I was showing off a Schmidt's of Philadelphia cone (185-4) to my brother in law today, and he asked why this particular cone top had a flat bottom when the most others have a concave bottom. Having never given it much thought, my first reaction was to say "concave was less likely to explode with pressure", but then I wasn't' sure. Maybe the concave made the can look fuller when it was first opened? But if so, why wouldn't they just make the can skinnier to fit on the bottling line?
Is there a correct answer as to why many early cones were flat bottom, and all later cones are concave?
joel
Flat Bottom cone tops
Moderators: Forum Moderator, Current Officers, Previous Officers
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:56 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 18
- BCCA Number: 16085
- eBay name: rusteditor
- Year Started Collecting: 1974
- Location: Plano, TX
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 80 times
- Zodiac:
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Flat Bottom cone tops
By early 1936 the Continental flat bottom cones were replaced by concave bottoms. The later flat bottom cones (e.g. Schmidt’s, Esslibgers, Hornung) were by American. My guess is their cones were adapted from their existing flat top canning lines.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Phil
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Always looking for cones or cone variations I don't have.
- menke
- Rust Governor
- Posts: 2210
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:58 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 406
- BCCA Number: 23654
- eBay name: www.onefullquart.com
- Year Started Collecting: 1979
- Location: Calvert Hills, for the duration
- Been thanked: 240 times
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Flat Bottom cone tops
I guess it's all speculation, I've not heard any discussion of this problem in early cones from guys who dig flat bottom cones or the engineers who made them. Seam bulging is another story. Continental made perfectly fine flat lids, it seems.
I haven't heard this question yet and it got me thinking. I'd bet a little money it has to do with the length of the fill tubes used on bottle filling machines. Many early cone-canning brewers were encouraged to use bottle-filling machines to fill the similarly shaped cones. Glass is thicker, especially on the bottom of a bottle, and the fill tubes would all be of a length to begin filling down near the bottom with a minimum of splashing. Put a can in that same spot and all of a sudden the beer would be pouring out almost an inch above the bottom, turning into foam and interfering with a smooth, efficient fill. I suspect this would have been an early problem and the concave bottom returned the relative position of the can bottom to a happy place without the brewer having to buy a whole new set of fill tubes.
At least in the bottling lines I worked, this was occasionally an issue when switching between bottle manufacturers with slightly different dimensions. The gas displaced by the beer flows up and out, away from the beer. There was a small hole in the tube right where you wanted the fill height to end up; any extra beer would go up the hole. Then when the bottle drops away from the filler, there's a standard, preset volume of headspace (ie, empty bottle) left. Change the shape of the container and the wrong amount of beer will end up in it. Until you adjust your tubes!
Anyway, the relevant part is if the beer foams up, you bottle foam instead of beer and lots of things go wrong downstream. Anybody have access to all the old trade magazines?
I haven't heard this question yet and it got me thinking. I'd bet a little money it has to do with the length of the fill tubes used on bottle filling machines. Many early cone-canning brewers were encouraged to use bottle-filling machines to fill the similarly shaped cones. Glass is thicker, especially on the bottom of a bottle, and the fill tubes would all be of a length to begin filling down near the bottom with a minimum of splashing. Put a can in that same spot and all of a sudden the beer would be pouring out almost an inch above the bottom, turning into foam and interfering with a smooth, efficient fill. I suspect this would have been an early problem and the concave bottom returned the relative position of the can bottom to a happy place without the brewer having to buy a whole new set of fill tubes.
At least in the bottling lines I worked, this was occasionally an issue when switching between bottle manufacturers with slightly different dimensions. The gas displaced by the beer flows up and out, away from the beer. There was a small hole in the tube right where you wanted the fill height to end up; any extra beer would go up the hole. Then when the bottle drops away from the filler, there's a standard, preset volume of headspace (ie, empty bottle) left. Change the shape of the container and the wrong amount of beer will end up in it. Until you adjust your tubes!
Anyway, the relevant part is if the beer foams up, you bottle foam instead of beer and lots of things go wrong downstream. Anybody have access to all the old trade magazines?
Better to drive 950 miles and kick asz than go a thousand miles and get nothing.
- Plowboy
- Cone Top
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:58 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 647
- BCCA Number: 30746
- Year Started Collecting: 1974
- Location: Northeast Ohio
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 12 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Flat Bottom cone tops
The more I think of it, the more this answer makes sense from an engineering standpoint. I'll bet this is the real reason for the switch to concave bottoms.
joel
Collector of all US beer cans plus hockey and baseball beer cans