Crushing Multiple Cans: 8n Force Needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan32
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiple
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the force required to crush multiple cans using a can crusher. Participants explore whether the force needed remains constant when cans are arranged in different configurations, such as end to end or side by side, and consider the implications for a project involving can crushing.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the force required to crush multiple cans joined end by end remains at 8N, as it is for a single can.
  • Another participant suggests using a free-body diagram to analyze the forces on the cans in different configurations.
  • A participant raises the issue of whether the crushing mechanism involves just pushing down or if there are additional methods to reduce the force needed.
  • One participant proposes that each column of cans has an 8N crush strength, implying that multiple columns would require a total force greater than 8N to crush them reliably.
  • Another participant mentions that crushing cans at an angle may encourage buckling, but acknowledges that crushing multiple cans at once is more efficient.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the force required to crush multiple cans remains constant or increases with the number of cans. There is no consensus on the optimal method for crushing the cans or the total force required.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the assumptions regarding the configurations of the cans and the mechanics of the crushing process, including the potential for uneven stacking and load distribution.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in mechanical engineering, project design, or those working on similar can crushing mechanisms may find this discussion relevant.

Dan32
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is possibly a very silly question, I am not experienced in this field.

I am creating a Can Crusher for a project.

If it takes 8n to crush a can. Will it still take 8n to crush multiple cans joined together end by end?
Also, if multiple cans were being crushed on a platform, against another platform. Let's say, 4 cans on the platform side by side, all vertical. Will it take 8n to crush all 4 cans side by side?

Thanks,
Dan.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Have you tried doing a free-body diagram of the forces on the cans in both configurations?
 
Dan32 said:
This is possibly a very silly question, I am not experienced in this field.

I am creating a Can Crusher for a project.

If it takes 8n to crush a can. Will it still take 8n to crush multiple cans joined together end by end?
Also, if multiple cans were being crushed on a platform, against another platform. Let's say, 4 cans on the platform side by side, all vertical. Will it take 8n to crush all 4 cans side by side?

Thanks,
Dan.

Tim's hint is good for your question. In addition, though, on a project optimization issue, are you just pushing down on the cans to crush them, or are you doing something else first to lower the force (significantly) needed to crush the can?
 
CanCrusher.png


Is this correct? So no matter how many rows or columns long, It will crush them all?

berkeman said:
are you just pushing down on the cans to crush them, or are you doing something else first to lower the force (significantly) needed to crush the can?

Originally, I designed it to crush the cans at an angle, to encourage the cans to buckle easier. However, It is much more efficient and easier to crush multiple cans at once.

Thanks for the help
 
Surely each column has the 8N crush strength, so multiple columns will require multiple times 8N to crush reliably. Obviously there could be uneven stacking, so one column is carrying the load for a bit, but once the load is shared, 8N will not do the job.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
18K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
737
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K