Because the world has been waiting for a low-friction ketchup bottle.
MIT PhD candidate Dave Smith and a team of engineers and nano-technologists at the Varanasi Research Group have devised a “super slippery” coating ideal for clogged condiments. The coating does have potential in other, non-ketchup-related areas, including windscreens and fuel lines, but the team is currently in talks to market a sauce bottle lubricant. “The market for bottles - just the sauces alone - is a $17 billion market,” says Smith. “And if all those bottles had our coating, we estimate that we could save about one million tons of food from being thrown out every year.” Imagine. No more futile shaking or caveman-style thumping. No more mayonnaise mishaps or inadequately spiced sandwiches.
Watch that goop glide, baby.
Via Brain Terminal. And for the latest in spilled condiment relocation, see this.
"No more mayonnaise mishaps.."
Ah, but new Helmann's squeezy bottles fixed that one already!
Posted by: AmbushPredator | May 23, 2012 at 08:20
I’m conflicted on the whole condiment delivery issue. For mayonnaise, I stick with the large glass jar, aided of course by a long thin spoon. Yet I’m a huge fan of squeezy Marmite, which allows for precision delivery and whimsical pattern-making.
Posted by: David | May 23, 2012 at 08:25
#FirstWorldProblems.
Posted by: sk60 | May 23, 2012 at 08:41
Yet I’m a huge fan of squeezy Marmite, which allows for precision delivery and whimsical pattern-making.
You can't have toast without a Marmite smiley face.
Posted by: Anna | May 23, 2012 at 09:19
Anticipation
I'm sure any other Americans my age or older will remember that. And we Americans don't put Marmite on our toast at all, if we've even heard of it. (Again, Americans my age and above would know Vegemite if only from the Men at Work song "Down Under".)
Posted by: Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA | May 23, 2012 at 12:16
And just think. Years from now, when we’re all basking in the glory of our low-friction condiment containers, this advert won’t make sense.
Posted by: David | May 23, 2012 at 12:36
But will it get rid of the scabby bits around the rim?
Posted by: Sam | May 23, 2012 at 14:19
Upon viewing that clip I felt like bursting out in song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXm1P77MSpQ
Posted by: Jason Bontrager | May 23, 2012 at 15:04
"First World Problems"?
Cry me a God damn river, sk60.
Because, hey, it's not like a lubricative nanocoating financed by those icky first world problems will ever benefit the entire world by making something useful to poor people (or that makes them richer) cheaper, easier, or possible in the first place, as a first, second, or third order effect, right?
Right?
Posted by: Sigivald | May 23, 2012 at 18:54
Instead why not make Ketchup out of superfluid Helium 3?
Or did it fall through the container?
Posted by: AC1 | May 23, 2012 at 19:42
Sigivald - the number 1 'First World Problem' is the luxury of worrying whether your problems are up to snuff...
Posted by: dcardno | May 23, 2012 at 21:16
It will be fun seeing what all the possible applications for this end up being. I'm thinking there will be some way this is useful in the medical field. I thank the God that made me that my problems are First World problems.
Posted by: Mike James | May 24, 2012 at 02:18
I just want them to be able to coat my arteries with the damn stuff!
Posted by: JoanOfArgghh | May 24, 2012 at 02:36
Those people are going to be very, very, very rich.
Posted by: TimT | May 24, 2012 at 07:58
Then again Tim Worstall makes a rather good point. Maybe, just maybe, those people are going to be very, very, very averagely incomed.
Posted by: TimT | May 24, 2012 at 08:09
Big Condiment will by them out and bury this deep, deep down, people.
Posted by: Rob | May 24, 2012 at 10:19
BUY!!!!!
Posted by: Rob | May 24, 2012 at 10:21
perview is you're fiend
Posted by: AC1 | May 24, 2012 at 10:38
TimT and Rob,
“Big Condiment will buy them out and bury this deep, deep down, people.”
Heh. As noted at Tim’s and elsewhere, the economics could be interesting. I suppose it chiefly depends on whether the assumed long-term loss of sales (due to an assumed reduction in waste) would be offset by marketing the novelty of the thing and its ‘low waste’ aspect, thereby attracting customers from rivals.
Though I can’t say the prospect of saving some tiny amount of mayonnaise or ketchup has much bearing on my condiment shopping. I buy mayo in a traditional glass jar, even though it’s supposedly more wasteful than the squeezy plastic option. There’s something about the consistency that seems different, at least to me. And besides, a long thin spoon reaches most of the nooks and crannies.
Blimey. Who knew condiment delivery was such a thrilling topic?
Posted by: David | May 24, 2012 at 10:44
Next: cruet sets!
Posted by: Sam | May 24, 2012 at 14:45
There's another reason that the new bottle might not lead to a loss in sales: when it's finished, it's finished. So you'd throw it away immediately and buy a new one. With a traditional bottle, however, you tend to say, 'still a little bit left,' and put it back in the cupboard. The next time you use it you say, 'still a tiiiny little bit left' ... and put it back in the cupboard. Result: a gap in your ketchup acquisition profile that benefits neither you nor the manufacturer. I reckon Heinz should 'stick' to this one like glue.
Posted by: witwoud | May 24, 2012 at 15:54
We used to put a bit of water in the 'still a little bit left' bottle, and shake. The result would still have a sauce consistency but be much easier to come out.
Posted by: TimT | May 25, 2012 at 05:09
I hear these guys will next be working on a non-nutriative cereal varnish.
Posted by: Rob Huck | May 26, 2012 at 03:33
Great post.
Posted by: Nano Coating | July 10, 2012 at 11:48