Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Discover a Way To Get Every Last Drop of Ketchup Out of the Bottle (bbc.com)

Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes a report from BBC: Scientists in Boston have found a way to get every last drop of ketchup out of the bottle. They have developed a coating that makes bottle interiors super slippery. The coating can also be used to make it easier to squeeze out the contents of other containers, such as those holding toothpaste, cosmetics and even glue. The researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believe that their innovation could dramatically reduce waste. In its manufacture, the container must first be coated on the inside with a rough surface. A very thin layer is then placed over this. And, finally, a liquid is added that fills in any troughs to form a very slippery surface -- like an oily floor. The ketchup hovers on top and just glides out of the bottle. According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe. "The cool thing about it is that because the coating is a composite of solid and liquid, it can be tailored to the product. So for food, we make the coating out of food-based materials and so you can actually eat it."

schwit1 adds: "Pretty slick."

181 comments

  1. Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by increasing materials used to prevent that waste.

    Sounds legit.

    1. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been in the news section at least 6 times in the last 6 years.

    2. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It can be. If the energy added is less than the energy wasted, then it is good, otherwise it is not.

    3. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 years later. Super slippery cost found to cause birth defects.

      And yes, lets coat everything with some more oily processes lab made crap....

    4. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't eat energy. You can eat tomatoes.

    5. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that. I was pretty sure I'd seen this before on Slashdot and that it was a while ago. I know I've been waiting for bottles with this tech to come to market. I guess I can stop waiting since it seems they just want to keep re-announcing it.

    6. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty slick.

    7. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And tomatoes are 100% bio-degradable.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, yes, it is a bit more complex than just used energy, the coating needs to be bio-degradable or atleast recycleable and actually recycled, but in that case the energy used to make and transfer the coating needs to be less than the wasted energy on the waste material (ketchup in this example).

    9. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      by increasing materials used to prevent that waste.

      A better innovation would be a container specifically designed to dispense from the bottom. I make a point of buying viscous products in flat-topped containers, but standing the bottle upside down is a poor alternative even for those wide-topped ketchup bottles that are designed to be stored that way. What I have in mind is a pump bottle that substitutes gravity feed for the pumping action and which totally isolates the product from the environment when the bottle is standing on the shelf. No more ketchupy fingers or sticky spot on the refrigerator shelf.

      And most importantly, no more precariously balanced shampoo bottles that fall on my foot in the shower, ever.

    10. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so...

      the current situation is waste.

      Add to the situation, scientists wasting /alot of/ time.

      Now, is the waste in this situation worth the wasted loss created? :P

    11. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      priorities.

    12. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      This sort of thing may be ok for paint & toothpaste. Not for food. Even if it really is edible, I don't want strange-tasting drops of lube in my ketchup or other food.

      Food wasted because it aged too much in the fridge (or in the shop) dwarfs the amount lost on the walls of ketchup bottles anyway.

      A nice trick specifically for ketchup: Let the near-empty bottle wait till you need ketchup in a sauce. Take the water needed for the sauce, put it in the nearly empty ketchup bottle. Shake, and use the water/ketchup mix. (And add more ketchup from a new bottle if necessary.) No old ketchup left over. Similiar tricks apply for other sticky foods we occationally mix with water.

    13. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the ketchup industry care if you waste some ketchup in every bottle you toss?

      They don't really care about anything other than you buying more.

    14. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck designing it, and getting anyone to implement such a contraption.

    15. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a new non-caloric silicon-based kitchen lubricant my company has been working on

      Clark Griswald.

    16. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo we have a winner ! I've done this for years. The old glass ketchup bottles were far superior too as the platic wasn't leacing into your ketchup (unlike the modern platic crap :))

    17. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't really care about anything other than you buying more.

      Which is why at least one vendor should care, that vendor being whoever is the least popular ketchup brand. Might convince some people to switch brands if they can get more bang for their buck. The only question is, does the added revenue offset the increased production cost.

    18. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is to be seen.

    19. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I make a point of buying viscous products in flat-topped containers, but standing the bottle upside down is a poor alternative even for those wide-topped ketchup bottles that are designed to be stored that way.

      If they are designed to be stored that way, then they aren't being stored upside down in the first place, are they? If the writing on the bottle appears right-side up, but the opening for dispensing is on the bottom, how can you say that it is being stored upside down?

      You may, however, have to manipulate the bottle to be upside down briefly while you are opening and closing it in order to have some control over exactly how much of the contents you dispense.

    20. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The upside-down bottle is still apt to drip extra product when dispensing condiments. Though this would not be a problem with shampoo, I have curiously not seen a single example of a shampoo bottle which is upside down by design. In fact, most shampoo seems to be specifically designed to fall over if propped in the inverted position. I suspect this is a conspiracy by Big Foot, the podiatry lobby.

    21. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by TWX · · Score: 1

      Last time I read about this it was because Heinz sponsored a competition to design a bottle that pours better. Some smartass MIT undergrads played around in the materials sciences lab and designed a bottle that was extremely hydrophobic such that the ketchup literally all just slid out, constrained only by the mouth of the container.

      As for the reason, it was clever marketing that gave them the possibility of seeing a new product (none were adopted) while being widely picked up by the press and getting a fair amount of exposure to the general public. Not since Garrison Keillor had the virtues of ketchup been so widely sang.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:Reduce tomato sauce wastage by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Head and Shoulders makes shampoo bottles that dispense from the bottom. There may be others, but I have definitely seen that one.

    23. Re: Reduce tomato sauce wastage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point is, is it always the same researcher or do we get the last Indian/Chinese one who manages to snatch the mature technology premiere? MIT is not enough guarantee that credit is given where credit is due. Particularly when the announcement keeps repeating with different names and no marketable product.

  2. Real Science! by aglider · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's really nice to see all this Science and Technology used to get a better world!
    And a /. article for it!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Real Science! by msauve · · Score: 2

      Sure, welcome to the science of 2012! Unfortunately, that means it's not news.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Real Science! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Too many scientists!

      All the important jobs, like deciding whether New Zealand is a continent and Pluto is a planet, have already been taken.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Real Science! by Dthief · · Score: 1

      except this is really old: 2012 was the first hit I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    4. Re:Real Science! by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Sure, welcome to the science of 2012! Unfortunately, that means it's not news.

      Oh, I was going to say that!

      Maybe in another five years we will have actual products that can be bought!

      I saw back in the 1990s that some reasearcher had made some spoons coated with superhydrophobic coatings that he used as honey spoons - I would love to purchase something like that. I'm still waiting.

      We're living in the future... maybe next year.

    5. Re:Real Science! by Zmobie · · Score: 1

      Funny, Slashdot posted this in 2012 too, by searching 'ketchup' I found the damn article in about 10 seconds....

      https://science.slashdot.org/s...

    6. Re: Real Science! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      All that technology! The best way to make a non-newtonian fluid more newtonian is to add water.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  3. Just wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet it gives you cancer.

    1. Re:Just wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much everything causes cancer; it's just a question of how carcinogenic a particular substance is.

    2. Re:Just wait by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Basically every new chemical substance is blamed for increasing cancer risk a few months after it's released out to the public.

      Sometimes it's true, but it's usually a class action law firm looking for a big pay day. Sad, really.

    3. Re:Just wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California, is that you ?

    4. Re:Just wait by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Only if you live in California.

    5. Re:Just wait by dlfretz · · Score: 1

      I don't know about cancer. I would want know if there is any kind of reaction to the human body. For example what if someone was looking into a bottle (They would be looking to see if everything was gone.) with this said coating and it dripped or a piece fell into the eye.

    6. Re:Just wait by dlfretz · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the old glass container?

  4. But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They dont want you to get that stuff out... on every 20bottles sold thats one extra bottle worth of products. Why to opt to make less money? Same as car manufacturers dont want to make a car that cant be stolen..

    1. Re:But.. by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd pay a little more for a ketchup that slides out that easily, not for the positive environmental
      effects or the fact that recycling becomes a lot cleaner, those are bonuses; I'd buy them for the aesthetics alone.

      --
      A witty .sig proves nothing
    2. Re:But.. by fisted · · Score: 1

      It's completely stupid because ketchup slides down alright in upside down glass bottles. just give it a day or two

    3. Re:But.. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I don't have a day or two to wait to eat this hot dog!

    4. Re:But.. by fisted · · Score: 1

      Just make it a habit to store the bottle upside down.

      Failing that, use centrifugal force -- just make sure the bottle is closed properly, then grab at the bottom and violently swing around.

    5. Re:But.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      ... not for the positive environmental effects or the fact that recycling becomes a lot cleaner, those are bonuses ...

      Given that recycling wasn't mentioned - at all - in the article, it's a safe bet that this technology renders the container non-recyclable.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:But.. by dawich · · Score: 1

      Clear your "Safety Circle" first, so you don't give friends/family concussions. Oh, and hold tight!

    7. Re:But.. by green1 · · Score: 2

      And this is exactly the point.
      Where's the incentive to the manufacturer?
      - Adds cost to the manufacturing process
      - Decreases sales (due to less waste)

      So why would any manufacturer actually use this product?

      And don't say that people will pay more for it, they won't. Especially not by enough to compensate for the decreased waste and increased cost.
      It would take an absolute marketing genius to find a way to get customers to pay enough extra for this to make it worth it. I just don't see it ever making it to market in pre-packaged products.

    8. Re:But.. by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Heinz also has squeeze bottles that are designed to stand with the lid down. The problem is already solved, it's just not widely distributed.

    9. Re:But.. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I don't know about plastic containers, toothpastes tubes but this seems to be demonstrated on a glass bottle, so it seems to be a no brainer.
      Tiny coating made of food-grade stuff, versus leftover food in the bottle. I believe the recycling consists of melting the glass shards / broken bottles / bottles in a oven?, so it'd be incinerated and the glass waste is full of beer labels, drops of wine and sticky stuff etc. anyway.
      If so I think the main benefit is people will throw the glass with other discarded glass rather than throw in in the trash due to food sticking to it.

      But, I wonder if that works with mayonnaise. In my country ketchup comes in plastic and mayonnaise, mustard in glass. Rinsing mayonnaise just creates a silly mess as it's mostly made of pure fat.
      I'm glad we can talk of such important and urgent matters LOL.

    10. Re:But.. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:But.. by green1 · · Score: 1

      If the lost sales are minimal, then you already don't have much left, so there's no point in doing this.
      If there's an actual percentage left when you're done, then you are buying more bottles to get the same amount of product.

      You can't really have it both ways. Either this is a real problem to be solved, in which case it will cut sales if it's solved. Or it's not a real problem, in which case there's no point spending the money on it. Either way the manufacturer has no incentive to implement it.

    12. Re:But.. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... or a container that's shaped in a way that lets one use a utensil to scrape it clean. Narrow-neck salad dressing bottles are horrid this way as well.

    13. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut the bottle from the bottom or in two and use bread as towel to clean the spread up. You have never been hungry, have you? Glass? Wash the interior and drink the water, better soda or coffee or at least will not be just clear water to drink.

  5. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This news goes back to at least 2012. See http://www.geek.com/geek-pick/mit-creates-superhydrophobic-coating-for-condiment-bottles-1491587/

  6. How is this different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...from the news from five years ago?

    http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/nano-coating-ketchup-bottle-23-05-2012

    1. Re:How is this different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is the third or fourth time I've read this story, but alas my ketchup is still stuck in the bottom of my bottle. What is new here? Every presentation has been as if it's the first time all over again. Like being in love.

      Perhaps it's because they've figured out how to do it reliably in manufacturing

    2. Re:How is this different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLOL. If it costed one penny extra, why would you buy the ketchup that costs one penny more? That is the problem. The tech is out there. But you haven't seen it yet because you get dollar store ketchup.

    3. Re:How is this different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I knew it sounded familiar.

    4. Re:How is this different... by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      ...from the news from five years ago?

      Thus proving how poor peoples' memories are.

      Maybe there's a memoryphobic gel coating the interior of their craniums...

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
  7. Interesting, but... by loranger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that will never work. That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each. I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

    1. Re:Interesting, but... by FalcDot · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. This is something that is 100% in the consumer's interest, which means it'll only happen if the manufacturer is legally obligated to use it.

    2. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition? X makes a new ketchup bottle, saying "buy ours, you'll get all of the ketchup out", and captures more of the market. Y has to respond in kind.

    3. Re:Interesting, but... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      There may be psychological effects here.
      It is definitely unsatisfying when there is something in the bottle you cannot access.

      In fact there is no doubt people want to be able to squeeze every last drop of bottles. The real question is : how much are they ready to pay for it? The answer to this question will tell if manufacturers are interested or not.

    4. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. This is something that is 100% in the consumer's interest, which means it'll only happen if the manufacturer is legally obligated to use it.

      It's also better for the environment. Another con in the USA.

    5. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know in which world people are living in but unless it is made of glass I just cut the bottles in half to get the remainder. It just takes a pair of strong scissors and I don't need any special tech.

    6. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know in which world people are living in but unless it is made of glass I just cut the bottles in half to get the remainder. It just takes a pair of strong scissors and I don't need any special tech.

      Or your can use a knife...

    7. Re:Interesting, but... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Well, transfer the ketchup from the regular container to this new slippery surfaced bottle. Wait..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Interesting, but... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      ...that will never work.

      Depends. That could work if manufacturers are pressured to take more into account the environment.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but they have to use the special dull scissors with the round ends so they don't cut themselves

    10. Re:Interesting, but... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...that will never work. That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each. I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      Of course it can work.

      It's called collusion, and the entire manufacturing industry will likely squeeze at least a 100% profit out of the additional cost.

      They said it would be better at reducing waste. No one promised cheaper.

    11. Re: Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or the manufacturer is compelled to use it because a competitor is marketing their brand as consumer conscious and environment friendly. Of course, this only works in a competitive market where innovation is rewarded (hint: its cheaper to buy politicians in the North American market and purchase "regulations" that protect your market than it is to actually innovate)

    12. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not how competition works. Company Y would use the original ketchup bottle without the coating, be able to sell it for 15 cents cheaper even though it doesn't get all the ketchup out, and people would overwhelmingly buy it because it's 15 cents cheaper. This is why unchecked free market systems fail.

    13. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be this side effect where you use more ketchup because it slides out more easily. Just like with toothpaste: you don't need to squeeze out more, but we help you out so you do and need to refill more often.

    14. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles

      Which one would you buy? And it's fewer, not less.

    15. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.

      It makes no difference in sense of amount of sold product. For consumer, additional content would be marginally larger and container is empty either way: with its inner walls dirty as it is when they are completely clean.

      Now all that matters is how much more it costs, and will it be justified by any benefits in profits.

      I for one would chose product packaged in "remains clean after use" containers over marginally cheaper ones, because after use I store them for recycling program which collects empty packages once a week, so I clean them before storing them to avoid fouling (and stench) of residue. However if this treatment would hamper recycling process, then it is a no-go.

      So, it depends on other factors.

    16. Re:Interesting, but... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Free Market wont work because people are bad at math? On one hand i believe you cause people are generally bad at math, On the other hand its worked for a long time.

    17. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad at math and cheap. People have made very large fortunes taking advantage of that fact.

    18. Re:Interesting, but... by khr · · Score: 1

      ...that will never work. ... and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.
      I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      Manufacturers can easily work around that. They'll just sell smaller bottles.

      The 64oz bottle will now be the 62oz bottle and the 32oz bottle will become the 30oz bottle. They can make the label a little larger and it'll barely be noticeable, while people get the thrill out of getting every last ounce of ketchup.

    19. Re:Interesting, but... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't buy ketchup for the bottle. If I did, I would have switched brands by now. I buy it for the formulation and flavor. There is at least one brand that is less sweet and has a better overall flavor profile. Won't name it and go further off topic.

    20. Re:Interesting, but... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      These are "remains clean-looking after use" and would be covered in oily stuff on the inside. Who knows if recycling centers will even accept it without you finding a way to wash that out.

    21. Re: Interesting, but... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. So you're advocating going away from progressive economics and leaning to free-market where, by definition, this will not happen.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    22. Re:Interesting, but... by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      How is it better for the environment? What happens to the coating when the plastic is melted down for recycling?

    23. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying Free Market wont work because people are bad at math? On one hand i believe you cause people are generally bad at math, On the other hand its worked for a long time.

      On the other hand it's not worked for a long time. The Free Market has a long and infamous history of choosing the inferior product due to cheaper pricing, better marketing, etc.

    24. Re:Interesting, but... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Probably the same thing that happens to the ketchup residue that clings to today's bottles.

    25. Re: Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about you, but I rinse/clean everything before putting it in the recycling bin.

    26. Re: Interesting, but... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Which may offset all of the environmental benefits of recycling it!

    27. Re:Interesting, but... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong then.

      Heinz could sell a quality empty bottle with the slippery surface, and then sell refills for it like they do for restaurants... A big plastic bag of Ketchup. They get to profit from the sales of the bottles, plus they save on the refillable packaging. The consumer thinks they are getting a good deal, but really, there might be some wasted food from the refill bag.

    28. Re:Interesting, but... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Psychological effects? I don't think we should be caving into the neuroses of people suffering from OCD. That won't make the world a better place.

    29. Re:Interesting, but... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Well, transfer the ketchup from the regular container to this new slippery surfaced bottle. Wait..

      Good idea. Where can I buy one?

    30. Re:Interesting, but... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Actually its not. The most savings could come in the manufacturing side that uses huge vats of ingredients. Those vats need to be cleaned and the losses are much larger than on the consumer end.

    31. Re:Interesting, but... by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Don't do much shopping do you? lol the bottles,packages have been getting smaller and smaller by the year instead of raising the price they make a few oz smaller package for more profits because now you need to buy 2 to get as much as the 1 package.cereal boxes are smaller,pasta boxes are smaller,spaghetti sauce bottles are smaller all by a few oz. ect ect.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    32. Re:Interesting, but... by green1 · · Score: 1

      As a percentage, the losses on those large vats are tiny compared to the customer end. It also seems unlikely that this coating would survive a proper cleaning, and re-applying it for each batch would likely cost far more than the product loss in the cleaning process.

    33. Re: Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the bottle a tiny bit smaller to account for the ketchup that used to get wasted and now is usable. Make it a little bit smaller yet, just cause. Tout the improvement, mark it up a dime or two. I'm not even really trying here - were you?

    34. Re:Interesting, but... by Eloking · · Score: 1

      ...that will never work.

      That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.

      I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

      For the cost to manufacture, I totally agree. And it's the hearth of the problem.How much it cost per ketchup plastic bottle? I've read about ~2 cents with a quick google search.

      About the efficiency, not so much. What is lost really? less than 0.1%? It doesn't weight much.

      And on the other hand, you have the great marketing value of these bottle.

      --
      Elok
    35. Re:Interesting, but... by khr · · Score: 1

      I've been noticing that, especially with orange juice. The half gallon is now slightly less... I lived overseas for a decade while I think it was starting to happen, so it was sort of a shock to me when I returned to the U.S. to find that.

      That's why I brought it up as the solution to the OP's idea that it wouldn't work if people can now get the full amount out. The manufacturer's will just reduce the full amount and keep the price the same.

    36. Re:Interesting, but... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      You would be wrong. Its on the manufacturing side real savings will occur. Understand they talk about ketchup because it does just this, gets people talking about their product. Ketchup doesn't matter in their plan other than to help secure funding. There are processes that may or may not be food related where 10+% of product is lost due to the viscosity of the product. In fact the purpose of this money raising is to invest in their CleanTanX product line.

    37. Re:Interesting, but... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Given the number of people that buy name brands over store brands that are often made at name brand factories despite the store brand being cheaper, your argument seems to fall flat.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    38. Re: Interesting, but... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Which will change the energy used to recycle it not one iota, because the recycler doesn't employ someone whose job is to grab things off the line and say "This one's already clean, boys!" All you're doing by washing it out before putting it for recycling is wasting some more water and energy -- it will still go through the exact same recycling process as everybody else's unwashed stuff.

    39. Re:Interesting, but... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Just put a couple drops of water in.. You can put JUST enough water in to make it come out without making it way too watery..

      (As opposed to shampoo, which I think you could water down about 10x and it would still work just as well, from how long the last little bit ends up lasting after adding a bunch of water to it..)

    40. Re:Interesting, but... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Does it have to be limited to ketchup bottles though? If this can be applied as a general food-grade super lubricant, then what about coating the nozzles in chicken soup machines with this stuff so they don't clog so easily?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    41. Re:Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toothpaste: Cut the tube open and you get about 5 more brushings. Peanut butter: add hot water, shake the container and the dogs get this "juice" on their next meal. They love it!

    42. Re:Interesting, but... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Wow, 5 more brushings, even when you've manually mangled/twisted it up as much as possible? I guess I'll have to try next time..

  8. How many times will this story get repeated? by DrXym · · Score: 5, Informative

    It has been doing the rounds since at least 2012. It was news back then. It's not news now.

    1. Re:How many times will this story get repeated? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. While I don't expect editors here to go back and read the last five years (while that would have been nice to get a better understanding of Slashdot), I would expect them to be able to do a search. Especially for terms that won't give a boatload of false positive hits, like "ketchup".

      It's not a hard job. But apparently too hard.

  9. But can you new recycle the bottle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds great but can you recycle a plastic container with this treatment?

  10. Why botter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just add some olive oil - shake the bottle real hard?

    1. Re:Why botter? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Because olive oil is so cheap and does not impart a flavor.

  11. Re:But can you new recycle the bottle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we can! Just put a stamp on the bottle and mail it to Hillary Clinton. I'm with her!

  12. Wut about the energy wasted by repeated postings?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost benefits of getting the last few milligrams of product out of the bottle is being negated by the energy expenditures of repeating the "THIS IS NEW" news stories and public commentary over the past ten years.

  13. How does it work? by flajann4415 · · Score: 1

    They never tell you the details in the media sources for the masses. Also, there were no references presented in this story to something more definitive. Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.

    1. Re:How does it work? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Right out of the bat I was concerned about whether or not this is based on nanotechnology, because we already have super-slick surfaces there. Not sure if I want to eat nanotech.

      Since even the whitener in toothpaste got redefined as nanotech you already are despite it being nothing like the way Drexler et al used the term.
      Androids are phones, hoverboards are skateboards with batteries and nanotech is powder in sunscreen, toothpaste etc - the future is now but it's not matching the hype.

  14. Refillable packaging by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than working on ways to continue the level of waste we produce, why not make more products refillable? Toothpaste, lotion, ointments, whatever. Instead of putting them in the same old plastic squeeze tubes put them in serine-like tubes than can be opened, cleaned out and refilled. The was a high end toothpaste called Rembrandt that came in an upright bottle that when you push down on it the paste would dispense from the top. The bottle was hard plastic that was made of two parts. It wasn't refillable but it didn't seem like a stretch to make it so. I can see taking the empty container back to the store to be refilled for less then the full price. Reduce and save money.

    1. Re:Refillable packaging by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rather than working on ways to continue the level of waste we produce, why not make more products refillable?

      Refillable packaging is a liability nightmare, so that is not going to happen. I'd just like to see non-recyclable plastic things outlawed, period. No making anything out of plastic and selling it into a market where it cannot be recycled. Glass was good because sand is an endlessly renewable resource. You can literally just take the glass out into the ocean and dump it. If you avoid toxic additives in the glass (and there are some, and there are alternatives) then there is basically zero environmental impact. The glass, in fact, turns back into sand over time. Recycling glass is a boondoggle — you really don't save any energy vs. making virgin glass. Meanwhile, all plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Refillable packaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass isn't (in the present) as renewable of a resource as you think. The big problem is that lugging it around and smelting it takes quite a lot of energy. In the future, as energy production changes this may change though.
      And refillable containers are mainly a problem because of the way our supermarkets are set up. There's no intrinsic reason why there cannot be big jerrycans filled with ketchup on the shelves, where you can fill standardised 1 litre bottles yourself, it's just not how the supply lines currently work.

    3. Re:Refillable packaging by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There's no intrinsic reason why there cannot be big jerrycans filled with ketchup on the shelves, where you can fill standardised 1 litre bottles yourself, it's just not how the supply lines currently work.

      Actually, there are. It has to do with food safety. Tomato in particular is a sketchy one. Even hippies don't do this, yet they are willing to watch the machine grind their peanut butter to an inferior standard as compared to what's in the jar on the shelf. Honey is also distributed to hippies in the manner in which you describe — honey keeps basically forever, so there is no hazard there. I've also seen olive oil begin to be distributed in this fashion of late. Also, add to the list beer and wine; wine bottle-filling kiosks are beginning to become popular, as are growler filling stations for the beer lovers. And of course, all the dry bulk stuff available in the bins at the health food store, like flour, salt, baking powder, nuts, dried fruits, granola, dried legumes...

      Ketchup goes bad easily, so you're not going to see it distributed in this fashion any time soon.

      I misspoke when I talked about the environmental impact; what I meant to say was that using virgin glass has basically no environmental impact as compared to recycling glass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Refillable packaging by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Occasionally, aerosol cans of toothpaste have come on the market. Don't confuse it with shaving creme.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Refillable packaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass is not made of just any old sand. It is actually rather specific. Industries have moved due to a shortage of local sand suitable for glass production. All glass could be clear rather than green if it were just a matter of unlimited sand for glassmaking

  15. If folks buy more of these bottles by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    than the old ones it'd work just fine. A huge part of supermarket sales is perceived value vs actual value. e.g. people paying an extra $0.50 cents for $0.10 cents worth of ketchup but thinking they just got a bargain.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  16. Won't be bought by any manufacturer by OlivierB · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Manufacturers make money by selling stuff, repeatedly. The fact that you buy a bottle of ketchup and that you cannot use every last drop of it is your problem, not the manufacturers. In fact, if you could use more of what you bought then you would buy less of it and that means in economic terms that (a) consumer gets more product, (b) manufacturer gets less revenue *and* more costs as they now need to coat the inside of the bottle. It may have its uses, but absolutely not in the FMCG (Faast Moving Consumer Goods) segment

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
    1. Re:Won't be bought by any manufacturer by green1 · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly not coming up with any use that would make sense.
      Consumer goods, it would be amazing, but as you point out, nobody would ever increase their manufacturing costs to decrease their sales.
      Industrial processes, first of all, large vats, pipelines, etc have far less loss (as a percentage) than small bottles and tubes that consumers use, but beyond that, the odds are it would need to be re-applied after each cleaning, which would more than negate the cost savings of less product waste.

      This is unfortunately a pretty niche product, and although it would benefit society as a whole, it will likely never see the light of day.

  17. It's this ancient news? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Informative

    I first heard about these magic ketchup bottles 5, 6 years ago. Is this really that slow a news day?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Let gravity do the trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Used to work in a deli with ketchup bottles on all the tables. At the end of the day we would turn the near empty bottles upside down overnight, draining them into a fuller bottle. In the monring the drained bottled were completely empty. Patience and gravity works every time.

  19. Recycling nightmare ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these 2 material containers usually are a nightmare to recycle.
    You'll save 1 cent in ketchup and loose 20 in order to separate the layers, or most likely you'll send the whole thing to a country that don't have many environmental laws.
    I'd rather loose a few drops now and then...

    I'm not even speaking about toxicity ....

  20. Is the coating safe to consume? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Is the coating itself safe? We come out with "magic" materials all the time and then predictably find out later on that they have all sorts of horribly toxic side effects. Getting all the ketchup out of the bottle falls pretty low on my list of things I give a shit about.

  21. yes, this is of utmost importance by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:yes, this is of utmost importance by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      because throwing a tablespoon of catsup (or ketchup) away in an almost empty bottle is such a crime and a waste

      Some people (like me) whose parents grew up during wartime or similar were brought up to think exactly that. A bit of water in the bottle, shake it up and throw it in when making pasta sauce or similar calms that irrational food wasting guilt by getting the last bit out of a normal bottle.

      I think the article is an example of a journalist saying "how can we use this in the home" when asking about a new scientific advance. Applied uses may end up really being something in minerals processing but it's harder for most to relate to that than kitchen stuff.

    2. Re:yes, this is of utmost importance by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      my mom grew up during the 1930's depression, she still cuses FDR to this very day for ordering farmers to take fruit & vegetables out to the desert and burn it when it could have went to feed the poor, (he did it to keep the prices from dropping too much). and she still keeps leftover food until it starts to turn rancid and sometimes i have to go through her refrigerator and throw out old food, i know how the great depression influenced people, she wont waste a drop of anything, i seen that the insanity can go the other direction too, i wont bother to scrape the last drop out of a can or bottle, but i wont waste half a container of good food if it can be frozen and thawed to be re-used

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  22. Isn't this old news? by hemanr · · Score: 0

    Isn't this old news? I saw this at least a year ago.

  23. Just sayin' by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe."
    Generally we don't/shouldn't rely on the creator's word to vouch for the ultimate safely of products, particularly ingested chemicals...

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Just sayin' by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      There are some assertions they can make. If the core of the process is the roughness of one surface, and the application of a compound on that surface known to be safe, then you can't magically have a toxic product. Certainly they are not going to tell us how the surface was made, and what the compound is, that may be a trade secret, however unless they are using a completely new compound to coat the product that has never been use elsewhere, then they are entitled to claim it's safe until someone proves them otherwise.

    2. Re:Just sayin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it can't magically become a toxic product but there is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Suppose I eat enough Catsup from treated bottles and ingest a sufficient quantity of the compound that it has effects on my Colon, for instance.

    3. Re:Just sayin' by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Unless they can do a field test a-la soylent and live off the stuff for weeks while developing horse-killing farts, I don't buy it either.

  24. Repost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gets reposted every few months.

  25. Yes, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See this article from July, 2016, about such research at Ohio State University.

  26. how will i then get my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    masturbation workout?

  27. You are missing the point. by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

    Here, step back from that one tree and see the forest.

    The PoC was using ketchup and mayonnaise bottles. The real application is coating the interiors of pipelines and containment vessels, i.e. manufacturing, distribution.

    If you're a ketchup manufacturer, and your raw goods are in vessels coated with this, as well as transfer piping, you recoup all of that material loss.

    If you're a refinery, your crude just got a lot easier to move.

    The consumer-facing application is just a means to differentiate your stupid product from everyone else's. Given the choice between a tube of toothpaste that requires strongman grip strength to fully utilize, or one that practically falls out... well, with the aging world population, this is easy to see as a marketing coup.

    --#

    1. Re:You are missing the point. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Except the coating was semi-liquid and becomes part of the product as it is used up. It only works in the bottle because you're not running gallons of product through it. You would have to re-coat the pipes regularly - after cleaning, because you'll probably still be required to wash it off regularly for food safety.

    2. Re:You are missing the point. by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't become part of the product, it is product-neutral in its interaction. I readily admit that the coating, such as it is, would probably need to be re-applied at industrial scale, but that's a solvable engineering problem. Recouping your raw materials at each stage translates into very big money for manufacturers.

    3. Re:You are missing the point. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Product-neutral does not mean it doesn't mix in. I think they are (not directly) saying taste-neutral. I'm fairly certain they were trying hard to downplay it, but why else would they make it edible?

      "The cool thing about it is that because the coating is a composite of solid and liquid, it can be tailored to the product. So for food, we make the coating out of food-based materials and so you can actually eat it."

    4. Re:You are missing the point. by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      ...because the FDA regulates anything that goes into your body.

      There is no analog for this in oil and gas.

  28. Cheaper Solution: Put Ketchup in Toothpaste Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been squeezing almost every bit of toothpaste out of those tubes since I was a kid. They're also probably cheaper to manufacture than ketchup bottles, so the bottom line profits would improve. Heck, fast food ketchup packets have been around for years and I can get every last drop out of those too.

  29. bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont make fun of my friend goatz and youfailiT

  30. Would be great if applied to toilet bowls, etc. by Buttonius · · Score: 2

    Can it be applied to ceramic surfaces?

    1. Re:Would be great if applied to toilet bowls, etc. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Why? Do you give a shit?

  31. spawned technology by NarlyBitHead · · Score: 1

    I'm looking forward to the /. post announcing the invention of a means to blow-mold an inside surface with a rough texture.

  32. I go for the lowtech solution by johanw · · Score: 1

    I just cut the bottle open when it's almost empty and get everything out.

  33. Except, manufactures don't want it. by EagleRider70 · · Score: 1

    I see no reason for food and/or the personal care industry would want this. It just means their customers would buy their product less frequently. So, the only way this will find its way into use, is if regulators require it. That would require them to be more concerned about their constituents, than the companies. Since when has that happened?

  34. I know a way to do it, too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Put the bottle in the fridge upside down, numbnuts

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I know a way to do it, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fridge is upside down already! I have zero g here in outer space, so I am ignoring the numbnuts part of your statement, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:I know a way to do it, too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fridge is upside down already! I have zero g here in outer space, so I am ignoring the numbnuts part of your statement, you insensitive clod!

      Unless you left your balls in space, it probably doesn't apply.

      You may have to put your bottle in a centrifuge. Just don't mix it up with the science samples.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I know a way to do it, too by PPH · · Score: 1

      I have zero g here in outer space,

      Shouldn't you be working on how to get the last drops of vodka out of a bottle in zero g?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  35. In the meantime in the real world ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Most people just bother it is worth their time and energy to get the last drop. So they open the next bottle.

    Some do care. They add a few drops of warm water to the nearly empty bottle, shake well and get a thinner ketchup out into a bowl. They shake/squeeze the next bottle on top of this to "hide" the thinner ketchup, and mix it with a fork from the kids.

    Some care even more and they routinely pilfer ketch up packets from every fast food place they enter. They never go through drive through. They go in to get their hands on the goodies. The map pockets on their car door would have paper napkins from these places, their kitchen drawer will be brimming with an assortment of ketchup and sauce packets from Taco Bell and McDonolds.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  36. already something for toilet bowls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Toto has http://www.totousa.com/people-first-innovation/peopleplanetwater/cefiontect that's been an optional upgrade for more than 10 years. Toilets with that really do require less frequent cleaning.

  37. That's NOT getting the drops out of the bottle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is changing the bottle. Put the ketchup in a bag if its that important to you.

  38. Ancient news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news, these types of coatings have been around for years.

  39. It's already outdated by Slugster · · Score: 1

    This "coating" is already outdated, since bottle companies are working on plastics that basically do this without any additional coatings.
    And they're already partly there: if you look at ketchup bottles in (US) stores you can see that the ketchup does all slide to the bottom now.
    The sliding doesn't happen real fast but it works. And nobody wants the whole bottle to come gushing out at once anyway.

  40. My first reaction,bar none by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    There are scientists for ketchup??

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  41. Overheard at the ketchup lab by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    What's this yellow stain on your lab gown?

    Are you leaving us for the competition?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  42. Already invented decades ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "non-caloric, silicon-based, kitchen lubricant" was already invented decades ago and has been documented in use for breaking the world record for downhill sledding.

  43. Ketchup Bottle Centrifuge Forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already achieved the desired goal years ago!--Way ahead of you MIT! I will never give up my Ketchup bottle centrifuge! NEVER!!!

  44. Ketchup is Shear-Thinning by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Ketchup becomes thinner when you hit the bottom bottle with the bottom of your hand. Some shampoos and detergents does this too.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  45. Old news by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    I remember reading this *exact* story here on /.about five years ago.

  46. Dupe! by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    See also this slashdot article from 2015 about the exact same technology:
    https://science.slashdot.org/s...

    Apparently the reason it's in the news is that LiquiGlide (a company Prof. Varanasi co-founded, though it's not mentioned in the newer article) just went through (or is in the middle of?) a new round of venture funding.

    So they had working technology for sale two years ago but now they want it to be news again, because marketing.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in real life they did not convince the previous round of readers and investors or managed to keep the funds without the annoyance, and are now on the second round of keep-the-money-or-get-anything-at last negotiations. If it is MIT... does a one researcher have to be AROUND asking for VENTURE capital? Think of it: call a house team of economists and industrial engineers, plan the _MIT_ lab tested, safe and secured technology, show the business planning to MITs whatever-body of finance and investment, and start spending the money with MIT contacted lawyers! Is it not patentable? What is an Indian pretending its name is Italian asking for venture capital for a billionaire investment in a standard packaging technology when it comes from the inner circle of advanced research on Earth?? It leaves all of us like in... hiding under the fallen leaves looking for some safe Sun light or something like that. It is the kind of news you want to hear of first in the supermarket with headlines saying: New! Now with extra nano-ultra-coating for x% more spread in your bottle, at the price you expected to buy the thing without the coating. It is the way these final consumer good advances are usually announced, to gain a market competitive advantage and take by surprise your now obviously inferior competitors.

  47. dramatically reduce waste by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so we add this stuff, and that means you won't waste this other stuff.

    a) I trust the new stuff is cheaper than the ketchup itself -- and by cheaper, I mean cradle-to-grave with the machine, the material, the shipping of the material, and the invention efforts too.

    b) I really don't care about the last half-penny of ketchup in the three-dollar bottle.

    c) water works when cooking with ketchup

    d) time works, and looks cool

    e) this was never anyone's problem!

  48. I wonder about its long-term toxicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it won't be for free nor be cheap.

  49. Great Depression People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this in my Grandparents. People who lived through the Great Depression, they were marked by the experience. They never thought about the world the same way again.

    My Grandma would talk about "Hard times", and this was an ever-present possibility in her mind. Hard times could come at any time and you needed to be aware of that. The funny thing was, Grandma and Grandpa spent their last decades in clover, they never had it so good. But they never allowed themselves to think that way.

    Hard times could be right around the corner.

    1. Re:Great Depression People by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You've identified the target market for my ketchup centrifuge.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  50. Slick Poops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Olestra? Edible...

  51. vinegar? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    I just mix some vinegar in near the end to loosen it up.

    1. Re:vinegar? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, smart guy? And how do you get the last drop of vinegar out of the bottle after you do that?

      (Obligatory /s)

  52. super safe? by Revek · · Score: 1

    According to Prof Kripa Varanasi, who developed the slippery surface, the technology is completely safe.

    Like margarine or pet plastics were perfectly safe in the sixties safe?

  53. Shut down the Patent Office! by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    Ketchup that slides right out of the bottle, to the last drop?

    Shut down the Patent Office. There is now nothing worthwhile left to invent.

  54. Unnecessary. I just use my tongue. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    This is so pointless. I just use my tongue to scoop up the last drops of delicious ketchup from the bottom of the bottle. Yes, women love me.

  55. Innovation! by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    We can't cure cancer, but we can get that last glob of ketchup out of a bottle!

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  56. super slippery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm, a super slipper coating for a concave plastic surface, to allow easier egress from the interior. i cant imagine any other practical uses for such a surface. I wonder if the Japanese might have a use for this, maybe as part of some recreational toy, like a doll??

  57. Next Related Article: by stolidobserver · · Score: 1

    Ketchup and toothpaste prices double after new coating used in containers. Manufacturer's claim an increase in "value" due to the customer getting more mileage from a bottle or tube. Sizes remain the same.

  58. Sidewall Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem has always been that no one realized that the inherent "stickiness" to the walls of the container make pouring whatever is inside controllable. When this "revolutionary new coating" first came out 6 articles ago, it never came to market because they found out that when you try to pour, everything came out at once. This could be controlled by using one of those squeezy lids that make funny fart noises, but, ultimately, the cost of adding both the new lid and the coating didn't add up to savings.

  59. Bet the cost on eye glasses won't be so cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As many have pointed out this is old news. But every time I see it I think. Sure this will be in ketchup bottles its so cheap but when I opt for the coating on my eyeglasses the cost will suddenly be over a hundred dollars for a relatively small surface.