There is also the carrying of aromatics out of the beverage through the carbonation, as per the recent articles on champagne bubbles. (e.g. [www.guardian.co.uk]). This only refers to bubbly, but I would be rather surprised if the same principle was not at work in other carbonated beverages. After all, beer and cola are full of aromatics as well. #gizmodoremainders
Wait so nobody felt the need to post about the baby nearly dying because it wasn't 'gadget-related' enough for Gizmodo, but you jumped in with a BREAKING article about a balloon flying away? And then posted 5 more articles about the most retarded hoax ever, even though it didn't have any "cellphone-related mayem?" #gizmodoremainders
@G-Ram: the balloon is actually a really cool gadget (er...was). Apparently once it was filled with helium there was a small electrical current applied to parts of the outer skin to help it navigate. I have no idea of the physics of it all (or even if it would work, since this guy is a bit weird as it is) but that's the story.
Whether or not giz knew that at the time is another thing. I think they just wanted to get a bit more site traffic :) #gizmodoremainders
Wait so this baby stroller video doesn't end with, "Just kidding, the baby was not actually in the stroller and was hiding in an attic" ? #gizmodoremainders
nice design for packaging, but why would anyone want to drink that H3PO4 and sugar infested crap. Would be better if people just learned to drink water, definitely save tax payers on healthcare.
Hopefully they will still be able to fit the same amount in the box, withought raising the prices too much. Then hopefully they will bring Coke C2 back.
Is this a solution in search of a problem? Seems to me if you set your can on it's side, you've got a bigger problem than it rolling away. (time to get a mop)
I remember reading about similar cans in Popular Science magazine. I also remember I was at the dentist too, and i was 11, but I digress. The benefits of these geometric designs is that they use less material, sometimes around 10%. With the shear number of cans produced 10% savings on the aluminum required quickly turns into billions of dollars saved. Unfortunately for the designs aluminum is one of the most common metals on the planet and easily recycled bringing down the long term benefits of implementing such can designs to the point where they are cost prohibitive.
@Super Moose: The most efficient volume-to-surface-area container is a sphere. This design goes further away from that by creating extra surface area in the form of polygons. The current can approximates a sphere while still allowing it to be useable by using an elongated circle (a cylinder).
while mathematically correct, it's contrary to the goal here - yes volume to surface are is always a smaller ratio for a sphere, so from a material consumption standpoint, a sphere is ideal. however, spheres and cylinders are some of the worst regular 3d shapes for packing.
i haven't the spare time to model various 12oz containers to put numbers to it, but consider this - coke costs more to ship than it does to produce and package. any savings on the shipping side are bound to be more gainful than savings on the material side.
@anexanhume: By incorporating convoluted geometry into the can, CocaCola can essentially argue that there is an infinite volume of soda within each can, based on the infinite circumference length described by fractal geometry. Is that a stretch? Nahhhh.
@nutbastard: I don't dispute that. The shape of the can is a precarious balance between packaging costs, volume held and both packaged volume. The thing is, this furthers none of those goals.
@psychiccheese: Right, because they value liquid content and packaged shape over most efficient. This is most likely due to low metal packaging costs.
@valkilmerisawful: Of course, if calculus says I can do finite volume and infinite surface area, why not the opposite?
@anexanhume: I'll let the designers judge if it is sufficiently then. As for the shapes they're designed for rigidly, I'm sure they took into account stresses.
Yet another victim of design fail, with idiotic designers trying to invent problems to fix so that they can flex their design muscles. These designers likely have little to no real-world experience with engineers or manufacturers, and garbage like this just illustrates their own ignorance rather than their ingenuity.
@met2art has an invisible star: Engineering student here, the design isnt all that bad. It needs some improvements in terms of packing, but done correctly this could definitely be more efficient. I'm not sure you actually have any idea what you are talking about.
@eagles3 halfinsane: This weakens the can design, which is under considerable internal pressure, by having edges which create tensile stress points. The polygonal top also increases the potential for tearing, especially with the thinness of aluminum used in the process. Also, the polygonal top creates unnecessarty eding at the drinking side, which is both unnecessary and would likely lead to spillage in use. Overall, it solves nothing and adds problems. I'm a fan of design and engineering, but not when it's both needless and detrimental to a simple and previously functional design. Also, I'm not concerned about your concern with my qualifications for commenting on this design.
@met2art has an invisible star: Dang met! You never told us you know stuff about stuff! Here I thought you were just a highly entertaining pun machine that probably had a job, but hey? Who knows what it is?
"Tensile stress points", "unnecessary eding", "needless and detrimental"? Wow, man! I mean, just...wow.
10/17/09
10/17/09
10/17/09
and babies #gizmodoremainders
10/17/09
10/17/09
10/17/09
Whether or not giz knew that at the time is another thing. I think they just wanted to get a bit more site traffic :) #gizmodoremainders
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
10/16/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
I want my cans to roll. Got one of these in my fridge
09/23/09
09/23/09
Pepsi, the choice of a new generation...
09/23/09
@Jrsy Devil's Bright Idea®:
09/25/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
while mathematically correct, it's contrary to the goal here - yes volume to surface are is always a smaller ratio for a sphere, so from a material consumption standpoint, a sphere is ideal. however, spheres and cylinders are some of the worst regular 3d shapes for packing.
i haven't the spare time to model various 12oz containers to put numbers to it, but consider this - coke costs more to ship than it does to produce and package. any savings on the shipping side are bound to be more gainful than savings on the material side.
09/23/09
09/23/09
@psychiccheese: Right, because they value liquid content and packaged shape over most efficient. This is most likely due to low metal packaging costs.
@valkilmerisawful: Of course, if calculus says I can do finite volume and infinite surface area, why not the opposite?
09/23/09
You're not taking into account that with more rigged geometric shapes, the material itself can be made thinner. Not everything is surface area.
09/23/09
09/24/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
"Tensile stress points", "unnecessary eding", "needless and detrimental"? Wow, man! I mean, just...wow.