Talk:Drum (container)

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Packaging This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles

• I've at least triple the arty length. Someone needs to do some metric conversions. I'm taking on building a whole table of weights and measures because of this penance (I nominated Drum Wrench for VfD — what else can you call it? LOL) piece.
• BTW, the measurements given are undersize approximations of actual measurements. For length, diameter it should be ok to round up a few millimeters. Figure you have 3/8ths of inch for fudge factor. [[User:Fabartus| fabartus || TalktoMe]] 20:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article contradicts

It is thus obvious from both the metric and imperial gallon descriptions that the original intent of this drum was to contain space for 200 L and a bit of room for expansion. Thus the US description is either wrong or when filled with US gallons the max fill can only be 53 gallons and not 55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following long discussion of the naming conflict at Talk:44-gallon_drum, consensus was reached to move the article here as a subsection. I have done this. Additionally, I used US gallons as the primary unit in this section because consensus was reached in the aforementioned discussion that it is more broadly accepted among English speakers. The article now needs some proofreading and editing because I'm sure a lot of things are redundant since the move. Please feel free to make improvements where needed! Phasmatisnox (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. There is no consensus to use US gallons. It is precicely because consensus could not be reached betweeen using US or Imperial gallons, that this merge was proposed as a "tie breaker". So to avoid restarting that edit war, I propose we use metric units as the primary throughout the article. Roger (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not sure what the proper WP definition for "consensus" is, but there is obviously preference to the US gallon unit. Using metric units doesn't make sense in this application because with the exception of an upcoming trend in Australia, none of the English-speaking world calls it that. Eschew obfuscation. WP is for humans. Phasmatisnox (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the statement that "none of the English speaking world call it that" (55 Gallon drum)? It's been my experience that the English speaking world outside the US and UK is entirely metric, the UK is mostly metric and most people in the UK talk in liters unless they are in a pub ordering beer. Aviation fuel and car fuel are sold in litres or dekalitres in the case of Jet Fuel. Metricmike (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should continue to use whatever type of units were in this article before the other article was merged into it. Ditto for spelling, etc.. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt the long discussion at Talk:44-gallon_drum, I note that "55 gallon drum" now returns 158,000 finds in Google vs. 592,000 for "44 gallon drum". I can't understand how the situation reversed, but that's what I see. 130.133.86.231 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, before someone tries to convert 3/4" and 2" to metric. The sizes mentioned are actually pipe sizes, based on the nominal inside diameter of standard iron pipe as it developed over the years. The actual size is about 1/4" or so larger than that listed. I changed the article to mention the correct nomenclature as NPS.

I also took the liberty of mentioning Polyethylene (spelled diferently in UK non-scientific arenas) as it seems to be the typical plastic used (due to cost and impact resistance etc) abbreviated PE or HDPE. WonderWheeler (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be converted to metric using the proper metric designations of Diameter Nominal (DN) in which 3/4 in is DN20 and 2 in is DN50. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that the nominal capacity (listed capacity) on these drums is 200 Litres, 44 Imperial Gallons, 55 US Gallons. It always stuck me that the original design might have been 200 litres, the "roundest" figure which was then converted to a Nominal Imperial and US Gallon. I think the present Nominal capacity needs to be changed. Any comments? Metricmike (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When such containers are filled in the US, they put in 55 US gallons. In the (now former) Imperial gallon using countries they were filled with 44 Imperial gallons. In metric countries they put in 200 litres. In all cases the containers themselves are identical in all relevant respects - only the ullage varies. Roger (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These drums were originally designed to hold 200 L, but not to the brim. There is an intended 8 L excess space to allow for expansion when the contents are exposed to higher temperatures and to eliminate spillage when the lid is removed. 55 gallons - 208 L would be a fill to the brim, which would overflow and spill easier. If the contents state 55 gallons and it is not a fill to the brim, then the purchased is cheated. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is "nominal capacity". Just like a 2x4 isn't really 2 inches by 4 inches, one of these containers doesn't necessarily hold exactly the designated capacity, nor is any one really cheated by the fact that the actual contents are somewhat less than the nominal capacity. I imagine that the amount of free space left after filling may vary according to the substance in question and furthermore, anyone buying bulk materials will be well aware of the difference between actual and nominal capacity. 173.202.242.209 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The 55-gallon drum will fit handily four to a standard wooden shipping pallet" is not correct. What is a "standard pallet"? - there are many pallet sizes in use. The Pallet article states that the commonest US pallet is 1219x1016 mm: clearly four drums with an outside diameter approximately 600mm will not fit on this. Note that that picture shows 3 drums sitting (uncomfortably) on a pallet. While the pallet article says that there is a 1219x1219mm pallet for handling drums in the USA, it is only the third most common US size. None of the international ISO or Euro pallets would take four drums. I suggest that the above sentence be amended to something like "Drums are frequently transported on pallets for ease of handling".

Baska436 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of the typical empty or full weights of various types of drums or their components.

Davemc50 (talk) 19:08, 20 Feb 2015 (NZDT)

The "Safely Unloading Empty Steel Drums" PDF fact sheet given as a source states "Steel drums can weigh between 35 and 61 pounds when empty". Would be nice to have that in the article somewhere, preferably also SI units, maybe a second source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A62:14B2:6C01:6CE7:9EE7:551E:8AB2 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drum (container). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035522/http://books.historia.com.au/equal-to-the-task_v1-raasc/e1-p4_infra/e1-c17_o-f.html to http://books.historia.com.au/equal-to-the-task_v1-raasc/e1-p4_infra/e1-c17_o-f.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the 200-litre drum is referred to in the UK as a "44-gallon drum" is dubious, as the UK is almost entirely metricated. Should the word "formerly" be inserted here? Are there any sources referring to them as such? Hairy Dude (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard them referred to as 45 gallon drums (as opposed to 44) and it seems they are often sold in the UK as such, eg:

http://www.jandssimcox.co.uk/steel-drums.html https://www.smithsofthedean.co.uk/drums-and-barrels/steel-drums.html https://www.45gallondrums.com/

Midlandstoday (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not dubious in my mind - these predate metrification and are known (particularly amongst older folk) in their old measurements. I think it's appropriate considering that there are multiple terms in usage. Hollth (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]