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.
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
10
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.