Can a Trillion Stacked Soda Cans Crush the Bottom One?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jongraphs1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics of stacking a trillion empty soda cans and whether the bottom can would be crushed under the weight. An empty soda can weighs approximately 17 grams, leading to a total weight of 17 trillion grams for a trillion cans. Participants agree that the bottom can would indeed be crushed due to the immense weight, especially since the stack would exceed 22,350 miles, where gravitational effects would complicate the scenario. The consensus is that while weight distribution occurs, the bottom can cannot withstand the cumulative pressure from the entire stack.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles, particularly weight distribution
  • Knowledge of material properties, specifically aluminum can strength
  • Familiarity with gravitational effects at varying altitudes
  • Basic mathematical skills for calculating weight and pressure
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the structural integrity of aluminum under extreme weight conditions
  • Explore gravitational effects on objects at high altitudes
  • Learn about load-bearing structures in engineering, such as skyscrapers
  • Investigate material science principles related to pressure and weight distribution
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics enthusiasts, engineering students, and anyone interested in material science and structural integrity analysis.

Jongraphs1
The Ultimate Physics Question! Mountain Dew!

Ok. I need you all's help.

If you were to stack empty soda cans on top of each other, one by one, until you have about a trillion cans on top of each other, perfectly balanced, would the weight of the cans cause the bottom can to be crushed?

http://www.bevnet.com/images/reviews/mountaindewlivewire/livewire-logo.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.
 
More responses
 
i think yes aswell

think about it like this, how much do a trillion cans weigh and picture puttting that amount of weight on top of 1 individual can even perfectly balanced i doubt that one can could hold all that weight.

bleh
 
ok yes. It's pretty obvious- we're talking about aluminum vs the wait of a trillion cans- nuff said
 
Yes.

An average empty soda can weighs approximately 17 grams so the combined weight of a trillion cans would be 17 trillion grams.

Yes, if a person can press an empty can against their head and crush it, then I think that 17,000,000,000,000 grams would.
 
Actually, the wieght of all trillion would not rest on the bottom can. Long before the trillienth can, the stack would reach above 22,350 miles (the altitude of geosynchronous orbit) and all cans above that altitude would pull away from the ground, rather than pushing down on it. However, long berfore this, the bottom can would be crushed. The first thousand or so should do the trick.

EDIT TO ADD:

This is assuming, of course, that the stack was on the equator. At the poles, one could stack any arbitrary number of cans and they would still weigh down on the bottom one.
 
Last edited:
Below 22,350 miles would be about 354,024,000 4" long cans at 17 g each that's about 6,018,408,000 grams.

Yup, I still think it's going to crush it.
 
I Disagree.

To all those who said yes, wouldn't you agree that the weight would become evenly distributed amongst the cans, therefore relieving the bottom can of all the pressure?
 
  • #10
Without getting into other complications (for example the higher up the stack you went the less the cans would weigh), all the weight of the cans would be acting through the bottom can meaning it would be well and truly crushed.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Jongraphs1
To all those who said yes, wouldn't you agree that the weight would become evenly distributed amongst the cans, therefore relieving the bottom can of all the pressure?
If I drop a brick on your head, does it not hurt?

- Warren
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Jongraphs1
I Disagree.

To all those who said yes, wouldn't you agree that the weight would become evenly distributed amongst the cans, therefore relieving the bottom can of all the pressure?

Do the following experiment. Take a scale (one sensitive enough to measure the weight of one can). Place an empty can on it and record the weight. Now stack another can on top of the first and record the weight again. keep adding cans and reading the scale.

Note that the reading on the scale goes up in porportion to the number of cans in the stack. Thus the pressure on the scale increases as more cans are added to the stack. The scale has to support the weight of all the cans in the stack.

If you were to replace the scale with a can, it too must support the weight of all the cans above it.

Each can transfers all the weight of the cans above it, plus its own weight, to the can below it.
 
  • #13
welp you got me there!

I know I am defeated, but my brother says: how do you explain the SEARS Tower?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
The Sears Tower, WTC, Empire State buildings you ask?

The load bearing colums which I believe are re-inforced steel can support the weight of material above it. Granted the lower basements of these buildings have tremendous pressure on the load bearing members, but they hold everything up. There was a show on discovery channel about demolition, and they showed that the pressures of those members at the lower levels is SO Great that if you were able to chip off pieces of material they would shoot off like a bullet from a gun. Thats how much pressure is involved.

But to answer your question, soda cans arent designed to bear so much weight.
 
  • #15
Even though soda cans are designed to withstand a fair amount of pressure for warehouse stacking etc., the empty can you described is not designed to take the weight of a trillion empty cans on top of it. That doesn't mean that a can cannot be designed that could do that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K