• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Optimist, Pessimist or Engineer?

Damn it! Where is the engineer answer?

The engineer will say the glass is ~30% larger than it needs to be after taking into consideration the excess height required for a safety margin for (a) needing more liquid for future uses and (2) spillage avoidance while carrying the glass.

No engineer would say the glass is twice what it needs to be!
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Damn it! Where is the engineer answer?

The engineer will say the glass is ~30% larger than it needs to be after taking into consideration the excess height required for a safety margin for (a) needing more liquid for future uses and (2) spillage avoidance while carrying the glass.

No engineer would say the glass is twice what it needs to be!
Click to expand...

what if the glass was to be capped at the end of the filling cycle? like a can or one of the canning jars? then it would be exactly 2x the size it needed to be 🙂
 
<-Manager
The glass needs to be laid off due to overqualification for the job. Replace it with a cheaper entry level container.
 
Originally posted by: mdchesne
what if the glass was to be capped at the end of the filling cycle? like a can or one of the canning jars? then it would be exactly 2x the size it needed to be 🙂
Click to expand...
Hmm. That addition wasn't in the problem statement. It is the marketing department's fault. But still, for thermal expansion reasons, I think it often is best to have a small air space. So maybe it is ~90% too big in that case.

 
I agree that it's about 30% larget than needed. Capping the glass adds extra material costs and process controls when the glass can more easily be made with sides that are slightly higher. the extra side height is indeed needed for spillage protection in transport and error in the amount of liquid used filling the glass. Btw, water does not significantly thermally expand. That is a moot point.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
<-Manager
The glass needs to be laid off due to overqualification for the job. Replace it with a cheaper entry level container.
Click to expand...


That answer just scares me 😛

Is that really a management type mind-set?
 
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
Btw, water does not significantly thermally expand. That is a moot point.
Click to expand...
You try filling a rigid glass container 100% full, cap it tightly, and then put it (a) in your car on a hot day or (b) in your freezer. Then come back and say it is a moot point.
 
The coefficient of thermal expansion of liquid water is 69 µm/m-°C at 20 degrees C and increases as temperature rises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top