Talk:Beverage can

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are the dimensions of an aluminum can?

how much aluminum is need to make an aluminum can?

As little as possible. You can simply weight it. The can's material is nearly 100% aluminum except for some trace elements to improve its physical properties and the ink. Wasted material during production is almost 0. Years ago there was a Scientific American article on this issue. Go to your library and check it out. I'd like to but don't wait for me to write. -- Toytoy 23:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Spelling of article 2 Article title (again) 3 Stay-On-Tabs 4 actually 5 Oiled cans used for soda 6 Banned in Germany? 7 Current characteristics 8 Red Bull Cans 9 Material Composition 10 Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg 11 Split Current characteristics 12 "In Japan, canned fresh air is available." 13 "like a 1970s American-style brake fluid can" 14 Tapered cans 15 Aluminum can-making machineries 16 US Patent Number Incorrect? 17 Specs 18 Spelling again 19 I'm pretty sure this was vandalism.. 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg 21 Any Health Concerns? 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Diet Coke.jpg

[edit] Spelling of article

The Wiki article on the element from which the cans are made is spelled aluminium. I therefore tried to change the article 'aluminum can' to 'aluminium can' for consistency with this. Please feel free to revert if you don't like. Ian Cairns 22:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am aware that IUPAC's spelling for the element is "aluminium"; nevertheless, we should retain the original spelling of the word in the article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:29, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Could you please explain why we should retain the original spelling? Ian Cairns 22:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In North America, we usually call steel food cans "tin cans," even though there's no tin in them (I think in other parts of the world they may just be called "tins"... not sure if the "tin" on "tin can" stuck because "tin" is a generic term for food containers, or because they really used to be made of Sn). So the name/phrase/pronounciation "aluminum can" may be just as legitimate as "tin can," even if it isn't absolutely right. I think it is Wikipedia's policy to use aluminium when referring to the element (a legitimate case for consistency), but we're not really worried about elemental aluminium here, we're talking about a secondary product. What if they were popularly called "Aluminy Cans"? Would we still make the fuss? Plus, if we go around changing every little regional quirk, you'll have Americans and British fighting revert wars over the use of "biscuit" before long.

Then again, I could just be rationalizing :/ Iroll 04:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to bring it in line - makes much more sense. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me the major materials used in making an aluminum beverage can? Someone hinted to me that there were three and i can only come up with the obvious two; aluminum and ink.

I believe plastic is used too - a plastic coating on the inside to protect the aluminium from the stuff that aluminium can't stand, unlike (presumably) stomach walls :P a chemistry teacher "proved" it when (I think) he left the inside of a can empty but soaked the outside in conc. HCl (I might be wrong though, can't remember the exact experiment) Maycontainpeanuts 02:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article title (again)

It seems to me that the move of this article to "aluminium can" was out of order. Naming policy says that articles should respect the convention used by the original author of the article, which in this case was the American spelling. Policy says nothing about renaming articles to make them consistent with the titles of other articles. Nohat 06:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the links to the dialects because they didn't seem relevant to the topic, nor entirely accurate. At one point it was change from North American English to United States English (later to AmE) under the supposed claim that Canadians spell it "aluminium". A Google search of .ca sites, however, gives "aluminum" a 5 to 1 advantage over "aluminium", strongly indicating that Canadians use the American spelling, not the British spelling. In any case, whoever knows the word will recognize the spelling they are familiar with, and don't need to be directed to irrelevant articles on English dialects that don't mention the aluminium/aluminum spelling distinction. Nohat 04:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahl_yhew_min_eum! When you shout it, it's much more impressive than aluminum, Aluminium gets my vote. ggb667

Whatever. Aluminum is the dominant usage in English-speaking North America, and it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Anyway, Nohat has correctly summarized and applied Wikipedia policy above. --Coolcaesar 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the category this article in is spelt "aluminium", it makes sense to use that spelling. (Anon)

How about we spell it Alumin[i]um throughout the article? Arcturus 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see that now is not a problem. I merged Beverage and Aluminum can into Beverage can. I hope that doesn't make any problem.

[edit] Stay-On-Tabs

I am skeptical of two claims in the following text: "The stay-on-tab has had a huge impact on the environment. If you took all the tabs that have stayed on from 1970 to today - tabs that would be on the ground - they would amount to a couple of trillions."

First, what is the source for "a couple of trillions"? This ought to be substantiated with a citation for the number of cans manufactured since 1970. If nothing else, such a cited source may help guide updates to this number as the years go by: "1970 to today" is a non-constant span of time.

Second, why does staying on matter from an environmental standpoint? You're still consuming metal and energy resources to manufacture the cans, and that metal still ends up in trash heaps whether the tab and can are attached or not. Is there a recycling angle here? Are stay-on tabs more likely to be recycled with the accompanying can? I suppose that's possible, but it's certainly not manifestly true, and therefore should also be substantiated.

Ben Liblit 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you can step on the tabs. And that hurts. Ggb667 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to work at a can plant running two lines that made 1.6 million cans a day, five days a week. Most large market can plants run 4-10 lines 7 days a week. (Newer plants at much faster speeds.) There are 50 + can plants in the US give or take.(May actually be hundreds, You would have to look up the number of plants of each major manufacturer plus the beer companies that run their own plants.) So some simple math gives you trillions of cans produced in one year.(Conservitively.) So yes that statement is in line if not not even a litte small.--Sean697 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] actually

iron city and alcoa created the first aluminum can and stay on tab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.118.47 (talk • contribs) May 4, 2006.

[edit] Oiled cans used for soda

This was removed:

Beer cans allegedly vary in quality from batch to batch, and the oil coating the can may adversely change the taste of beer to a greater extent than for soft drinks. Such substandard cans are then apparently used for soft drinks whose consumers allegedly "won't know the difference".

I think it belongs in here unless someone can prove differently. The coors beer engineer I spoke to at Georgia Tech had no reason to lie. Sorry I don't remember his name, but this was related to us in class (Chemical Engieering) as an interesting anecdote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggb667 (talk • contribs) May 11, 2006.

All cans go through a washer after forming before printing. There is no oil on them at all. The coatings, while changing greatly over the years, are more like a varnish and desinged to have no taste. Some oil may get on the outside of the can from the necking process but it is not likely unless the machine is leaking oil and not operating correctly. The inside of a finishe can is usally spotless before filling with no oil whatsoever. Older can coatings are purported to have had a flavor that was discernable but newer coatings are pretty much flavorless. Now coating defects do happen periodically and they catch most of them before shipping but if you do get a can you may get an aluminum taste from the beverage disolving the metal. If it hasnt ate a hole in the can already. They actually take test cans from every few thousand and pour a conductive solution in the can and test conductivty and from outside of can to the inside. Should be none or very little. If it conducts electricity the coating is defective and that whole batch of cans would have to be sorted and possibly scrapped.--Sean697 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned in Germany?

I heard from a german friend that aluminum cans are now BANNED in germany! can i get a second (as i have no source)? THX Schafer (71.107.69.226)

They're not banned. Retailer have to take them back from customers no matter where they bought them from. This rule became effective on the 2006-05-01, because of this a lot of retailers have stopped stocking and selling drinks in cans. The PET bottle has replaced the aluminium/steel can as a drink holder. Demerzel 14:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are aluminium/steel cans available in Germany, so it's an exaggeration to say: "The PET bottle has replaced the aluminium/steel can as a drink holder." However, it is true that beverage cans are quite rare in Germany, compared to other western countries. Mintaru 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current characteristics

Why is there a Citation Needed at the end of that section's first paragraph. Surely people from these contries (Australia and South Africa) can verify this and if there is a change make the necessary change. Demerzel 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The beverage can industry in South Africa is currently in the process of converting to the 330 ml standard can. JacquesIzumi 11:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Bull Cans

Shouldn't we mention the different size for energy drink cans, like Red Bull or Adrenalin Rush? I just don't quite know how to put it into words... (Me-pawel 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

The energy drink cans exist as they are purely for cosmetic reasons. The article is better for being generic. Htra0497 17:42, 23 November 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Material Composition

Perhaps someone can answer this, but in Europe I've noticed the cans are magnetic (hence not made of aluminum). An engineering friend of mine says the cans are steel, with a tin inner lining, and aluminum is only used for capping the ends. Is this a European thing, or are the cans only coated with aluminum (like US coins that are primarily made of zinc)? - IstvanWolf 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Essentially all beverage containers in the United States are manufactured from aluminum, whereas beverage cans made in Europe and Asia are approximately 55 percent steel, and 45 percent aluminum alloy. Food containers are still mostly made from steel stock in both Europe and North America

We should mention this fact in the article, so i added the first sentence to it. Mintaru 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article specifically because I was curious about the reason for different material compositions in different countries. Here in Sweden, all beverage cans are made out of aluminium, and imported beverage cans are now effectively banned, because of new regulations which mandate that all such cans must be sold under a deposit system. Thus, I can no longer buy Cherry Coke (which is only available in Germany) in Swedish stores (Grrr!)

But seriously: I wonder why it is that aluminium beverage cans are so popular, since they are - as I understand it - relatively expensive to manufacture. A deposit system does make sense for aluminium cans, as is stated in the article, but why bother? Why aren't more cans manufactured out of steel, like in Germany? Steel is ridiculously inexpensive, and steel cans rust away quickly. No deposit system needed. Would be happy if someone could explore this issue further, and write about it in the article. Thanks! —Per Hedetun (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aluminium is a lot easier and cheaper to recycle - hence "politically correct". Roger 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg

Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Current characteristics

In order to compare to the "Impact of bottled water" article, I think the second part should be split off into its own topic which address environmental impact and health concerns.

[edit] "In Japan, canned fresh air is available."

Canned fresh air? Could someone please give any sort of proof that this exists, and is not just a joke grabbed from Spaceballs? A source, a picture, a manufacturer, anything? I live in Japan and have never seen a can of fresh air, and I do a substantial amount of can consuming here, I might add.

Cans of compressed oxygen however are available, but that has nothing to do with pollution, they are mainly for very physically demanding work or athletes, and they do not resemble beverage cans in any way, they have a nozzle and a mouthpiece, as you can see here http://protocol7.net/images/o2/o2mask.jpg

if you do insist on having beverage cans of air in the article, the only example I could find were these cans of mountain air from Iceland http://p.vtourist.com/2005244-Open_inhale_and_discard-Iceland.jpg

I apologize if I come off harsh, but all the time I see this kind of stereotyping of the Japanese as the crazy asian people, based on unfounded myths or hearsay.

Alex Lee 124.208.243.239 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "like a 1970s American-style brake fluid can"

Are non-Americans supposed to know how such a can looked? A better description or (link to) picture would be nice, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.164.90 (talk) 08:28, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tapered cans

There's mention in the article of the tapered tops common in today's cans, but does anyone have any evidence as to when that design started in the U.S? I know it was some time in the 80s. PacificBoy 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminum can-making machineries

Is there some one who knows any aluminium can-making machineries manufacturer except in USA and China? for example in Europe, Korea etc..)

If so please E-mail me at rouzbhfamili@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.217.5 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 

Ball (one of the major US can maufacturers) has plants in Canada, Puerto Rico, and plans for one in India. http://www.ball.com/page.jsp?page=17 I suspect they also have plants in Argentina & Europe. Mike 15:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Patent Number Incorrect?

Searching for the specified 'stay tab' patent number on Google Patents brings up some chemical process. Searching for 'easy open wall' brings up a few can tab patents, of which I believe 3967752 is the closest to modern popular can tops. Does this mean the patent number in the entry is incorrect?

Mike 14:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specs

Can Manufaturers Institute: [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling again

I really feel we should be following our policy of using the IUPAC spelling of element names. I have previously stood up for "sulfur" over "sulphur", so it isn't a matter of my own bias. This is an international project and an article like this should use the internationally accepted spelling, which is aluminium. --John (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm pretty sure this was vandalism..

The beverage can is derived from an earlier model which was distributed to Allied soldiers during WW2. It contained an aerosol solution which the soldier would deploy upon capture by enemy units to put himself in a euphoric state of mind. Once he was in his chemically induced state, the soldier could then twist the can in such a manner that it would come apart, exposing a sharp metal edge the soldier could use to commit suicide under the influence of the gas. An underground version was distributed to American spies during the Cold War, and became popularized on the market as a beverage holder sometime thereafter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perel (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg

Image:Sierra-Mist-Can.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any Health Concerns?

I didn't read any in the article. I do not know if there are any health concerns, but once somebody told me that aluminum is poisonous and can cause brain damage? 86.154.116.114 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aluminium in solid metal form is not really a problem - the soluble salts can be dangerous. Beverage cans are in any case lined with a polymer layer inside to preven acidic contents from disolving the metal. Roger (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Diet Coke.jpg

Image:Diet Coke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)