• Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stupid shape for a can too, tips over In a vehicles cup holder

      • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        You sure about that?

        Cylinders of the same volume will have the same area, so it should be the same amount of aluminum?

        Maybe less, even, since the lid and bottom are thicker than the sides and on the taller can there’s less of that thick top/bottom

          • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I had a feeling it’d math out something like that if I opened my fat mouth, lol

            I do wonder if thickness of the walls or lid/bottom does have an effect, though, as there must be some reason they make these weird ass cans

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I always thought that narrower pressure vessels could contain higher pressure, because the curvature is more severe, meaning that for a vessel that needs to retain a similar level of pressure, you could just use less material in the walls of the vessel. Is this not the case with these new cans, and they have the same wall thickness, or is the tradeoff just one that still works out to be in favor of more total aluminum usage?

        • kreekybonez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          same size top/bottom for both; only difference is that the standard has a wider body bevel, and the sleek can goes nearly straight down. same lid on both cans, as well. not sure what it does for the scaled material cost, but since the lid is by far the most expensive part, it’s probably negligible, compared to the ability to inflate the price on a taller can.

          I can’t fully explain the trend, but ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic beverages are a big hit for the industry, and even moreso when presented in the truly/high noon shape. maybe it’s a generational thing? I don’t get it, but I’m also not the target demographic.

          bonus fact: the conversion costs of filling sleek cans is pretty steep for most independent brewers, so craft beer will take a couple years to adapt, if ever.

        • neptune@dmv.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The easiest way to imagine how cylinders have different surface area for a given volume, is imagine how closely a shape matches a sphere, it should have a lower surface area.

          Imagine a soda can with the width of one water molecule. The cross section of that can would be on the order of four aluminum atoms for that hair thin can. Then imagine a can that’s nearly a cube or a sphere and how all the liquid can be hiding behind other liquid atoms: hence fewer can atoms per liquid volume.

          Blood vessels have high surface area. A pint of blood has low.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That can’t be true.

          Consider a cylinder cut in half, giving a circular cross section. Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum.

          Now you’ve enclosed the same volume in cylinders, with a different surface area.

          • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You also created 2 cylinders where once there was one, which is not what was being discussed. You even mention that you added material:

            Cover each new circular gap with new aluminum

            I could have said “2 cylinders of the same volume” but I felt context made that clear

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes I did say that I added material. That’s the point: you cannot do this transformation without adding material.

              But you’re saying this is only with two cylinders?