material of choice.
When Al cans came along, this changed the least cost size, but since all
the handling equipment, packaging, store shelves, etc. were set up for the
old 'optimum' can size, and the new Al cans were cheaper anyway (less
seaming, at least for the drawn ones), it didn't make sense to try and
retool all the production equipment in the world. I also remember reading
somewhere that beverages in Al cans 'cooled faster' as a benefit to
the consumer.
You will notice however, that the top of the new Al cans are significantly
'necked down' for a smaller diameter top. Why? Seaming is still the
most expensive part of the can and a smaller circumference means
less cost?
At least, that's how I read it.
Anyway, I thought you drank Diet Pepsi?
Jim W.
>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:24:14 -0600
>From: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
>Subject: a coke can?
>
>I was just looking at one of my Diet Coke cans... I'm tempted to take it
down
>to the shop and do some measuring... Just never really considered the work
it
>took to make one of these. Realize that a soda can is made from a single
>sheet of aluminum and then capped after it's filled?
>
>Someone out there has the answer to how this was done...
>
>Keith ( see it's easy to boggle a feeble mind )
|