Optimizing Surface Area for Cornflakes Box Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemical
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Optimisation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on optimizing the surface area of a Cornflakes box while maintaining a constant volume. The original box dimensions yield a larger surface area compared to an optimal design, resulting in a 90 cm² difference. Participants debate why cereal companies would choose a box with a greater surface area, highlighting factors like consumer appeal, stability, and advertising space. The concept of the Golden Ratio is mentioned but misapplied, with confusion over its relevance to box design. Ultimately, the consensus is that aesthetic and marketing considerations outweigh the cost implications of increased surface area.
chemical
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I have been given a problem of taking an object (I used a Cornflakes Box) and finding the optimal surface area compared to its volume (volume and ratio between sides constant)

I got:

Cornflakes Box :
Length = 25cm
Height = 36 cm
Width = 9 cm

Optimal Surface area box:
Length = 17.3 cm
Height = 43.28 cm
Width = 10.82

Overall a 90cm^2 difference in surface area.

Now I have to explain why Cornflakes would make a box with a greater surface area, thus costing more. Please help :confused:


The teacher also said something about the Golden Ratio, but i can't see any relation to this in the dimensions
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some ideas. (I don't know the real answer.)

Is the Corn Flakes box
  • just right for the average [child's] hand to hold?
  • more stable against tipping over?
  • better for packing/tiling?
    (Interesting: http://www.scamecanica.com/qpm/examples/ )
  • better for occupying more advertising space on your grocer's shelf?
 
I'm going to go with door #2 robphy.
 
Ill give you the golden ratio: 1:1:1 (a CUbe)

Waht don't you get about which one would cost more. The box with the larger surface ares costs more. Its that simple.
 
But who wants to pour cereal out of a cube-- plus its built into the mind of the consumer that that is the shape. It has all to deal with appeal to the consumer.
 
Nenad said:
Ill give you the golden ratio: 1:1:1 (a CUbe)

Waht don't you get about which one would cost more. The box with the larger surface ares costs more. Its that simple.


No, that is not the golden ratio. And if you had read the original post, the question was WHY would the cereal makers use a box that cost more. You appear to be saying that cereal makers use a box with more area BECAUSE it costs more. Do you really think they enjoy paying more money?
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, that is not the golden ratio. And if you had read the original post, the question was WHY would the cereal makers use a box that cost more. You appear to be saying that cereal makers use a box with more area BECAUSE it costs more. Do you really think they enjoy paying more money?
the golgen ratio IS 1:1:1. The only reason the companies don't make it this is because of appeal, advertisement and other factors.
 
Nenad said:
the golgen ratio IS 1:1:1. The only reason the companies don't make it this is because of appeal, advertisement and other factors.
1:1:1 is the optimal ratio, not the golden ratio. Thanks for the comments guys :)
 
Nenad said:
the golgen ratio IS 1:1:1. The only reason the companies don't make it this is because of appeal, advertisement and other factors.

It may be the "golgen" ratio but it certainly isn't the "golden ratio".
 
Back
Top