h a l f b a k e r yOutside the bag the box came in.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Containers for all sorts of things are in demand all over
the
world. Hell, there are even entire chains of stores
devoted
to selling nothing but containers.
<rant>
The problem is that they're all over the effing shop when
it
comes to sizing.
Henceforth there is to be one standard
for sizing, so it
works like this:
A standard starting point (say, 1 litre) container will
occupy exactly the same shelf space as 4 x 1/4 litre
containers or 2 x 1/2 litre containers (Heights may be
varied, to allow for the space occupied by walls.)
The subsidiary sizing above 1 litre sees 2 x 1 litre
containers fit into a 2 litre container or 4 x 1 litre
containers fit into a 4 litre container; 2 x 4 into an 8
litre,
5 x 2 into a 10 and so on, up to a 1000 litre container,
which will be stackable in road, rail and sea shipping
containers.
If you can make this work with non-metric
measurements
then we'll go with that.
All other sizes are to be abolished immediately and their
manufacturers are to be executed, en masse, if they
deviate from the new standard.
</rant>
Similar idea
container_20design_20law
[hippo, May 05 2012]
Twenty-foot equivalent unit
http://en.wikipedia...oot_equivalent_unit
AKA intermodal containers or conex boxes [Alterother, May 05 2012]
[link]
|
| |
I'm much more modest in my request to just make the effing lids interchangeable. Hunting for the tupperware lid to fit the container in hand is my least favourite game in the world. |
|
| |
// All other sizes are to be abolished
immediately and their manufacturers are to
be executed, en masse, if they deviate from
the new standard // |
|
| |
Presumaby firey swords, and phrases like
"spare not even the children, lest the evil
persist" will be involved. |
|
| |
This actually makes a bit of sense from the shipping point
of view--a number of different-sized but compatible and
interlocking containers could be sent from all over to
central hubs, locked together Tetris-style into TEUs <link>,
shipped to other hubs and redistributed, eliminating the
need for secondary distribution centers and cutting down
on warehousing cost/time. |
|
| |
Element-resistant reusable containers that are brought
back to the store via a deposit incentive could bring the
products directly to the end-users, further eliminating the
need for unpacking/repackaging. The displaced workers
from secondary distribution points and repackaging centers
are put to work building and handling the MTEUCCs
(Modular Twenty-foot Equivalent Component Containers),
preventing jobloss while still streamlining the entire
consumer product distribution system. |
|
| |
I agree with your idea, [hippo]. In fact, I want to see
something like it extended and enhanced to ALL
containers, so that the plastic will live with the glass,
the cardboard will lie down with the steel, the wood
and the iron and the aluminium together; and a little
child will understand them. |
|
| |
Although it's a rant / let's all idea, it's a good one! Possibly some colour coding can go along with the standarization of sizes. [1 standard croissant] |
|
| |
I can only bun this as long as I can be sure that the
traditional Rentishams packaging will be the
template - change would be unthinkable. |
|
| |
Our smallest pack is a single-use travel tube,
which comes in a 3/8" x 31/80" x 4 17/54" box.
Next up is the "handyman" pack size (a tub,
applicator and silk polisher), which is 2 3/7" x 2
5/17" x 3 4/9". |
|
| |
Then you're into the Domestic, Estate and Empire
household packs, then the military packs (less in
demand these days, what with the decreasing use
of gliders in military operations). And of course
most of these are sold wholesale in multi-pack
containers. |
|
| |
We did try changing some of the pack sizes back in
the 1970's, what with decimalisation, but the
response of the public was, to say the least,
unfavourable. (Actually, that reminds me - we
really ought to try printing the new decimal prices
alongside the L.S.D. price at some point.) |
|
| |
However, our accounts department have
developed a theorem which says that a prime
number of each of the four smaller packs can be
fitted together to make a block which is only
7/19ths of a millimetre smaller than a perfect
cubic yard, if that helps. |
|
| |
Doesn't Rentisham's control their own international
shipping fleet? That should help them around the TEU
incompatibility, certainly. If not, I'm sure Maersk-Sealand
could be convinced to adopt an REU standard. |
|
| |
We send relatively little Rentisham's overseas but,
yes, that which we do ship is shipped on Rentisham's
vessels, the Lanconian and the St. Hubert. |
|
| |