Slashdot Mirror


MIT Creates Superhydrophobic Condiment Bottles

An anonymous reader writes "First we had a superhydrophobic spray that meant no dirt or sweat could stick to your clothes. Then a hydrophobic nanocoating was created for circuit boards to make them water resistant. Now MIT has gone a step further and solved one of the ongoing problems of using condiments: they've figured out how to make a food-safe superhydrophobic coating for food packaging. It means ketchup and mayonnaise will no longer be stuck to the insides of the bottle, and therefore there will no longer be any waste. What's amusing is this seems to be a happy accident. The MIT team was actually investigating slippery coatings to stop gas and oil lines clogging as well as how to stop a surface from having ice form on it. Now their lab is filled with condiments for continued testing of their food-safe version."

292 comments

  1. I just flip the bottle upside down by Osgeld · · Score: 0, Redundant

    then either give it a good shake, or store it for next time

    1. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by issicus · · Score: 1

      ketchup lovers rejoice!!!

    2. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by poity · · Score: 5, Funny

      I spin them with my arm out like a centrifuge and pretend I'm refining the ketchup. Also, woe be to he who doesn't cap the bottle all the way.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      True story... I used to work in a restaurant. If you've ever seen the movie cocktail, you'll get a rough idea of how I was at work: one man show. One day the cap was NOT on tightly. Poor girl never saw it coming. Blonde to redhead in .5 seconds.

    4. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      My fathers special technique is to hold the bottle in one hand, mouth downwards, bottle at approx 45 degrees, and move the bottle towards the other hand, which is held palm up, with a diagonal motion. The bottle's shoulder should strike the gap between thumb and forefinger, forcing a limited amount of sauce out of the bottle, very useful for a viscous subtance.

    5. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did the curtains match the carpet?

    6. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by jimmydevice · · Score: 2

      About 1973, One of the Taunton kids (Neil) and I were in his parents restaurant, the Spouting Horn in Depoe Bay Or. We sat down at the counter and ordered burgers and fries. Delivered, He opened the ketchup bottle and slapped down on the opening. The bottom of the bottle dropped out and everything within 6 feet was splattered.
      Sounds like a good idea.

    7. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      did the curtains match the carpet?

      Depends on the time of the month.

    8. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'll separate the semen from the ketchup. Nice thinking.

    9. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to turn that comment fucking nasty...

    10. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was actually present once when someone did that the other way around: they were banging on the back end of the bottle with the heel of their hand to try and get it started and the bottle literally separated in half right there in his hand. The neck end slipped through his fingers and crashed to the floor, spraying everyone sitting at our table (and a few tables around us) under their tables from the knees down with ketchup with some broken glass fragments thrown in for good measure.

      The best part was his reaction to it, he was so completely unprepared for that possibility that for a few seconds he just kinda sat there with the busted end of the ketchup bottle in one hand (as it quickly emptied of the remaining ketchup onto his lap and the floor) with an expression much like the one on the T-1000's face when he gets blown up at the end of Terminator 2.

    11. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by j-stroy · · Score: 1

      i use the same technique.. very effective and controllable. tap tap tap, yum.

    12. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Around here restaurants use plastic "cheater bottles". I call them that because they are made the same size and shape as the ketchup bottles you buy in the grocery store, but they are made of ketchup colored red plastic, so they look like a full bottle of ketchup.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just buy a centrifuge? lol.

    14. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would Heinz et al bother paying extra so their customers don't waste as much of their product [ie, so they don't return the store and buy more sooner]?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never underestimate the power of marketing combined with how gullible people are.

    16. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In sane places (like Germany) the industry pays the cost of waste reclamation for its products. One of the costs of recycling condiment containers is washing them prior to actual recycling. If the process here (or some other one) can reduce the cost of washing the containers for less than they add to production costs, they will be a win.

      In insane places (like USA) things like waste are externalities that are only partially internalized. As a result we have a lot of waste (not just the regular kind, but less efficiency, too).

    17. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it gives them a superior product.

    18. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because Heinz et al can't afford the loss in customers when just one of their competitors releases a "No-Waste Bottle!". Seriously, getting the last bit out of the ketchup bottle has been a 1st World Problem since the stuff was invented. All manner of "techniques" and devices have been invented; Slapping the bottle, standing it on its cap (hence the Top Down bottles not available), inserting a knife to scoop it out...

      Besides, as long as you're using ketchup correctly (an additional flavour, not the only one) they're all much of a likeness. If one company makes a bottle which has no leftover bits (which also makes recycling much easier), it'll fly off the shelves like ketchup from a hydrophobic bottle.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    19. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Want to bet that if this material made its way into products that the bottle would be redesigned and coincidentally the total volume was reduced by a substantial amount. That or they'll hike the price up way beyond the 0.1c or whatever it costs to actually apply it.

    20. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      "In 'sane' countries, the government makes us wash our trash."

      And then they rationalize this as some sort of natural "externality" to justify it.

    21. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless, of course, this coating is something we don't want in our dumps . What happens when hydrophobic crap hits the water table? How does it affect the breakdown of garbage back into the environment? Does it solve the problem of plastic leeching estrogen-like chains into food or make it worse? What if it gets into food?

                If it is safe however, I propose a protective coating for building foundations, basements and roofs. Include it in paint. Line gasoline tanks. Plenty of places in the world that water isn't welcome.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    22. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Union , Trash washes government. No ,wait, that's here!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    23. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Just like the Bugs Bunny cartoon! You...got me, Mac....the lights is gettin' dim...I can hear angels....(plop)

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    24. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Waiting for a spammer to come tell us about feminine protection now....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    25. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by pev · · Score: 1

      Wont waste as much? Most ketchup fans will be pouring on twice as much now they don't have to be so patient!

    26. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I particularly love the part where you say you used to work in a restaurant.

    27. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      No, they are not all alike.

    28. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I always hate those things...I want to see the ketchup inside the container before I pour it all over my food, in case there's things growing in it. *gag*

      I know that probably doesn't happen very often, but I just can't trust the sanctity of the condiments at a restaurant on blind faith.

      Probably has to do with the fact that I was once served spoiled milk at a McDonald's when I was a kid; it was a hot day, and I just threw my head back and took a big knock of what turned out to be curdled milk...I still retch a little when thinking about it, and it was 25 years ago.

    29. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Actually they're not remotely alike. A study was done (find the link with Google if you're interested) and found that Heinz ketchup hasn't changed flavour in so long because it is essentially perfect. Nobody else has created a product that even remotely competes with it.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    30. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I have a suspicion that with the amount of both salt and sugar in a ketchup bottle very few ever go bad.

      That said, I suppose externally introduced molds and such could get in there ...

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    31. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a restaurant they "marry" the condiments together at the end of the night, taking one half-filled bottle and pouring the contents into another half-filled bottle. Very, very easy for something foreign to get in there.

    32. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by BKX · · Score: 2

      Oddly, those red bottles prevent that. (I manage a restaurant) Now we just wait for them to empty and then get a new one. Since we don't have to worry about the crappy look of an empty ketchup bottle, we no longer even consider combining bottles. Besides, the health inspector would shit a brick if he ever caught you doing it. At most restaurants that have ketchup on the table, the stuff moves so fast, there's no worrying about spoiled ketchup anyway. I have 30 tables, and I use 60 bottles of ketchup per week, and we specialize in breakfast, not burgers and fries, just to give some perspective.

    33. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I thought I didn't like ketchup until I tried some homemade stuff that was less sweet and salty than is typical.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    34. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those damn socialists and their trash washing. Good thing that the US scores higher on every measure of economic and personal success than Germany.

      Oh, wait, right...

    35. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Its more the vinegar that prevents bacterial and mold growth, but you're essentially correct.

    36. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      My mother dated a guy that worked as a maitre d' at a 5-star restaurant in Philadelphia back in the 80's and he used to tell us all sorts of disgusting shit that used to go on there, for instance, they would re-serve spreading butter (they were fancy schmancy so no foil wrapped crap there) and uneaten rolls...not to mention other uneaten side dishes. It was at the owner's direction to save money.

      I don't even remember the name of the place anymore, as I was both a child and it was ages ago, but stories like that among other things (like the spoiled milk incident I talked about above) have made me very particular about checking my food. Probably annoys people at restaurants but I just can't eat the food unless I'm reasonably sure it's clean.

    37. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You mean like CleanMyPussC.com?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    38. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I haven't gotten ketchup in a glass bottle for a long, long time. These days they're plastic squeeze bottles and you can squeeze out as much as you want as fast as you want.

    39. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      My father once told me he was at a diner where they apparently refilled the ketchup bottles without cleaning them first.. he poured some on his plate, and a few minutes later, the surface of the ketchup was covered with bubbles from some sort of fermentation I guess.. ugh.

    40. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Can't stand the stuff!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    41. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " they're all much of a likeness."
      I think not:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biW2i9yK-10

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    42. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That explains why its going through safety testing.

      I wonder how it impacts the buoyancy of the object.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    43. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Non dairy/egg condiments are fine.
      The turnover in restaurants for ketchup is very high.

      Been there with the milk. Want' McDonalds, but it was certainly chunky!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    44. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant because captain obvious was staying a well known method that everybody already fucking knows about already. Perhaps you should look at the dictionary for the various uses of the word redundant.

    45. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm just happy that not every country does things the way you (or I) find sane, so that each of us can live somewhere that makes us happy. Now if the US would only return to sanity on light bulbs!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

      Why would Heinz et al bother paying extra so their customers don't waste as much of their product [ie, so they don't return the store and buy more sooner]?

      Heinz won't pay extra, you will as a customer.

    47. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Include it in paint.

      That might complicate the painting process... you know, the part where the paint sticks to the wall?

    48. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Include it in paint.

      That might complicate the painting process... you know, the part where the paint sticks to the wall?

      Hmmm...methinks you've just stumbled on a new market for this product. Anti-graffiti coatings for buildings / billboards / etc. etc.

      Course, it won't stop punks trying to etch their 'art' into the public's awareness, but at least it would stop any gradeschooler who got his hands on a can of paint. Also would complicate things if you ever wanted to re-paint anything with this coating applied...but OTOH, the original paint should be protected from rain damage at least, if not fading or impact damage. Hmmm...I think my parents would have liked this very much for our garage door and fences when I was growing up.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    49. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Heinz invented American tomato ketchup and for the past 136 years has been the best ketchup ever. They would be retarded to pass this innovation up, because if Hunts took advantage of it, people in this crap economic situation might decide wasteless ketchup bottles are worth more than brand loyalty. B) They could and would have to charge more per bottle, assuming production costs really rose - even if they didn't Heinz could still pretend they did.

      I live directly across from a Heinz portion control center and trust me, that place isn't going anywhere. They'll do what they have to.

    50. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a market for practical jokes, if it comes in sprayable form: Coat the marketing department's whiteboards on Friday evening, then enjoy the show on Monday.

      - T

    51. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Don't buy it then if it's too expensive!

      Seriously, why are you crying about some fantasy about a special bottle costing too much?

    52. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Think beyond water-born coatings. So many others to choose from.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    53. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put much faith in "testing" anything critical by either private or government agency. Far too many chances for human failings of both accidental and purposeful kinds. Kind of a FAIL in our " advanced" civilization.

      Yeah it would be interesting to see if it has any unexpected properties.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    54. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by spazzmo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how it would affect the drag coefficient of boats

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    55. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did that with my pecker, too.

    56. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      Who said I said the U.S. was better? We have the same nonsense in a lot of cities and towns here.

    57. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      perhaps so but it doesn't matter. Competition ALWAYS works. When the patent expires another company will offer the same bottle type with 10% more ketchup for the same price.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    58. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by pakar · · Score: 1

      It will make the water hydrophobic and it will all just go poof..

    59. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like when you buy brakes, the ones that say guaranteed usually sell more from the ones that don't from what I've read.
      But I suppose we will see what happens when he tries to market it to Companies.

    60. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ketchup is downright nasty and I'll take barbeque, even lousy barbeque, over ketchup every damn time I'm given the option.

      Take tomato paste, add salt, sugar, and vinegar, and you have ketchup. Gross.

    61. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      Hydrophobic means it repels water-based substances (like ketchup). The graffiti "artists" will just switch to an oil-based paint. Most hydrophobic substances actually attract oily substances, so this coating would make oil-based paint stick even better.

    62. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by issicus · · Score: 1

      hmm.. have you heard of perlite? imagine coating your dirt with it . increased drainage in a spray can. and cancer when you eat a plant that grew from it.

    63. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Hmm, hadn't heard anything about pearlite except potting soil seems to use it. Figured it was something they used to retain water, lol.
      Carcinogenic? Typical...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    64. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mayo is oily. Lots of sauces and condiments are oily. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to work for oily stuff too.

      Also, "repels" is really the wrong word to use. In fact, water sticks together more strongly than it sticks to this surface. Its surface tension pulls it off the surface - as it moves, it doesn't leave droplets or a film that adhered to the surface more strongly than it adhered to the main body of the water.

    65. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have some more flavorful Hunt's ketchup without all that nasty HFCS.It's not that I think it's bad for you, it's just gross.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    66. Re:I just flip the bottle upside down by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Sure, but survey after survey shows people love the taste of high fructose corn syrup. Why do you think its used to flavour Pepsi? You may be the rare human who doesn't prefer the taste of Heinz, but its rare.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  2. How durable? by j-stroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it durable enough to be used on washless or "rinse-off" dishes? Also possible application as a coating on bathroom fixtures, or perhaps applied to the inside of wax paper bags so the icing stays on my take-out snax.. come to think of it toothpaste tubes and racing swimsuits. Let alone the prank potential!

    This stuff should probably be shipped in double walled tanker trucks.. hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.

    1. Re:How durable? by couchslug · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Is it durable enough to be used on washless or "rinse-off" dishes?"

      To hell with the dishes, think of the Fleshlights!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:How durable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to see what it does when spilt on a roadway. 405 preferrably (west coast here)

    3. Re:How durable? by Yaztromo · · Score: 2

      This stuff should probably be shipped in double walled tanker trucks.. hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.

      Yeah, but shipping it in large tankers would be awesome -- if they had a spill, the compound would simply hover about 1.5m off the surface of the waves!

      Yaz

    4. Re:How durable? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      As funny as it sounds, to reduce skin friction, you need to introduce turbulence - a very special type of turbulence. This has been the focus of quite a bit of research especially for aircraft and boats. This link (PDF warning) will explain how this is achieved.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:How durable? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      This stuff should probably be shipped in double walled tanker trucks.. hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.

      Is hydrophobic synonym with frictionless?

      If not, price aside, then it might be even a good idea, as an improvement for the water draining capacity of the road.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:How durable? by Macgrrl · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd really rather not...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    7. Re:How durable? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      "Is it durable enough to be used on washless or "rinse-off" dishes?"

      To hell with the dishes, think of the Fleshlights!

      Then let's hope it's washable.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:How durable? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      How about on cars and jets? Would that reduce drag and keep the water off?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:How durable? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      As funny as it sounds, to reduce skin friction, you need to introduce turbulence - a very special type of turbulence. This has been the focus of quite a bit of research especially for aircraft and boats. This link (PDF warning) will explain how this is achieved.

      That's not friction. That's drag.

      Heinz shaped their bottles specifically so that the ketchup would be harder to get out, thereby adding to the illusion that their product was thicker and better.

    10. Re:How durable? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need to be washable. That's the whole point. Nothing sticks to it.

    11. Re:How durable? by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      NorCal, too, apparently. The proper syntax is "The 405" ;)

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    12. Re:How durable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is hydrophobic synonym with frictionless?

      If not, price aside, then it might be even a good idea, as an improvement for the water draining capacity of the road.

      No it's not. Properly crowning the road works just fine, btw.

    13. Re:How durable? by j-stroy · · Score: 1

      A dry road with a little oil on it drives fine.. then when it rains, very slippery. It is not the oil, its the combination of it with water thats the problem.

    14. Re:How durable? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      To hell with the dishes, think of the Fleshlights!

      Sorry, I'm not so for vol-au-vent ;)

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    15. Re:How durable? by instagib · · Score: 1

      That's a slippery slope you went on there.

    16. Re:How durable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hate to see what it does when spilt on a roadway.

      Where's your "scientific curiosity"? I'd love to see what it does when dumped in a pond!

    17. Re:How durable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking bedsheets!

    18. Re:How durable? by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      probably, but i bet its "hand-wash" only

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    19. Re:How durable? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      the illusion that their product was thicker

      Illusion? I'm not claiming that I've tried every other kind of ketchup out there, but it is thicker than the other national brands I've seen, and generic store brands (yes, I know store brands are often made by the same name brands, though possibly of a lower quality).

      I purposely left the 'better' part off, since that's subjective. (I personally think it's better, but as much for that it doesn't separate as much as other ketchups... and I like the taste, which probably means they put more sugar in it than other brands.)

    20. Re:How durable? by BigLonn · · Score: 1

      yes, the cars would slide off

  3. Wrong Item by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Need superhydrophobic keyboards.

    1. Re:Wrong Item by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

      Mod up. I just last night spilled half a bottle of beer into an irreplaceable Model M keyboard. I'm lucky I had another. Maybe I can take it apart and clean it. Also, back to on-topic: Isn't Teflon already pretty hydrophobic (though a bit too expensive to make throwaway ketchup bottles with)?

    2. Re:Wrong Item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I'm lucky I had another.

      I don't think irreplaceable means what you think it means...

    3. Re:Wrong Item by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      >I'm lucky I had another.

      I don't think irreplaceable means what you think it means...

      He has 20 of them. Each one irreplaceable.

    4. Re:Wrong Item by Burdell · · Score: 2
    5. Re:Wrong Item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      another beer, not another irreplaceable keyboard

    6. Re:Wrong Item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Model M, silly mortal. No quantity of beer is a threat, unless it's the sort of brew enjoyed by Xenomorphs.

      Stick that puppy in the dishwasher and let it dry thoroughly.

    7. Re:Wrong Item by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Can't you just throw those in the dishwasher? I swear someone told me they were dishwasher safe (as long as you let them dry thoroughly before using, and didn't use detergent like a retard), but I've never been lucky enough to own one and even if I did, don't know if I would dare try unless I was in your desperate situation.

      Since you have nothing to lose...experiment time!

    8. Re:Wrong Item by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Most electronics aren't harmed by getting wet. They're harmed by getting wet while electrified. So long as you thoroughly dry them before hooking them back up, it shouldn't be a problem. Thus, you can wash a Model M in the dishwasher if you disconnect it first and dry it afterward, but if you spill beer in it it's probably toast.

    9. Re:Wrong Item by operagost · · Score: 1

      Teflon eventually breaks down when heat is applied, which is why it is going out of favor on cookware. I prefer a shot of cooking spray on stainless steel to synthetic "pepper" on my food.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Wrong Item by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unicomp is not a replacement for the original Model M - their quality is lower.

      That said, you can still buy the real Model M. But, since they don't make them anymore, they are irreplaceable in a sense.

  4. Freak coincidence by overshoot · · Score: 1

    And curiously, a radio ad I hear a lot lately is starts off about the super-high-tech drains that can't clog. Then it goes on to say that those drains don't exist and pimps a drain-cleaning company.

    So how long will it be before we have superhyrdophobic sewer pipe?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Freak coincidence by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And curiously, a radio ad I hear a lot lately is starts off about the super-high-tech drains that can't clog.

      Can't clog? You mean even if I'm throwing a bucket load of superglue down the drain?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Freak coincidence by chromas · · Score: 1

      Well, first, you'd have to visit every store in your city and clear out their entire inventory of those tiny, tiny tubes to get even half a bucket-worth of super glue.

    3. Re:Freak coincidence by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Well, first, you'd have to visit every store in your city and clear out their entire inventory of those tiny, tiny tubes to get even half a bucket-worth of super glue.

      You reckon?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Freak coincidence by chromas · · Score: 2

      Shh! Let me wallow in my ignorance.

    5. Re:Freak coincidence by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      That would probably line some of the rougher areas of the pipe pretty well, but if you've ever tried to superglue metal, it's almost impossible to get the bond you expect. Glues just don't stick to metal very well - I don't even completely understand why. I doubt superglue down the pipes is going to clog them as much as expected.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    6. Re:Freak coincidence by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1
      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    7. Re:Freak coincidence by cffrost · · Score: 1

      And curiously, a radio ad I hear a lot lately is starts off about the super-high-tech drains that can't clog.

      Can't clog? You mean even if I'm throwing a bucket load of superglue down the drain?

      Sure, just pour an equal volume of acetone down the drain. You can get acetone by the gallon at the hardware store. If you have plastic pipes, put your bucket under the sink first, in order to catch your acetone for future reuse.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:Freak coincidence by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      A metal surface is not porrous and usually very smooth, and there is no way for superglue to make a (stable) chemical bond to the surface. There is nothing to hold on to.

    9. Re:Freak coincidence by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And curiously, a radio ad I hear a lot lately is starts off about the super-high-tech drains that can't clog.

      Can't clog? You mean even if I'm throwing a bucket load of superglue down the drain?

      Sure, just pour an equal volume of acetone down the drain. You can get acetone by the gallon at the hardware store. If you have plastic pipes, put your bucket under the sink first, in order to catch your acetone for future reuse.

      Won't work with polyethylene plastics.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:Freak coincidence by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I dont think super glue will work. However, the mean under normal conditions. And every one know its. Stop being an ass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Freak coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it fills the trap and hardens, you're damn well stuck with replacing the trap because you'll never get that lump of glue out. It doesn't matter if it made a good bond or not - it could be completely loose and its shape alone would prevent you from getting it out.

    12. Re:Freak coincidence by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I dont think super glue will work.

      Why not? Superglue is not water based, hydrophobia might not help.

      Besides, the sprayed surface becomes super-hydrophobic as a matter of its surface structure.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  5. Maybe it's irrational... by nomel · · Score: 0

    ...but I definitely have a fear of consuming or inhaling anything nano-particle based. But, I also think it's insane that we have no long term medical studies...of anything really.

    1. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Tr3vin · · Score: 2

      As long as consuming it provides a nice coat inside my veins, I'm good with it.

    2. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by rodarson2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Should we start long-term medical studies of things before the things are invented?
      But seriously, there are a lot of people investigating nanoparticle safety. Some of them across the hall from me. Time will tell whether your fear is well-founded or not.

    3. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is 'nano-particle' based.

    4. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

      True. Just this morning, I wondered why there hasn't been any long-term medical study about crotch-punching Mark Zuckerberg for hours at a time. Will you injure your hand? Should you wear gloves? Take breaks every 15 minutes? We just don't know. That's why we need these studies.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kinda feel the same way. Glass works fine, and if I don't get that grungy little bit at the end of the bottle, well, I can live with that. No, if this coating can cause less friction the inside of, say an oil pipeline, or maybe even gas lines, or coolant lines in a car, then good on 'em. Just so long as they don't start trying to pump my catsup to me.

    6. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      As long as it's not tested on animals!

    7. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      Anything Nanoparticle Based?
      What about all the food you eat? It's full of ribosomes! Nano/micrometer sized robots packed into every bite of organic food. AND they construct more of themselves! They're Von Neumann Machines! /Pedantic

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    8. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True, but then there are things that are organic and food and things that are organic and not food--either be indigestible or outright poison. Meanwhile, most said nano organic things are mostly contained until they enter the digestive track--something which above nano-particles are unlikely to be--and aren't inhale-able/injected--there's very few things you can direct inject--, and the body can usually safely broken down in the digestive track those organic nano-particles or they can be contained and expelled by the body before entering the blood stream--a by-product of billions of years of digestive and defensive evolution to extant, potentially lethal organic or inorganic nanoparticles. But, like I was saying, that's still far from foolproof and there's still lots of stuff that can kill us.

      So, yea, I understand your pedantic point, but I'm pretty sure the discussion is on man-made nanoparticles and cutting out "man-made" is just shorthand. Meanwhile, I'm not a supporter of the idea of halting the use of man-made nanoparticles until long-term medical studies are done. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do those studies as man-made nanoparticles used, to see if they really are a threat. It's the same with just about anything radically new and innovative, really, because there's a lot of room for not only positive outcomes but pretty extensive side-effects. I mean, I don't think it likely that all the major conceived designs for man-made nanoparticles (ie, the expected foundation and components) have an inherently Achilles heel of being unsafe, but then who's to say there won't be a man-made nanoparticle version of DDT or asbestos and the component responsible is present in a large percentage of man-made nanoparticles? Such would likely mean simply reworking those man-made nanoparticles to overcome the side-effects. Still, the damage would be done. :/ But, that's just a sad truth of life, with hindsight and everything. I mean, to know if progress is harmful or not, you have to progress first. :)

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    9. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by ldobehardcore · · Score: 1

      What a well thought out and cogent point.

      I was just being a smartass. I actually agree with your point.

      I certainly wouldn't be comfotable ingesting a bleeding edge, anthropogenic nanostructure rich substance without at least some animal studies first.

      And before the bleeding heart PETA folks get on my ass about animal testing let me say that: since we don't have a theory of everything, there are always unaccountable effects of substances that simply can't be calculated from theory. Animal testing done as humanely as possible saves lives. And anybody who would die so a rat doesn't have to can kiss my grits and enjoy the possible and likely systemic damage from untested materials.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    10. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      What's a little asbestosis between friends?

    11. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But, I also think it's insane that we have no long term medical studies...of anything really.

      That's because you were raised in a culture of fear, inculcated with protectionist expectations from infancy. As such, you're easily manipulated and frightened, your highest aspiration being to live as long as medically possible. Any jeopardy that might deprive you of your eventual and inevitable decrepitude you remand to your protectors to be outlawed for all, lest you experience the trauma of even witnessing its consequences.

      You and most of the other ~1.5E9 Western sheeple.

    12. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      IN them is okay, but not ON them.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    13. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nanoparticle have been around for over a billion years...
      enough natural research there, we've been eating Nanoparticle ever since we started producing pottery and enamels...

      you've got a pseudo scientific christian loby groups wanting to return your country back into the stone age so they can make huge profits on your idiocy...

    14. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      the body can usually safely broken down in the digestive track those organic nano-particles or they can be contained and expelled by the body before entering the blood stream--a by-product of billions of years of digestive and defensive evolution to extant, potentially lethal organic or inorganic nanoparticles.

      I mean, I don't think it likely that all the major conceived designs for man-made nanoparticles (ie, the expected foundation and components) have an inherently Achilles heel of being unsafe,

      You more or less explained the achilles heel of nano-particles.
      It doesn't matter if they're inherently toxic or poisonous, because they're all irritants.

      Even gold, which is about as biologically inert as things get, causes the exact same symptoms as every other nano-particle.

      Still, the damage would be done. :/ But, that's just a sad truth of life, with hindsight and everything. I mean, to know if progress is harmful or not, you have to progress first. :)

      That's what animal studies are for. So that we don't look back and think "oops, we shouldn't have done that"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    15. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone bought too many facebook shares...

    16. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but we probably should before declaring something 'food safe'

    17. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The problem is with nanoparticles we can't break down. For example asbestos: The compunt itself isn't poisonous, it's the fact that it's formed into near-indestructable nano-sized razorblades. While man made nanoparticles can be made of non-poisonous stuff the problem is wit their phisical form and dimensions.
      Now I do hope they aren't creating artifical asbestos, but the danger is there. What if there is a part of the nano structure that has these tiny blade like properties. If these parts break off due to wear and tear there may be trouble.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    18. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      As long as you believe we haven't secretly learned to create fully remote controlled nanobots posing as hydrophobic coatings ... you'll be fine.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    19. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by mellon · · Score: 1

      This is so true. We really have nothing to fear. All compounds are safe, as long as the manufacturer says they are. I don't understand why people have so little faith in our corporate overlords.

    20. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wondered why there hasn't been any long-term medical study about crotch-punching Mark Zuckerberg for hours at a time. Will you injure your hand? Should you wear gloves? Take breaks every 15 minutes? We just don't know. That's why we need these studies.

      I volunteered to participate in that study, only it wasn't Zuckerberg, it was Wittgenstein. We had to dig the old bastard up, and frankly the methodology was poor, I don't think the conclusions were valid. We're going to have to repeat it with a living subject, so we'll need you to bring Zuckerberg down to the lab. Please make sure he's conscious and undamaged so our base conditions won't be as fundamentally flawed as the Wittgenstein attempt.

    21. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But seriously, there are a lot of people investigating ways to make money, regardless of safety.
      .

      FTFY

    22. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      hahahaha.
      Wow..just.. wow.

      1) You are inhaling nano particles right now! stop breathing aaahh!
      2) Yes, there are long medical studies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And we do. If non appear in the organs, and it isn't absorbed, you're good to go. Basically.
      I could break the testing down for you, but I don't think you could understand it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "and aren't inhale-able"
      wrong.

      "cutting out "man-made" is just shorthand. "
        and a bad one. Some nano particle used for materials and foods aren't man made, or they are a replication of things man didn't create.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The point is, there is no "safe" or "unsafe" in any subtle way. Anything that's not obviously "safe" or "unsafe" from minimal testng (such as nanoparticals-based products) is almost certianly "somewhat safe" - safe for most people, most of the time, but likely unsafe for someone in some condition.

      You should be OK with that. Life is full of som many low-risk "dangers" that you could never list them all, but people seem to irrationally pick on one or two to fret over. Worrying about anything that presents less of a health risk than lightining is just stupid. Get oin with life, and accept that some dangers will inevitably be discovered the hard way - it's OK, statistically, it just doesn't matter.

      If you wish to be free of the mental hadnicap of irrational fear, I recommend never watching TV news again.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Here is why you're being irrational. There are already nano-particles in your ketchup.

    27. Re:Maybe it's irrational... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sarcastic implication that I or anyone else believes 'we really have nothing to fear' reveals a deep misunderstanding. There are many things to fear and new things to fear appear regularly, way ahead of whomever you think is responsible for protecting you.

      The universe made fear a part of you and surrounded you with a plethora of things to fear. The fact that this astonishes you and causes you to demand protection (thereby empowering whomever claims to capable of providing it,) is symptomatic of your training.

      Among men for whom said training did not take this behavior is considered pathetic. Don't don't let that bother you at all however; you're definitely among friends in this world.

  6. What is this stuff? by methano · · Score: 2

    I wonder what this stuff is. It's pretty easy to silylate vast quantities of glassware in a vacuum oven with hexamethyldisilazane. Water beads up on the glass after treatment. It's covalent so it doesn't wash off unless you add something to dissolve the glass. Glass surfaces act sort of like an iPad. Maybe that's what they do to it to give it that greasy feel.

    Of course, the article provided a wealth of chemical information as one would expect.

    1. Re:What is this stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass surfaces act sort of like an iPad?

      What?

    2. Re:What is this stuff? by methano · · Score: 1

      Put a drop of water on the glass surface of an iPad and put a drop of water on an ordinary piece of glass. The water on the iPad will ball up while the water on ordinary glass will adhere. Try it.

    3. Re:What is this stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You first. Make sure to post the link to the youtube video.

    4. Re:What is this stuff? by sFurbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      TMS'ing a surface just makes it lipophile, so fat will stick to it. If you want a chemical hydro- and lipophobe, perfluorinated hydrocarbons are the way to go (teflon, microwave popcorn bags, muffin forms, basically anything paper or board that contacts food without problems). It seems they are not that healthy, so superhydrophobic structures might be the way to go, at least for food containers. Read up on it, it is pretty cool.

    5. Re:What is this stuff? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. See what happens when you submerse in iPad. It is amazing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. True progress means... by ACAx1985 · · Score: 1

    Now the product will cost more to use this technology. Don't worry, you'll still be getting the same 8 ounces of product, but it's okay that they charge you more because you'll finally be able to use all 8oz!

    1. Re:True progress means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not the way things work. Presumably, if people can actually use all of the product, they won't have to buy as much of it. Lower demand equates to lower prices.

      A better question may be whether this would affect the process of plastic recycling.

      Oh, and whether my idea of mustard in a tube like toothpaste is now obsolete.

    2. Re:True progress means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  8. This presumes the waste is undesirable... by macraig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but it's not, not to the people running the companies that sell the condiments and spec the packaging. They WANT people to waste the product, because that means the companies can sell more, and it's far cheaper for those companies to make more than it is for consumers to waste it. Guess who winds up profiting from the waste?

    Another example: something so mundane as toothpaste. For decades there have been TV commercials and print ads depicting actors using completely obscene amounts of the stuff, literally an order of magnitude more than is required for an effective result. Colgate and other companies have been encouraging that waste for decades, and that stuff has consequences when it winds up in bodies of water. I also suspect there was a bit of sinister collaboration in the design of at least one electric toothbrush, again intended to manipulate people to use more toothpaste than required: one model originally had just the useful rotating circular head, but then later added a fixed-bristle region adjacent for - you guessed it - holding more toothpaste.

    The final insult: at least one of those makers decided to tinker with the diameter of the toothpaste tube opening, which had been a de facto standard for decades. I have a backpacking/travel toothbrush that I bought in the Eighties, which included its own mini-tube that had to be refilled by screwing a tube of toothpaste into one end and squeezing; this was only made feasible because all tubes of toothpaste used exactly the same opening diameter and thread spacing. Fast forward to 2010 and my purchase of toothpaste made by Church-Dwight, and my subsequent angry discovery that they had increased the diameter of the tube opening such that it no longer fit my old travel toothbrush. Now why would they increase the diameter of the opening? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with promoting incidental waste and selling more tubes of product, could it?

    I'm a perennial cynic and skeptic, but I doubt these superhydrophobic containers will ever be used for condiments. Not only would the more expensive packaging cut into profits, the reduced waste would make a dent in them, too.

    1. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt some truth to that but I think this could be seen as something that would boost margin on a "premium" product.

      Oftentimes the exact same sauce (or toothpaste) comes in different bottles (not simply different sizes). Perhaps both a glass bottle and a squeezy bottle right next to each other on the shelf with the squeezy bottle being more expensive due to the "convenience". It's not hard to imagine these swanky bottles being used to achieve some price differentiation, extracting more money from people who perceive them (or themselves) as being worth the money while still offering basic bottles for the price concious.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    2. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in on your conspiracy! I just got a fresh bottle of sun screen where they have rounded the top of the cap so you can't stand it upside down to let gravity get that last little bit out for you.

    3. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to bed, grandpa.

    4. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, but you're full of shit. My Uncle used to work for a company that produced gelled consumables - stuff like ketchup. He designed bottles that would avoid high adhesion at the bottom. See, it turns out that people get really annoyed when they can't get that last bit out of the bottle. Enough to switch brands, even.

    5. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by l00sr · · Score: 2

      My guess is that the decreased buying frequency due to less waste will almost certainly be outweighed by the increased buying frequency due to the product being easier to dispense. Think, "oops, I just squeezed out the entire bottle of ketchup again!"

    6. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Crash24 · · Score: 2

      Even if most condiment manufacturers find it more cost-effective to skip on the coating (for whatever reason), there are bound to be at least a few that use it to set themselves apart as a superior product.

    7. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      They WANT people to waste the product, because that means the companies can sell more,

      This assumes that the wasted product is worth more than the packaging it's stuck in. In other words, this assumes that the winner is the product manufacturer rather than the container manufacturer.

      and that stuff has consequences when it winds up in bodies of water.

      General Ripper claims prior art.

      Now why would they increase the diameter of the opening?

      Because people are keeping their natural teeth longer, and old people have trouble squeezing things. Increasing the diameter of the nozzle reduces the necessary pressure to get the same mass flow, making it easier for people with reduced manual strength to get some out of the tube.

    8. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      go to any and i mean ANY global product producer and tell them you have a way increase their revenue by one percent at nearly zero cost and they will be all ears.

      go to them with a product that will cost them money to implement and will lower revenues by one percent, they will ignore you.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    9. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but you're full of shit. My Uncle used to work for a company that produced gelled consumables - stuff like ketchup. He designed bottles that would avoid high adhesion at the bottom. See, it turns out that people get really annoyed when they can't get that last bit out of the bottle. Enough to switch brands, even.

      Yeah, that's why most people start putting the bottle upside down when it gets low so you don't wait ages for the ketchup to move from the bottom to the cap. Heck, it can go on its side and maybe elevate the bottom a bit.

      Or why they make those squeeze bottles where the opening is on the bottom.

      Anyhow, the problem I had with ketchup was never it sticking to the glass, but when they were new, and the ketchup doesn't flow. Especially after you get it moving and invert it just a bit too much so it plugs the opening and no air can flow in. And once it plugs like that, it's a pain to get the flow restarted.

    10. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm a perennial cynic and skeptic

      You could knock me over with a feather right now.

    11. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wait, wait... you've been using the same travel toothbrush for 20 years?

    12. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a perennial cynic and skeptic, but I doubt these superhydrophobic containers will ever be used for condiments. Not only would the more expensive packaging cut into profits,

      For some strange reason, it doesn't work that way. Expensive and unnecessary packaging is everywhere. Driving up cost and reducing sales. When I buy a vacuum cleaner, it comes in a cardboard box. Inside this box, is the manual and various parts - wrapped in stupid clear plastic. Magazines are wrapped in plastic so people won't read them in the store. But there is no need to protect a vacuum cleaner manual - especially not inside a cardboard box. The same goes for the parts - no need for plastic inside the box. No need at all! And it drives up cost - clear plastic may not cost that much, but the machine doing the wrapping sure isn't free. . .

      the reduced waste would make a dent in them, too.

      Correct, but there is advertising value. And when one ketchup brand flows easily out of the bottle while the other brand have lots of ketchup remaining, which brand will people like? The one with ugly half-full bottles where wasted ketchup clings to the walls? Or the one where the bottle is clean once it is empty?

    13. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tap the '57' part of the neck of the bottle with the back of a knife and it will restore flow...

    14. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the bottle specifically says to use a pea-sized amount. The version shown on TV is huge so as to show off the sparkly pretty colours in the bottle, not as an example of how to brush your teeth.

      Anyone who uses advertising as a life lesson deserves the result.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    15. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      Even worse is the detergent overuse problem. This happens in dishwashers, washing machines, hand washed dishes, etc. The measuring cup is often 10X the necessary size, and some people fill it twice to get things extra clean. All that detergent cleans less effectively, clogs the machinery and plumbing, pollutes waterways. You can take most peoples laundry and wash it without soap several times before it gets clean. There is so much residue on swimsuits that pools and hot tubs get sudsy.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    16. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the bottle specifically says to use a pea-sized amount. The version shown on TV is huge so as to show off the sparkly pretty colours in the bottle, not as an example of how to brush your teeth.

      Most people apply paste by treating it as a one-dimensional object and measure it on length. And while the ads show a full toothbrush bristle length of paste, most people DO apply that much paste! Those who read pea-sized amount do use a lot less, but they measure just one dimension of paste - if the manufacturer increased the size of the opening 10% by area, the amount dispensed is around 21% more by volume as most people don't measure the volume of paste, just the length.

      Even worse is the detergent overuse problem. This happens in dishwashers, washing machines, hand washed dishes, etc. The measuring cup is often 10X the necessary size, and some people fill it twice to get things extra clean. All that detergent cleans less effectively, clogs the machinery and plumbing, pollutes waterways. You can take most peoples laundry and wash it without soap several times before it gets clean. There is so much residue on swimsuits that pools and hot tubs get sudsy.

      Yeah, you have to look VERY carefully at the cup attached. The instructions often say "fill to the first line for normal loads" but it's often hard to see (especially since it's usually close to the bottom) so people end up filling to the first marking on the cup (halfway up) or the full cup.

      It's just like computers and probably the "rest of the world" use case of the dancing pigs problem. Just that everyone managed to exploit it for profit rather than questionable scams.

    17. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Toothpaste is 3D for me because I apply it (sparingly) INTO the bristles, where it can't simply disintegrate into fragments as I try to brush. Of course I'm using so much less than depicted that it isn't likely anyway, but just resting it on the bristles is ineffective regardless. Is it really this hard for humans to figure out how to use toothpaste optimally without rote memorization of some TV commercial? So much for that H. sapiens superior intelligence.

    18. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You may be right about how idiotic people are as I'm never one to claim people are intelligent by nature, but I disagree with your theory of why. The markings are clear, the information is clearly written, and people simply aren't following directions.

      I'm reminded of yesterday's interview on the radio with a rep from Scott's Lawn products saying that most of the complaints she fields are from users who didn't follow the directions (specifically watering requirements).

      I can honestly say the vast majority of my tech support calls are the same problem as well -- people who don't follow directions. It doesn't matter how often I write them down, or make them write them down, people ignore directions and do it their own way anyway. Those people deserve the blame entirely, not the company who wrote out clear directions they didn't follow.

      I've never had a hard time reading the lines on a cap for laundry detergent -- its clearly marked and has been on every A list product I've ever used.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    19. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I apply a very small amount and do the left side of my mouth, then another very sparing amount and do the right side. I do this to avoid the "where you start gets all the paste" problem, and since I use a sensitive tooth toothpaste to reduce sensitivity, its nice to actually have it work on both sides of one's mouth.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    20. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by maharvey · · Score: 1

      You put the toothpaste on your brush? I apply it directly to my teeth!

    21. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Or why they make those squeeze bottles where the opening is on the bottom.

      True, but those bottles are much smaller than the other bottles, and cost more per ounce.

      (Note, I'm not arguing the semi-conspiracy theory "they want you to waste it" side.)

    22. Re:This presumes the waste is undesirable... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Sounds perfectly rational to me. I've been fine for decades with a single in-the-bristles squirt, but if I ever brux myself to the point of needing the anesthetic toothpaste I might try splitting the job, too. I wonder if you could get by skipping the special toothpaste and gargling for the same period with Chloraseptic (phenol)? I don't know exactly what agents go into Sensodyne-type products, but I'd guess the active ingredient might be phenol as a mild anesthetic.

  9. Just like most innovation. by Voogru · · Score: 1

    It happens by accident.

    1. Re:Just like most innovation. by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 1

      It happens by accident.

      That's what he said...

      --
      You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
    2. Re:Just like most innovation. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I accidentally superhydrophobic condiment bottles.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  10. no smudge phone ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if it would keep fingerprints off my phone screen.

    1. Re:no smudge phone ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are your fingerprints made of water?

  11. It's a great world we live in... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    and now less sticky.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  12. Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now all we need to do is get rid of those silly bottles that don't fit in the fridge, take up too much shipping space getting to the stores and clog up the recycling system. Instead we could use simple plastic bags (just like in Russia) that conveniently fit in any free space in the fridge, and don't waste space. Also, you cut the hole in the corner with scissors so you can choose how big it is (and therefore how fast it is dispensed). The bags could be biodegradable (or recyclable in bulk like paper is).

    There are lots of business opportunities waiting for clever business people that travel to the former Soviet Union and think a bit about what they see. This way of dispensing mayonnaise, ketchup, yogurt and so on, makes it easy for small convenience stores to stock it all (small amount of space) which means that people don't have to drive a gas guzzler (any gasoline powered car) to do their shopping.
     

    1. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      what if you dont use it all, are you going to wake up and see a bunch of ketchup water all over the place?

    2. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one wakes up in the former Soviet Union, I have to imagine that ketchup water mess is the least of one's troubles...

    3. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About 25 years ago, on a trip in Czechoslovakia (a few years before the fall of the Wall) I experienced those bags for packing milk. My parents told me that in their childhood also in Netherlands plastic bags were used for milk, but such packing had long since been abandoned. Sure convenient to store and little waste, but that's all there is to them.

      When opened, they're a pain to store as they don't have the rigidity of a bottle so tend to fall over. They're hard to grab on to, again no rigidity, so great risk of spills or sprays when picking up an opened bag.

      And then they just look plain ugly compared to bottles. And, even though the content is the same, a prettier packing commends a higher retail prices and higher sales. That's just how consumers make their choice.

      So long story short: the West used them too, long time ago, and it's not just because that this kind of packing is not used any more for anything but small bags of ketchup in McDonald's.

    4. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Hans+Adler · · Score: 1

      The West is actually beginning to use them again. They have become more popular recently because they are the ideal solution from an ecological point of view. I used to use them myself for years in south-west Germany. (I no longer do, because I now live in a region where they are not easily available.) They are perfectly convenient if you put them into the dedicated plastic container before opening. Only getting them home is slightly more risky. My first experience with them was in

      I couldn't find any up-to-date photos of such a container, but here is one from East Germany before reunification: http://www.braincolor.de/?p=478 . (The one I had ten years ago in the West was more convenient.) You can also buy bagged milk in Switzerland: http://www.onlinereports.ch/OEkologie.113+M52a046ca50c.0.html .

      And here is the very recent UK version: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/milk-bottle-sainsburys-environment .

    5. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      No Need to cut a corner, at least here, there is a capped nozzle stuck on one end.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    6. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Hans+Adler · · Score: 1

      Completing the unfinished sentence: My first experience with them was during a vacation in (then socialist) Hungary. Milk was only available in such bags there at the time, and my family did not know how to deal with them. So we made a mess before we realised there was a special container.

    7. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      All the milk my household goes through is in a bag, as is the Orange Juice. One of the gas stations here in Minnesota sells it that way and it is much cheaper. They even give away the pitchers to put the bag into. The pitcher has a J shaped slit in it so you can close the open end of the bag in to seal it as well. I got introduced to it in college as the nearest gas station/convenience store was this brand. I gladly take milk in a bag any day over the ultra pasteurized milk in a box that doesn't need refrigeration until it is opened that is available in France. I also don't have to deal with the stupid plastic milk jugs here in the US as even when crushed they take up way too much space in the recycle bin.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "West" has used them continuously since at least the 1970s, assuming Canada is still allowed to be part of "The West." As in you can't find milk any other way in Ontario except cardboard for quart cartons, whose shape is already optimized for shipping.

      Rigidity: You buy a 99c molded plaster pitcher that holds the thing. You put your bag in, slap the bottom of the container on the counter to seat it firmly, and then use a little cutter to remove the corner of the bag. Some of the pitchers even have a little notch that will hold the bag cutter, and all the cutters I've seen also have a magnet so you can place it on your fridge.

      Ugly: Who cares? Cheaper to ship, cheaper to package, and less waste to recycle or throw away. A lot of people think the Prius is ugly too.

      I moved from the US, the land of the gigantic gallon jug, to Canada, and I'm thoroughly converted on bag milk, if only for the fact that it takes up a ton less space in your fridge, since it's easier to store a bunch of pliable 1.3L containers than it is one big 3.78L jug.

    9. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by operagost · · Score: 1

      I was about to ask how you resealed the bag. I'm not going to contaminate or spill my food to save a dime.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they've been in use so long here, that it wasn't until I watched a US movie with someone pouring themselves a milk that I figured there was a different way to store it.

      Although, at the time, I figured they just poured their bags in the jugs for convenience.

      I've never heard of it being even slightly inconvenient, nobody complains, and I've never had an issue with it. Ever.

      And they freeze pretty easy, too, if you want to keep your milk. I wonder what would happen to those gallon jugs if you froze them. I assume an unpleasant mess.

      BTW: You *can* buy American style milk (hey, it's what we call it here) in Ontario, you just need to find a Mac's or Winks gas station (yeah, weird place to buy milk, I know... ...probably explains the weird containers). Even then they still have the bag versions now as well, probably due to customer demand.

    11. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the don't pasteurize the milk? cause that's a recipes for death.
      Ans what are they coating the bag with?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In USSR back in the day - where the milk bag was just a bag, no frills - we folded the cut corner and then used the clothespin to secure it.

    13. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord! In Canada we have them here, right now! They're perfectly convenient and you're right - they have no rigidity. That's why you put the entire bag into a pitcher before you snip the corner off to pour.

      It's perfectly convenient and works well.

    14. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what would happen to those gallon jugs if you froze them. I assume an unpleasant mess.

      I've done it before.

      The plastic is quite flexible, so it's not an unpleasant mess.

      But good luck getting any milk out without thawing the entire gallon.

      When I freeze milk, I freeze it in an ice cube tray and transfer the frozen cubes into a container.

    15. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      No that wasn't what I was trying to say. The milk in the bag is still pasteurized but doesn't taste like crap like the ultra pasteurized milk in a box that doesn't require refrigeration until opened. As far as coating the bags they are probably made of the same or similar plastic as the gallon jugs so I don't worry about it.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always transfer the milk or other liquid to a glass bottle for your daily use. ~~ GIJ (a.k.a "Anonymous Coward" [hahahaha])

    17. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      I believe the phrase you're looking for is "ultra homogenized", not "ultra pasteurized".

      Fun fact, pasteurizationactually actually doesn't require all that much heat - the standard "high temperature, short time" pasteurization heats the milk to 71.7 degrees C for 15-20 seconds. This results in 5-log reduction in microorganisms (99.999% kill rate).

    18. Re:Next step - get rid of those silly bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 25 years ago, on a trip in Czechoslovakia (a few years before the fall of the Wall) I experienced those bags for packing milk. My parents told me that in their childhood also in Netherlands plastic bags were used for milk, but such packing had long since been abandoned. Sure convenient to store and little waste, but that's all there is to them.

      When opened, they're a pain to store as they don't have the rigidity of a bottle so tend to fall over. They're hard to grab on to, again no rigidity, so great risk of spills or sprays when picking up an opened bag.

      And then they just look plain ugly compared to bottles. And, even though the content is the same, a prettier packing commends a higher retail prices and higher sales. That's just how consumers make their choice.

      So long story short: the West used them too, long time ago, and it's not just because that this kind of packing is not used any more for anything but small bags of ketchup in McDonald's.

      Plastic milk bags are alive and well in Canada. We put the one we're currently using in a reusable plastic jug (the whole bag, inside the bag still), with a handle, which solves the rigidity and picking up problems. The top portion of the bag is still somewhat prone to falling over when you're pouring, but it works well enough.

  13. New song by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Super Hydrophobalistic Condimental Bottles,
    The glass inside remains so clean just like the twelve apostles,
    From them ketchup flows so fast you'll need to use some throttles,
    Super Hydrophobalistic Condimental Bottles!

    (to the tune of...)

    1. Re:New song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay

      Because I tried to boink while dry
      I made the ladies mad
      My girlfriend gave me %$^ a tweak
      And told me I was bad
      But then one day I found some stuff
      And now I glide right in
      They used the same new formula
      To line my lover's quim
      Just... like... those...
      Super Hydrophobalistic Condimental Bottles (refrain)

    2. Re:New song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superhydrophobalisticexpialidocious?

  14. Cool by koan · · Score: 1

    I've started storing everything in glass.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  15. Serendipity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... serendipity seems to be a central theme to research in chemistry and material sciences.

  16. Out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this story under idle?

  17. more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more useless plastics that don't deterioration...

  18. Recyclability? by dacarr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So what would this do to the ability to recycle the materials? A general rule is that recyclers want you to clean glass (rightly so, as ketchup turns to pretty much carbon at the 2000 deg F required to melt glass, thus spoiling the recyc batch), but what would this do under intense heat?

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:Recyclability? by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It would spawn kittens.

    2. Re:Recyclability? by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      because there are several levels of refinement that has to happen to get sand to the point to make clear/colored glass of the quality people are accustomed to today. It is cheaper to take glass that is already at that purity level and remelt it than it is to refine raw sand and then have to do the same melt & mold process.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Recyclability? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Because there is nothing else to do with it, assuming you don't push it underground (wich is a bad idea).

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:Recyclability? by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      To clean glass of food remains, it's usually stored in a big pile outdoors to let nature do its job. A good reason to clean glass for recycling is that it doesn't start to smell so badly while waiting to be taken to the glass container.

    5. Re:Recyclability? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Actually I saw an article a while back in my local that some substantial portion glass isn't recycled into new glass but instead is made into sand to be used in golf courses.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Recyclability? by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      2000 F to first make glass from sand, but only 300 c to remelt the glass. and a mix of sand and cullet (recycled glass) goews at some in between temperature.
      that's why it pays to recycle glass; it's not like there's any shortage of sand.

    7. Re:Recyclability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a stupid question.
      There are however, questions that could have been avoided with minimal effort.

  19. Christmas Vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else picture Chevy Chase beginning his sledding run in Christmas Vacation?

    Very cool stuff, I did a small presentation on this technology in college.

  20. Water Repelling Condiment Containers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like an Eureka episode waiting to happen...

  21. easy pour fish oil by epine · · Score: 1

    I would love to see sardines cans with a BPA-free liner where the fish scoots right out without having to bang the can around upside down while spraying stinky fish oil all over the counter-top.

    The last large sardine in my can today had such incredible BPA suction I had to pitchfork it out. Even after I slid it around, it still didn't peel off when inverted.

    Health studies usually report that the benefits of high omega-3 diets outweigh the notorious toxins also contained.

    1. Re:easy pour fish oil by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      what about all the salt in canned meat?

      dont get me wrong I LOOOOVE canned meat, but just for the fact its meat flavored salt paste and fat, so I cut that out pretty quick

  22. Ketchup! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Finally, I'll be able to get my ketchup out of the bottle.

  23. "Condiments"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA is much funnier if you substitute "condoms" for "condiments".

    1. Re:"Condiments"? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its a condom! its a mint! its a condiment!

  24. Slip-n-slide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this would make a slip-n-slide more painful, or less?

  25. Snowboard by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    I need this. You have 6 months to get it to me. I'll finally be able to break 60 mph even on sierra cement

    1. Re:Snowboard by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Ski wax is full of perfluorinated compounds (think teflon) for exactly this reason, so I assume snowboard is already covered in something like that? Otherwise, could you wax it?

    2. Re:Snowboard by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Waxes come with varying amounts of fluoro compounds which are hydrophobic. Things like NotWax contain teflon in liquid form but do not last very long. Unfortunately, very high fluorocarbon waxes do not preform well on cold dry snow (say snow temps below 15F) and there are specialized waxes which contain molybdenum to reduce drag from static charge buildup.

      The attraction of a coating is, in theory, you might never need to wax again or perhaps only once every year or two. Hot wax fumes are not particularly friendly to your body either.

  26. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great. I've always wanted to chug-a-lug catchup.

  27. Nothing new at MIT by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    Building 57(!) is an old Heinz factory

    MIT is no stranger to ketchup

    1. Re:Nothing new at MIT by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And we're no stran.... aww, screw it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  28. Not bad, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they could only come up with a coating to keep peanut butter from sticking to the roof of your mouth, and keep biscuits and gravy from sticking to your ribs...

  29. Hellmans beat them to it by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Hellmans beat them to it by galaad2 · · Score: 1

      Hellmans changed the recipe of the mayonnaise (and i think this altered the taste too), they didn't change the composition of the plastic itself while keeping unchanged the actual product inside it.

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    2. Re:Hellmans beat them to it by galaad2 · · Score: 2

      ps. i stand corrected, i see now that they also adjusted the composition of the plastic itself, but they formulated it only for holding mayo (or other oily substances), not any substance (or non-oil-based substances).

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    3. Re:Hellmans beat them to it by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      I've seen ketchup too.

  30. Hydrophobic material Food Grade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if you could use this to line arteries and coat stents

  31. Super Rabies? by user+flynn · · Score: 2

        Why the hell would they put super rabies in condiment bottles? I already get enough froth from the damned ketchup and mustard bottles when I first use them. Stupid researchers.

    --
    In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
  32. Condiment Bottlers Hate This by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    All of that waste is product consumers buy, but can't consume. So it doesn't put off the next time they buy more. There's no way condiment bottlers are going to use this invention that means you'll buy replacements less often.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Call it a "feature", raise the price, and it's all good

    2. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the people who get pissed off by the stickiness are more expensive to lose than the icnrease in sales.

    3. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Unless they never do it, and nobody ever hears about it, and it's the same free ride as ever.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      They'd rather change the label on a slightly bigger bottle, put "10% MORE!" and raise the price 12%, while continuing to waste 2% sticking inside.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HJ Heinz once said he never made a dime off of the ketchup you used. He made all of his money on the ketchup you didn't use.

    6. Re:Condiment Bottlers Hate This by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hey look, someone on /. doesn't understand business. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. Future articles... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    John Smith was tragically killed today, smothered by ketchup after applying more than the recommended force. Manufacturers of the superhydrophobic coating for condiment bottles will now be required to place warnings directing users to face the spout of the bottles away from their faces. The Department of Defense is currently investigating resurrecting the Land Warrior initiative, based around these bottles.

  34. Lucky Break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the world careening through a substantial and difficult global climate change, I know I will sleep soundly at night, knowing that the horror of condiment waste is being worked on by some of the best minds in the business.

  35. Is it Chemically Inert? For Medical Uses? by lcreech · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking veins and arteries, material for artificial hearts etc.

  36. Cave Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aperture Science called, they want their stuff back MIT.

  37. I'm sure this product will become... by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

    ...a requirement in the manufacture of White House intern uniforms.

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
  38. Airplane Wings and Icing by lcreech · · Score: 1

    problem solved

    1. Re:Airplane Wings and Icing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you not only didn't RTFA, you didn't even read the summary...

    2. Re:Airplane Wings and Icing by lcreech · · Score: 1

      Clearly you not only didn't RTFA, you didn't even read the summary...

      It is certainly clear that I did read both and you had not, and you insist on being an ass. From the summary "Then a hydrophobic nanocoating was created for circuit boards to make them water resistant", and from the article:

      "The cookware formulation also was tweaked so it can better handle high temperatures.
      "Anywhere you don't want corrosion, or ice or things to get wet, this works well," Jones said.
      "When you start thinking about it, there are a lot of places where that's good."

      You may want to check your facts before initiating a fight and accusing people of things like this.

    3. Re:Airplane Wings and Icing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Tips on how to make life better on /.:

      1) Don't reply to AC.

      2)..well that's all got.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Misinterpreted by havana9 · · Score: 1

    Salad dressing with rabies? DO NOT WANT.

  40. "Waste" gave this man a job for life by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    (Not sure if this an urban myth)

    Long time ago, a worker at a big toothpaste manufacturer made a suggestion:

    "Why not increase the diameter of the toothpaste nozzle?"

    See, people put on toothpaste on their toothbrushes based on the LENGTH not VOLUME of the paste. By increasing the diameter or width of the applied toothpaste, the consumer would use up much more of the toothpaste with every application. Thus they would use up the toothpaste more quickly (and since it's not a high cost expense, be unlikely to be tracking it closely). Thus sales and profits would go up.

    Supposedly this man was given a nice corner office for life.

    1. Re:"Waste" gave this man a job for life by macraig · · Score: 1

      That story has only a chance to be true if people are actually mimicking the excessive way they've seen actors applying it in commercials: a big fat strip resting on the bristles. That's the dumbest fucking way you could possibly do it, even aside from the wastefulness; the paste will separate from the brush immediately and you'll have little gobs of unlathered paste all over your mouth. No, the right way to apply it is to squeeze the paste INTO the bristles, and only a tenth or less what the actors imply you should have used.

      Applied that way, a larger tube opening is merely an annoyance, not an invitation to more excess.

    2. Re:"Waste" gave this man a job for life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is way too much thought going into something inexpensive that I only need to buy once every few months in the first place. This whole side thread has been incredibly amusing this morning though, and it's confirming my long held suspicion that there are people on Slashdot willing to be angry over literally anything.

  41. Forget medical uses, how about DIETING? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Take a pill (or drink) of this stuff right before a meal. Food would just fly right through.

    Then again, it could give a whole new meaning to "having the runs".

    1. Re:Forget medical uses, how about DIETING? by cheetham · · Score: 1

      It reminds me a bit of repulsion gel from Portal 2...

      "Its purpose was to cause subsequently ingested food items to bounce off the lining of the dieter's distended stomach and out of their mouth."
        - http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsion_Gel

  42. Toilets... Dishes and many more by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    It could make cleaning less frequent and onerous.

    If it were dishwasher safe could be used on dishes and cookware.

    I'm sure there must be a million applications for a durable, super hydrophobic coating. Ship hulls, runners on skates and skis, hell if it's durable (and safe enough) why not a spray on for a once a year application at your dentist? Who knows what other applications coud be practical depending on its exact properties (think, ink jet printers, coating the particles in e-ink displays to make them "spin" faster, micro fluidics for lab equipment, etc.). There are a LOT of technologies that use water/fluids in some way.

    1. Re:Toilets... Dishes and many more by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Filling needles and tubing for TPF machines. It can be quite hard to fill 1ml of liquid into a vial. The coating would have to be durable enough to be sterilised regularly, though.

    2. Re:Toilets... Dishes and many more by RabidReindeer · · Score: 0

      There have already been reports of potential reduced-water toilets based on this.

      The ketchup demo was impressive, although I would have liked to have seen how a full bottle behaved, too, since it's the ketchup itself that participates in the obstruction of getting the stuff out of a bottleneck.

  43. Good news, Heinz! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    We've found a way that you can make really expensive bottles which let people use all of the ketchup, so they won't have to buy as much from you. As a bonus, it screw up plastic recycling. So, how many million units can we sign you up for?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Good news, Heinz! by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      No need to be so narrow-minded. Now Heinz can sell you the bottle once, and then you buy plastic sachets (that flatten completely) to refill your condiment bottle. They will jump at this.

  44. The answer is simples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ketchup should come in a spraycan. Imagine how much more fun mealtimes would be, if they can do it with cheese why not Ketchup.

  45. Applications by ironman_one · · Score: 1

    Toilets, Car windscreens, Swimgoogles, Camera lenses,

    1. Re:Applications by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Computer screens.

    2. Re:Applications by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If it can withstand temps up around 250F I would love it for mason jars for canning. It would also have to be fairly resistant to weak acids (vinegar) at that temp as well.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Applications by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Toilet paper. I'll bet employers would jump at this, it would be even more useless than that awful waxed toilet paper. Employees would almost be forced to do their business at home, saving the company money. (And as a bonus, what little tissue they did use would be reusable!)

  46. Uh-huh by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1, Informative

    And once upon a time, Teflon was considered completely inert. And a few generations earlier: asbestos.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by geekoid · · Score: 0

      and what's wrong with Teflon?

      If you actually have something, please site. My quick search on pubmed didn't return anything new.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  47. The Heinz Fortune Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Heinz Fortune Revealed! Kerry rejoices (and skips taxes on his boat)

  48. Much more significant applications by pev · · Score: 2

    Why is no one discussing water park slides?!

    1. Re:Much more significant applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I head a man by the name of Clark Griswald invented a spray like this and used it on his saucer sled.

      He never did say how well it worked.

    2. Re:Much more significant applications by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I use car wax on my kid's metal slide once. Poor kid hit dirt at the bottom as fast as if he just jumped off the top.

    3. Re:Much more significant applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... I think I want the opposite there. More water => less friction on my arse.

  49. Antifouling? by Kynde · · Score: 1

    I'm curious what this stuff would do to my sailing boat frictionwise and would it work as an antifouling aswell.

    --
    1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  50. sauce bottle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the heinz 57 bottle is specificaly designed so that a slap on the bottom with a palm punches out a dollop of sauce so that you can sauce a line of burgers quickly and uniformly.

  51. Toothpaste by flirno · · Score: 1

    Will something like this help to get that last bit of toothpaste out of the toothpaste tube?

  52. Nanotechnology's slippery slope by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    So we want to use nanotechnology to get the last of the ketchup out of the bottle... to assimilate it... I'm pretty sure that's how the Borg got started.

  53. AstroGlide + LiquiGlide ;) by zerosomething · · Score: 1

    Just say'n. Then LiquiGlide coated bed sheets and a little body oil. OMG. Can't wait!!

    --
    It all starts at 0
  54. i know it is slashdot, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you click on the link in the article, you get taken to a useless page at geek.com which takes you to a useless page at fastcoexist.com which takes you to a useless page set up by the inventors, liqui-glide.com
    If you try and connect and get some real info, Prof Varanasi at MIT has a list of publications, no pdfs for recent ones, and his lab wepage is ddos/ slashdotted.

    So in regard to an important quesstion - how do we know about food safety - the answer is all info is proprietary or unkown
    way to go, /.

  55. Already been done by Drunkulus · · Score: 1

    I grew up near Alfred University, not far from Corning, NY. In addition to such things as space shuttle tiles and coal slurry, researchers there developed a glass with these exact properties, and tried to license it to Heinz. Much to their dismay, Heinz turned it down, as they were just about to launch an ad campaign demonstrating the superior quality of their high viscosity ketchup compared to cheaper brands, which could be poured from the bottle without smacking it.

  56. dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's badass except it's not at the same time because A) It will come out in the news 6 months after mass production that this stuff kills people B) It will make all condiments more expensive and sorry but Franks and shit is already overpriced.

  57. I'm just going to assume by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    That all of the relevant jokes have already been made.

    But it would be really nice for recycling!

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  58. already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is already a diarrhea diet pill. And a fry oil too. Remember those fat free Olean potato chips?

  59. Long-standing MIT hack by Geosota · · Score: 1

    turning a research budget into food. First instance I know of was around 1970: testing the black stuff on a grilled steak for carcinogenicity.

  60. It will be used everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article didn't mention that the new coating was made from a platinum/gold latticed alloy.

  61. Snow Saucer Lubricant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what it would be like to have it smoothed over the bottom of a snow saucer . . . even higher flames than Clark Griswold's?!
    ~~ GIJ (a.k.a "Anonymous Coward" [hahahaha])