[deepsouth]

just an update.... no explosion.....  i'm going to refrigerate it on sunday as it will have been in there three weeks and it's three weeks before the next hbc meeting.

[euge]

just an update.... no explosion.....  i'm going to refrigerate it on sunday as it will have been in there three weeks and it's three weeks before the next hbc meeting.

Ahhhh I can rest easy!

About my assertion, which I learned in highschool Chem 2 and then was also taught about this later when I worked for Dowell Schlumberger in the 1980's. In fact we spent an entire afternoon with VHS presentations. We worked the equation, plugging variables, and even some of the engineers didn't believe it at first.

We worked around high and low pressure equipment, pumps, storage tanks etc. The intent was to raise the awareness that a low pressure containment system can rupture easily and catastrophically, but more so that hatches can blow open when unlatched and crush people with even a small differential in hydrostatic pressure. Intent was that we not let our guard down just because some thing is of relatively low PSI, atmospheres, pascals etc...

[bo]

just an update.... no explosion.....  i'm going to refrigerate it on sunday as it will have been in there three weeks and it's three weeks before the next hbc meeting.

Ahhhh I can rest easy!

About my assertion, which I learned in highschool Chem 2 and then was also taught about this later when I worked for Dowell Schlumberger in the 1980's. In fact we spent an entire afternoon with VHS presentations. We worked the equation, plugging variables, and even some of the engineers didn't believe it at first.

We worked around high and low pressure equipment, pumps, storage tanks etc. The intent was to raise the awareness that a low pressure containment system can rupture easily and catastrophically, but more so that hatches can blow open when unlatched and crush people with even a small differential in hydrostatic pressure. Intent was that we not let our guard down just because some thing is of relatively low PSI, atmospheres, pascals etc...

I have great respect for anything under pressure, especially a keg full of beer.

[bbkf]

years ago i filled up a sanitized growler with primed beer.  It worked just fine.

the only problem was that the yeast and gunk at the bottom mixed into the beer when pouring.

If you could pour the whole thing in one step into a pitcher, you'd be better off.

[tschmidlin]

It is independent of the volume of the vessel, ...

That's not necessarily true, because the volume will increase as the radius increases. If it doesn't, than the surface area of the  top and bottom would be increasing to make up for the reduced wall height.

It's pounds per square inch and that force isn't just exerted on the sides. In the case of growlers, the top and bottom are thicker by design, so the walls are the weak point.

It is necessarily true. That changing the radius also increases the volume in your example is secondary.  Increasing the radius without increasing the volume would also require an increase in wall thickness.  Picture an oval bottle - it must be thicker to hold the same pressure.  Here is the equation:

σ = pr/t

where σ is stress, p is pressure, r is the radius, and t is the wall thickness.  Since v (volume) does not appear in the equation, it is independent of the volume.

About my assertion, which I learned in highschool Chem 2 and then was also taught about this later when I worked for Dowell Schlumberger in the 1980's. In fact we spent an entire afternoon with VHS presentations. We worked the equation, plugging variables, and even some of the engineers didn't believe it at first.

We worked around high and low pressure equipment, pumps, storage tanks etc. The intent was to raise the awareness that a low pressure containment system can rupture easily and catastrophically, but more so that hatches can blow open when unlatched and crush people with even a small differential in hydrostatic pressure. Intent was that we not let our guard down just because some thing is of relatively low PSI, atmospheres, pascals etc...

I think it is probably a common misconception, because it works in many cases and for most people it is a good enough explanation.  If you are going to keep more or less the same shape and relative dimensions, it is certainly true.  But the shape is really the thing that matters.  My undergrad was in Mechanical Engineering - I remembered the concept, but had to go look for the equation.   It's a thin walled pressure vessel, there are a lot of websites that talk about it.

just an update.... no explosion.....  i'm going to refrigerate it on sunday as it will have been in there three weeks and it's three weeks before the next hbc meeting.

Glad it worked

[bo]

It is independent of the volume of the vessel, ...

That's not necessarily true, because the volume will increase as the radius increases. If it doesn't, than the surface area of the  top and bottom would be increasing to make up for the reduced wall height.

It's pounds per square inch and that force isn't just exerted on the sides. In the case of growlers, the top and bottom are thicker by design, so the walls are the weak point.

It is necessarily true. That changing the radius also increases the volume in your example is secondary.  Increasing the radius without increasing the volume would also require an increase in wall thickness.  Picture an oval bottle - it must be thicker to hold the same pressure.  Here is the equation:

σ = pr/t

where σ is stress, p is pressure, r is the radius, and t is the wall thickness.  Since v (volume) does not appear in the equation, it is independent of the volume.

If you increase the radius you will increase the volume, even if it is secondary. Volume is what this discussion is about.  You're splitting hairs, don't you think?

There is also a lot more to bottle pressure design than just the size of the radius. I'm sure corners, neck heights, etc. play a part.

[narvin]

This doesn't make sense to me.  But, I'm too lazy to investigate.    All I will say is don't bottle to Champagne pressure in a standard bottle -- they make 11 oz champagne (and Duvel, Orval, etc) thick for a reason.

[tschmidlin]

If you increase the radius you will increase the volume, even if it is secondary. Volume is what this discussion is about.  You're splitting hairs, don't you think?

I am not splitting hairs, you have failed reading comprehension. An oval bottle has an increased radius and the volume may not be any larger.  It still has to be thicker.  St. Peter's in England bottles in green bottles with an oval profile.  They have thicker glass.  They are 12 oz bottles.  Increasing the radius did not increase the volume.

There may be manufacturing considerations, but in general corners are stronger because they have a tight radius.  The neck has a tighter radius too.  The height doesn't matter, because the linear stress uses this equation:

σ_linear = pr/2t

where σ is stress, p is pressure, r is the radius, and t is the wall thickness.  The height isn't even in the equation.  Note that this is the same equation as for the hoop stress except it is divided by 2, so the stress in that direction is half.

You keep telling yourself it's the volume that matters though, that's fine, you'll be right sometimes.

[morticaixavier]

I see your growler conditioned ale and raise you two quarts of kegged stout I just bottled up in mason jars 

Couldn't figure out a good way to get the beer to brew club tomorrow night and the mason jars were just sitting there.

[bo]

If you increase the radius you will increase the volume, even if it is secondary. Volume is what this discussion is about.  You're splitting hairs, don't you think?

There may be manufacturing considerations, but in general corners are stronger because they have a tight radius.  The neck has a tighter radius too.  The height doesn't matter, because the linear stress uses this equation:

And once again, you're wrong, but you're right sometimes.

http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar206.pdf

Please note the following in the results:

"However, for all bottles that did not fail at artificially-
induced discontinuities (including bottles
with no induced discontinuities), fracture initiated
at the base of the bottle. Figure 1 shows one such
bottle, which broke at 2.25 MPa. This is most likely
due to the stress concentration present where the
side of the bottle joins the base."

IE the corners, which are almost always weak points.

As for the green bottles you mentioned, the thicker walls could be for added strength or it could be for asthetics. Keep in mind that manufacturing processes can change the strength of glass.

[deepsouth]

I see your growler conditioned ale and raise you two quarts of kegged stout I just bottled up in mason jars 

Couldn't figure out a good way to get the beer to brew club tomorrow night and the mason jars were just sitting there.

even better!!!  hahahaha.  i should have used mason jars!

[tschmidlin]

If you increase the radius you will increase the volume, even if it is secondary. Volume is what this discussion is about.  You're splitting hairs, don't you think?

There may be manufacturing considerations, but in general corners are stronger because they have a tight radius.  The neck has a tighter radius too.  The height doesn't matter, because the linear stress uses this equation:

And once again, you're wrong, but you're right sometimes.

http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar206.pdf

Please note the following in the results:

"However, for all bottles that did not fail at artificially-
induced discontinuities (including bottles
with no induced discontinuities), fracture initiated
at the base of the bottle. Figure 1 shows one such
bottle, which broke at 2.25 MPa. This is most likely
due to the stress concentration present where the
side of the bottle joins the base."

IE the corners, which are almost always weak points.

As for the green bottles you mentioned, the thicker walls could be for added strength or it could be for asthetics. Keep in mind that manufacturing processes can change the strength of glass.

Ok, the corners are discontinuities which are weak points.  This is what I meant by manufacturing considerations, but I concede your point.  See how easy it is to admit when you're wrong or appear to be wrong?   But the height still doesn't matter, and neither does the neck.

And back to the original point - find me a paper that says it depends on the volume.  Good luck.

[tschmidlin]

As for the green bottles you mentioned, the thicker walls could be for added strength or it could be for asthetics. Keep in mind that manufacturing processes can change the strength of glass.

Sure, it could also be because little pink fairies told them to do it that way.  But physics says it has to be thicker to hold the same pressure.

[bo]

As for the green bottles you mentioned, the thicker walls could be for added strength or it could be for asthetics. Keep in mind that manufacturing processes can change the strength of glass.

Sure, it could also be because little pink fairies told them to do it that way.  But physics says it has to be thicker to hold the same pressure.

Well, since you've resorted to condescending remarks, I'll bow out. The intelligent discussion is obviously over with.

[tschmidlin]

As for the green bottles you mentioned, the thicker walls could be for added strength or it could be for asthetics. Keep in mind that manufacturing processes can change the strength of glass.

Sure, it could also be because little pink fairies told them to do it that way.  But physics says it has to be thicker to hold the same pressure.

Well, since you've resorted to condescending remarks, I'll bow out. The intelligent discussion is obviously over with.

That's fine.  It's my fault, because I'm mean.

Clearly you are only coming up with reasons to deny reality, and now you can leave without admitting you are wrong.  Good for you.