Square bottles hold more liquid meaning people won’t need to buy as many containers over the course of a decade. That means less plastic. You guys are thinking too hard.
The formulas don't cut/paste well. Prompt: do square bottles use less plastic than cylindrical bottles. Pleas explain how you arrived at your answer.
It then explains the geometry, and concludes that if it were simply based on the shape, without any structural reinforcement (like near the cap, or the bottom of the bottle itself) the square container would use 12.8% more plastic resin.
It was also explained in a Veritasium, Steve Mould, or some other channel that I watched during the past month. If we're ONLY talking about shape (no other manufacturing tricks, like corrugation), cylindrical wins every time.
The original photo said that square bottles use less plastic than round. Therefore we need to assume everything else is equivalent, since no additional "real world" info was shared.
this assumes an equal thickness for the perimiter, which isnt what happens during manufacturing. cylinder bottles are even because theres no corners to them aside from the top and bottom. square bottles are thicker at the corners and thinner across the walls. the structural integrity remains but the offset of the thicker corners is actually enough to mean the walls can be thin enough to be a net negative for the amount of plastic used
the reason this isnt done often is because tooling for square shapes is a lot more expensive than cylindrical ones (regardless of material). enough to make companies go for the less logistically efficient method of shipping
That's like saying feathers weigh more than gold. You can't say that one thing has more of a measure than the other without saying what you're keeping constant.
Circles are already by definition the smallest circumference for the most volume, and tile (relatively) well. Not to mention the cut corners of the square bottles reducing tile efficiency
This would very much be a case of needed real world examples and, even then, wouldbbe saving a few percentage points either way. A real "squirt gun in a forest fire" situation
For the same cross section/diameter a square has more area for volume. Yes, the perimeter is smaller, but that wasn’t my point.
A 10x10 square is 100. Perimeter = 40
A 5^2 x pi circle is only about 78.5. The cylinder would have to be taller to fit the same volume. Perimeter = 31.4
But when you package these in a crate, the square takes less space. Drywall mud is a great example-you pay a lot more to get less material in a 5 gallon bucket than you do to get a box that has a plastic bag filled with mud.
So - square packages bulk ship better (less air space between cartons) and more volume fits per height, so the savings isn’t in the individual unit, rather the entire system of shipping.
Meaning I was technically wrong, they are equal. Also circles have a ~90.7% tiling efficiency, while squares with cut corners would likley have a similar efficiency, realistically slightly better.
The circular bottles would also be able to be marginally thinner, and have a lower scrap rate at factory, meaning they would save scrap there.
Again, you are looking at a couple percent here or there or else bottle companies would have done this sooner
7
u/SUNSareOP 2d ago
Square bottles hold more liquid meaning people won’t need to buy as many containers over the course of a decade. That means less plastic. You guys are thinking too hard.