[HN Gopher] East Germany invented 'unbreakable' drinking glasses
___________________________________________________________________
East Germany invented 'unbreakable' drinking glasses
Author : n1b0m
Score : 353 points
Date : 2024-08-06 17:37 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| varshithr wrote:
| There's an excellent youtube video that discusses this topic:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvBpjCOBu0
| voidey wrote:
| Indeed, was going to share that but you already did.
| mannykannot wrote:
| This video makes the point that the technology was also
| developed by Corning (allegedly independently, though I am
| skeptical that it independently came up with the concept, given
| that the video claims that the Superfest process was patented),
| which was likewise unsuccessful in finding a market for it
| until Apple came looking for a tough screen for its iPhone.
| torginus wrote:
| Here's a video of a guy dropping said unbreakable glass 3 times
| and breaking it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NIAbt_GxPsg
|
| The problem with unbreakable glass is once it hits a really hard
| material, like a grain of quartz, or a ceramic fragment, it
| breaks just the same.
| Tepix wrote:
| It doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it lasts much longer
| it's already a big win.
| cess11 wrote:
| I have a few glasses with handles from the fifties (or as far
| back as the twenties, there's no stamp on them) that are
| quite brittle and will for sure break at the bottom if you
| pour hot water in them.
|
| Seems to me like they last long enough when taken care of,
| and in situations where you don't the "unbreakable" glass
| splinters into a rather nasty dust like material.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I like the drinking glasses from hardened glass. When they
| break, they shatter into a lot of almost cubic pieces, not
| into little syringe like splinter like regular glass.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Is it? Based on what metric.
|
| If a glass costs EUR1 and lasts 1 year, and an unbreakable
| glass costs EUR10 and lasts 5 years, that's not a big win.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Not if going out and buying the glasses takes time, or if
| storing additional spare glasses takes precious space, or
| cleaning the broken glass takes workers' time, or if the
| broken glass could be a hazard, or there may be supply
| issues with getting the same uniform glasses years later,
| or any other number of reasons.
| signatoremo wrote:
| Oh the new version of the glasses will be cheaper, more
| durable, lighter, more energy efficient to make.
|
| The point remains, longer lasting glasses may or may not
| be superior.
| pixelfarmer wrote:
| It is all about metrics and how you bend them to whatever
| you prefer. However, the more this deviates from actual
| reality, the more likely reality will eventually show up
| and bust the show in the most horrible way possible.
| dotancohen wrote:
| You don't know that when making the initial purchase.
| xnickb wrote:
| The article talks about sustainability, so clearly Euro
| isn't the unit to measure that.
| ta1243 wrote:
| Ideally the cost would include all externalities and thus
| allow people to judge the value and bare the full cost.
|
| But kWh, or grammes of glass, or carbon credits, or
| whatever you want.
|
| Normal glass is very recyclable and doesn't require a lot
| of energy or resource to recycle. "Long life" glass may
| well not be recycled at all.
| Tepix wrote:
| Creating glass requires a lot of energy, which should be
| reflected in its price. Chances are creating a much
| stronger glass will not be much more expensive than a
| normal glass.
| t43562 wrote:
| The problem is really about who gets the benefit of the
| longevity - e.g. I feel that with LED lightbulbs etc it is
| mostly the producer who has soaked up the economic benefit.
| As a user you think it's going to last longer and then for
| one reason or another it doesn't - they've worked out how
| to introduce some unreliability.
|
| Now you're paying 5x more for 1.5x life. etc etc.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I suspect that waste produced by broken glasses is so
| minuscule compared to the overall glass production/waste that
| this is largely irrelevant.
|
| Edit: Apparently glass cookware and drinking glasses are
| often not recyclable. This seems like a more important aspect
| to improve than durability even if, again, still overall a
| small improvement compared to overall glass industry.
| ecjhdnc2025 wrote:
| Broken glasses in bars, for example, have a lot more
| impacts than just waste.
|
| Broken glass has to be cleaned up, causes injuries, even
| causes lost product in some situations.
|
| I was in a cocktail bar once with three friends who ordered
| us the same chilled cocktail, served there day in, day out,
| and as the cocktails were poured into the glasses, three of
| the four glasses broke. Plink, plink, plink.
|
| Glasses too hot, cocktail too cold, some other handling
| problem. Who knows. But tougher glass might not have done
| that.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| That sounds like clutching at straws while not really
| showing how that'd make a significant difference to
| anything.
|
| Make all glasses recyclable. Probably more important but
| less marketable for a new startup idea...
| ecjhdnc2025 wrote:
| I don't think it is "clutching at straws" for a bar to
| want glasses that break less frequently, causing fewer
| safety concerns, and to be prepared to pay the extra, but
| whatever.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| A friend used to work in a student bar as a bartender.
| Broken glass was legitimately a safety issue. Drunken
| people can cut themselves quite creatively, including
| severed sinews.
|
| Ironically, most of his patrons were medical students.
| forinti wrote:
| Short tangential story:
|
| My grandfather many decades ago came home with a pack of
| "unbreakable" glasses. My grandmother asked why he had bought
| them. He shrugged and replied "well, if you don't want them..."
| and threw them all on the floor.
|
| They all broke, of course.
|
| My grandmother was not amused. She was a very serious person.
| The rest of the family is still laughing on 60 years later.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| My aunt did that with a corningware plate. "This is
| unbreakable" then proceeded to yeet it on the concrete floor
| covered in linoleum. It was quiet an impressive splash of
| splinters everywhere.
|
| Shatter resistant is a better term. :) Or as
| Jerryrigeverything says 'glass is glass'.
| leeoniya wrote:
| discussed 3 months ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40260399
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| That's a completely different article.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| It was discussed here even more recently than that.
| veltas wrote:
| In the UK, and I suspect elsewhere, pub glasses are manufactured
| to indicate their age as they're meant to be replaced regularly.
| Often in pubs you can see they've far outlived their proper life,
| if you know what to look for, and are covered in etches from
| repeated washes. Clearly glasses last a long time, I don't think
| smashing is the kind of issue they're making it out to be.
|
| These hardened glasses are sharper when they smash. They tend to
| smash after a few drops, but more drops than normal glasses.
|
| They solve a historical problem from East Germany: lack of
| resources to make glass, which is no longer a problem. Normal
| glasses are recyclable. EDIT: No apparently they are not, so
| maybe that's useful?
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> pub glasses are manufactured to indicate their age_
|
| Why? This just sounds like planned obsolescence.
|
| _> as they're meant to be replaced regularly_
|
| Why? Is it a real hygrine problem or something?
| scott_w wrote:
| It's likely the washing process still scratches the glass but
| it's less visible. It doesn't increase the "safe" life of the
| glass, as bacteria is still able to get into those scratches.
|
| Making the scratches obvious makes clear to the pub landlord
| that they need to be replaced (and tips patrons off so
| they'll put pressure on the landlord by not coming back).
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> It's likely the washing process still scratches the
| glass but it's less visible. It doesn't increase the "safe"
| life of the glass, as bacteria is still able to get into
| those scratches. _
|
| Honestly, I've never heard of this before and I have
| friends working in the restaurant industry. Is it a real
| documented health hazard or a FUD spread by the glass
| manufacturers to create perpetual demand for their product
| (Glass As A Service)?
|
| My grandma still uses the same glassware from like 30+
| years ago and washes it by hand and it doesn't look
| tarnished at all. Is she and our family likely to die from
| drinking from those old glassware with micro scratches?
| scott_w wrote:
| > and washes it by hand
|
| That's the key part here. Pubs use commercial dishwashers
| which effectively shot blast your dishes and glasses.
| There's a reason you can see "Not dishwasher safe" on
| certain items: because it'll blast off the nice patterns.
| I know because I've done it by accident.
| sfn42 wrote:
| Not sure what shot blast means, but as far as I know
| dishwashing machines just spray hot water and detergent
| on everything.
|
| I guess that could cause abrasion if there's hard and
| sharp particles in the water, but I'm not sure what could
| cause those. Maybe if glass breaks during washing, but
| I'd assume the machine filters the water before reusing
| it.
| scott_w wrote:
| > as far as I know dishwashing machines just spray hot
| water and detergent on everything
|
| There's a couple of sources:
|
| - The dishwasher tablets have a mildly abrasive substance
|
| - The water itself (especially in the UK) can carry
| abrasive substances from the pipes
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| If it was in the pipes, handwashing would do it too.
|
| Dishwasher detergent does not contain abrasive
| substances; dissolve a teaspoon of it in a glass of hot
| water and see for yourself.
| scott_w wrote:
| I'm not convinced because I can run pellets over a
| surface by hand and not scratch it, yet a shot blast will
| strip paint off easily.
|
| Same substances with different processes produce
| different results.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> There 's a reason you can see "Not dishwasher safe" on
| certain items:_
|
| I've nerve seen it on glassware though. That warning is
| usually for plastics since they melt at hot dishwasher
| water, and on certain metal cook-ware where the caustic
| dishwasher detergent will corrode the metal anodization,
| but glass is usually resistant to both temperature and
| caustic detergents, which is why it's used in bio labs
| for storing and mixing harsh chemicals, granted,
| different composition of glass, but it's still glass not
| adamantium.
|
| So this point doesn't scan for me.
| scott_w wrote:
| > I've nerve seen it on glassware though.
|
| No but the process that strips the paint off delicate
| crockery is self-evidently abrasive, which stands to
| reason when you look at the scratch marks in glass that
| has been through too many cycles.
|
| It's not on glass because an _individual_ washing won 't
| destroy it but _repeated_ washing eventually scratches
| the glassware to hell. I 've seen it with my own eyes.
| seszett wrote:
| > _self-evidently abrasive, which stands to reason when
| you look at the scratch marks in glass that has been
| through too many cycles._
|
| Marks on glass are not due to abrasion, they appear
| because glass is slightly soluble in alkaline water,
| which is the case in dishwashers. Porcelain and stainless
| steel do not get scratched by dishwashers for example.
| infecto wrote:
| I will be honest that sounds doubtful with at least the
| contraptions and process used in America. I guess its
| possible if you are just hand washing the glass?
| scott_w wrote:
| I don't know what American bars use but the use of the
| term "pub" marks this out as a UK thing. I recall going
| to social clubs and other, cheaper, drinking
| establishments and seeing grotty glasses.
|
| I know for a fact they use dishwashers (I've seen them)
| and that dishwashers scratch the hell out of your glasses
| (I've seen that too). Handwashing simply doesn't do this.
| Dishwashers work by, effectively, shot-blasting your
| dishes and glasses so I can see the mechanism by which
| your glassware will get scratched. I don't see how this
| happens when you're handwashing with Fairy liquid and a
| soft sponge.
| eru wrote:
| Why would a pub landlord buy these glasses?
| scott_w wrote:
| If a brewery is providing them, why would they let the
| glasses get into a state that their drinks look like shit
| in them?
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| Some pint glasses designed for lager are made with nucleation
| sites for the bubbles at the bottom, over time these wear out
| and make your pint of lager look 'dead' compared to a fresh
| glass. This is less of an issue with ales and other less
| carbonated drinks though.
| consp wrote:
| My experience is either the wrong soap or unclean water
| leaves a residue on the glass killing any beer. It likely
| also fills these nucleation sites.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > Some pint glasses designed for lager are made with
| nucleation sites
|
| They really shouldn't be, forcing CO2 out of suspension is
| exactly what you don't want. It causes the beer to become
| flat more quickly. This is why good beer bars use a glass
| washer right before serving, to remove any small particles
| that may end up in the glass and cause nucleation.
| walthamstow wrote:
| More quickly, like how quickly? Most pints are drunk
| within about 45 mins of pouring
| ch4s3 wrote:
| You'll notice a difference right away, because the
| escaping CO2 breaks the head on the beer, which is
| exactly the opposite of what you want on a pilsner. As
| for going flat, I'd have to root around on Brulosophy
| later I think they did a test on this.
| jdietrich wrote:
| It's a quality issue. Beer served in a new, spotlessly clean
| glass will have a distinct foamy head on top of clear liquid.
| If the glass is dirty or scuffed, bubbles will rapidly form
| on the sides of the glass, which seriously affects the
| quality of the beer. The head will be thin and uneven, the
| liquid will look murky and the beer will taste flat.
|
| https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2971/0116/files/dirty_beer.
| ..
|
| This isn't meant to be a nationalistic point, but America has
| a relatively undeveloped beer culture; beer is often kept and
| served very poorly and drinkers rarely notice. British,
| Belgian or German drinkers will notice, complain and tell all
| their friends if you aren't serving beer properly.
| javaunsafe2019 wrote:
| German here: as if! No one except a few nerds would notice
| in real life.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| And that's why I love HN!
| lb1lf wrote:
| Those nerds tend to be quite vocal about it, though!
|
| (I count myself amongst them, despite only being 3/32
| German...)
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> British, Belgian or German drinkers will notice,
| complain and tell all their friends if you aren't serving
| beer properly._
|
| Yeah, no, that's an American PoV/meme to think all those
| nationalities somehow are fickle about the glass of the
| beer when in reality most of them wouldn't even notice in
| real life. Beer drinking is a causal activity there, not a
| sommelier activity where every detail is scrutinized.
|
| You go to the park and it's full of Germans drinking beer
| out damn aluminum cans. Most bars are so dark and loud and
| people so drunk, the last thing they care about is if their
| beer glass is pitch perfect.
|
| People do care about the quality of the beer, but the
| quality of the glass, not so much.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Beer drinking being casual isn't a counter argument. Even
| if its a minority, there are a lots of beer 'nerds' who
| take drinking beer seriously. And those are usually the
| people who have some amount of influence threw various
| mechanisms.
|
| As a Guinness fan I gladly go to a pub that does it
| correctly, compared to one that doesn't.
|
| So the idea that there is a business impact to having
| lower quality experience even visiaul can not just be
| ignored by saying 'drinking is causal'.
|
| As a pub you have to try to offer something that you
| can't get from aluminum cans in the park.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| I suspect the controversial proposition, whether intended
| or not, is that everyone in countries with a notable beer
| tradition is a snob who will refuse to drink anything but
| the best served according to the most exacting standards.
|
| Clearly, this is false, and it is enough to visit such a
| country or look at beer sales to know that this is the
| case.
|
| At the same time, I will agree that the average beer and
| what is considered "drinkable" in probably any European
| country is significantly better than the swill that
| passes as average in the US.
| jdietrich wrote:
| There are bad pubs and indifferent drinkers anywhere, but
| there's also a very large and long-standing market for
| quality beer and vast numbers of publicans who serve
| great beer without any fanfare. The Campaign for Real Ale
| has 150,000 dues-paying members. Sitting in an 18th
| century pub and drinking beer that was brewed within
| walking distance is a largely unremarkable experience in
| the UK.
|
| It isn't a matter of being a connoisseur's fetish, but
| about the basic standards expected by a large bulk of
| drinkers. "Craft beer" is a fairly novel and niche
| product in the US, but even Wetherspoons - a huge chain
| known for selling very cheap beer - serves a wide range
| of (often local) real ale in most of their pubs. Many
| thousands of British pubs are members of Cask Marque, a
| voluntary accreditation scheme that requires regular
| inspections of their cellar-keeping and the quality of
| their beer. America has a burgeoning beer culture, but
| much of the country is still a beer desert where the only
| widely available beers are pasteurised lagers. The
| effects of prohibition are still being felt today,
| because it takes generations to develop a proper beer
| culture.
|
| https://camra.org.uk/
|
| https://cask-marque.co.uk/
| account42 wrote:
| Maybe what you are saying is true in the UK, but gp is
| right for Germany - I don't know anyone here who would
| complain about the glass their beer was served in.
|
| Also, most of what counts as craft beer in the US
| wouldn't even legally pass as beer here.
| tristor wrote:
| > America has a burgeoning beer culture, but much of the
| country is still a beer desert where the only widely
| available beers are pasteurised lagers.
|
| This would have been true decades ago. It hasn't been
| true anytime recently, even more than a decade ago. At
| this point, craft beer is available bottled and canned in
| the typical supermarket and even gas station/convenience
| store in the US, even dive bars have at least one tap for
| craft beer or at least some bottles (although it is
| likely not going to serve it in high quality glassware),
| and craft beer makes up more than a quarter of the total
| dollars sold in the US beer market and nearly 15% of the
| volume.
|
| You say this, but at the same time, the most popular
| beers drunk in every European country are pasteurised
| lagers as well. In fact, lagers are popular /all over the
| world/ for the same reason: They are light, easy to
| drink, cheap to produce and buy, and refreshing when
| served cold in hot weather.
|
| I've been in plenty of historic pubs in the UK that were
| unfortunately acquired and ruined by Wetherspoons. A
| Wetherspoons is in no way any better than the average
| dive bar in the US, except that in the US it is
| commonplace for a bar to serve only alcohol and no food,
| where in the UK pubs are generally expected to have food.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Correct. Beer is the one item in Britain that is acceptable
| to send back. My pet peeve is beer served in a glass that
| is still warm from the dishwasher.
|
| Food, god no, wouldn't want to cause a fuss. Uncooked
| chicken? I'll just push it to the side and eat the rest.
| gspencley wrote:
| > Uncooked chicken? I'll just push it to the side and eat
| the rest.
|
| Really? You're not just being facetious?
|
| I NEVER send food back if I just don't like it. If it's
| under-seasoned or not up to my standards, no big deal.
| I'll go elsewhere next time.
|
| But if it's a food safety issue, or if I order something
| pricey and it's missing a key ingredient (they don't have
| to take it back in that case, just bring that ingredient
| to the table and we're good). I mean, if you paid for it
| and you can't eat it because it's unsafe or you didn't
| get what you paid for ... that should be totally
| understandable and expected that it gets sent back. I've
| worked in food service and while I would never spit on
| anyone's food no matter how much of a dick they are, I
| wouldn't even feel the temptation if it was a legit
| kitchen screw-up.
| walthamstow wrote:
| No my friend it was just a joke about British manners
| ginko wrote:
| >It's a quality issue. Beer served in a new, spotlessly
| clean glass will have a distinct foamy head on top of clear
| liquid.
|
| I thought Brits hate head on beer.
| FreezingKeeper wrote:
| It's a North-South thing
|
| https://bucolicaholic.com/2016/09/01/on-real-ale-the-
| sparkle...
| jdietrich wrote:
| No, they just hate excessive head that is inappropriate
| to the beer. Some amount of head is essential to properly
| release the aroma of beer. A traditional cask ale is
| hand-pumped and served without additional gas, so it will
| tend to have a smaller head than a beer that has added
| gas. No more than 5% of the glass should be filled with
| head. Many pubs use glasses with a marked fill line,
| allowing for space for a head while still providing a
| full measure of liquid.
|
| Northern drinkers traditionally prefer a thicker,
| creamier head and used beer pumps with a "sparkler"
| nozzle to provide this, while southern drinkers typically
| preferred very little head; this historic divide is
| starting to soften in recent years.
|
| Some European beer styles are properly served with a
| bigger and frothier head, particularly wheat beers and
| pilsners.
| tristor wrote:
| > This isn't meant to be a nationalistic point, but America
| has a relatively undeveloped beer culture; beer is often
| kept and served very poorly and drinkers rarely notice.
|
| You are extremely incorrect on this point. I think this is
| true if you think of your typical dive bar in the US, but
| this is more a /cost/ point than a point of the beer
| culture. Dive bars are not expected to be good, just cheap.
| The best beers in the world of every style (except Belgian
| beers) are in made in the US. The US revived craft brewing
| and spread it around the world, and brought craft brewing
| to parts of the world that never had any serious beer
| culture. American beer is /far/ far more than light beers
| shotgunned out of a can in the parking lot during a college
| football game.
|
| There are numerous craft bars in the US that take the
| quality of their pours, including the quality of the
| glassware very seriously. The US helped to pioneer the
| certification process for serving beer, modeled after that
| for wine. The BJCP was founded in 1985 in Colorado, as an
| offshoot of the American Homebrewer's Association, and the
| Cicerone Certification program was founded 25 years ago in
| the US as well. The US has done a significant amount, not
| just for itself, but for the world, to establish high
| standards of excellence for the making of beer and the
| serving of beer.
|
| I say this as someone who is an expert on beer. I have
| traveled to more than 70 countries, in part specifically to
| drink beer. I have brewed beer for more than 20 years. I
| have judged beer competitions. I am a certified cicerone. I
| have drank more than ten thousand unique beers and been to
| more than 2500 breweries in my life. It is completely
| ignorant (and a nationalistic ignorance) to say that the US
| has a poor beer culture. This might have been true in the
| 1970s, it is not true today, and it hasn't been true for
| decades.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Why? This just sounds like planned obsolescence.
|
| It's a requirement of the volume calibration - beer glasses
| used for commercial purposes are classified as certified
| measurement devices under EU law, you have to print on the
| glass the year in which the required stamp got affixed [1].
| This serves to provide the customer with a way to check if
| they're being sold the correct amount of beer.
|
| Fun fact, this was a massive issue for stone mugs and led to
| a lot of confusion when the regulation became enforced [2].
|
| [1] https://www.agme.de/?qs_servlet=downloadIxServlet&rq_RecI
| d=3...
|
| [2] https://germany.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/klarstel
| lun...
| agurk wrote:
| > Normal glasses are recyclable
|
| Is this the case in reality? Everywhere I've lived drinking
| glasses were not accepted as part of domestic glass recycling
| due to their composition [0]
|
| Perhaps there is a commercial recycling route for pubs though?
| A quick google didn't turn anything up.
|
| [0] https://www.friendsofglass.com/ecology/what-glass-can-you-
| re...
| veltas wrote:
| I take that back then. Would these hardened glasses be
| recyclable though?
| defrost wrote:
| "Yes"
|
| From a glass making point of view you don't want them
| messing with expansion coefficients and bulk properties so
| they're off the table there - it's a waste of energy to
| reheat them up to ~ 1,000 C.
|
| But you do end up with _large_ volumes of glass .. a
| relatively consistant material, you might want to crush and
| tumble that (to take the sharp edges away) and use that
| sized grit | frit as driveway material, as additive to
| concrete where structurally sound, as fish tank "sand",
| etc.
| toxik wrote:
| IIRC concrete aggregate should be jagged so that it
| interlocks with itself. You actually can't just use any
| old sand, you need sharp sand, which is an increasingly
| scarce resource.
| defrost wrote:
| My bad .. mentally insert more commas and juggle the
| clauses :-)
|
| The tumbling was only meant to be applied to application
| requiring rounded grit, you're correct that concrete and
| other uses might prefer jagged.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "you need sharp sand"
|
| Hmm, practical concerns about acquisition aside, would
| lunar dust work?
| jasomill wrote:
| Yes:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete
| consp wrote:
| AFAIK (but may be massively wrong) is that most clear glasses
| have many composition types and don't mix well and the
| industrial brown/green is all the same.
| jnurmine wrote:
| Interesting!
|
| The recycling containers here have separate containers for
| clear glass and coloured glass and I've always thought glass
| is glass.
|
| Now I checked in detail what is accepted, and sure enough,
| drinking glasses and mirrors are specifically disallowed.
| brewdad wrote:
| I assumed my city wouldn't accept drinking glasses due to
| safety issues. The assumption being that the most likely case
| someone would recycle a drinking glass is after breaking it
| and they don't want their workers getting cut. Turns out it
| isn't really compatible with recycling beer and wine bottles.
| wiether wrote:
| > pub glasses are manufactured to indicate their age
|
| I was first confused by this because here in France we have
| this popular practice, mainly at the school cafeteria, to look
| at the bottom of our glass to know how old we are (actually
| it's the mold number obviously...) and depending of the people,
| the younger (or the older) gets to fetch water for everyone
| else during lunch.
|
| https://eu.duralex.com/en/blogs/inspirations/et-toi-tu-as-qu...
| yoavm wrote:
| > I don't think smashing is the kind of issue they're making it
| out to be.
|
| I never ran a restaurant but Googling around it seems like bars
| replace around 100% of the glasses annually due to breaking.
| That sounds like a lot...
|
| > Normal glasses are recyclable
|
| I've never seen anyone collecting broken glass and putting it
| in a special glass-bin. The glass bin we have in Amsterdam
| isn't one that you can even push broken glass into if you
| wanted - it's shaped specifically to receive bottles.
|
| Most resources online hint that the reason this hard glass
| didn't become successful is because there's a lot of profit to
| be made by reselling glasses when your old glass breaks.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I remember reading once that the average Martini glass has a
| lifespan of 3 uses in a bar environment. Very thin and easy
| to chip.
| nerdbert wrote:
| > The glass bin we have in Amsterdam isn't one that you can
| even push broken glass into if you wanted - it's shaped
| specifically to receive bottles.
|
| It wouldn't take large shards of a plate window but it
| definitely can accept anything with one dimension that
| doesn't exceed 10cm or so, which is almost all the broken
| glass we've wanted to put into it.
| grecy wrote:
| > _Normal glasses are recyclable_
|
| That may be, but rem ember of the three things you should be
| doing - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - Recycling is the _worst_ and
| should be avoided anytime the other two are doable.
| eru wrote:
| Also recycling glasses might not make much sense.
|
| The raw material for glass making is basically sand, and
| there's no problem dumping old glasses in a landfill.
|
| So you should only recycle glass, if that's cheaper than
| making glass from scratch. There's no benefit otherwise.
|
| (And you can still reduce and re-use, of course.)
| veltas wrote:
| As another commenter mentioned, apparently they are not!
| prmoustache wrote:
| > Normal glasses are recyclable.
|
| Recycling is not energy neutral. Far from it.
|
| > Clearly glasses last a long time, I don't think smashing is
| the kind of issue they're making it out to be.
|
| Clearly not. Spend 2 hours in any crowded bar or restaurant and
| you will hear the sound of glass smashing into pieces.
| infecto wrote:
| With the small size of the UK it might make it easier to
| recycle. In larger countries glass might not always be
| recycled, it might cost more to recycle than to just produce
| new glass. The transportation cost/impact to lug around heavy
| glass to be recycled is not worth it.
| puzzlingcaptcha wrote:
| In any case, glass is chemically inert and eventually breaks
| down into sand so it's not a huge environmental issue, other
| than its bulk.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Most of the environmental issues with glass are on the other
| end - mining raw materials, refining those, manufacturing,
| etc.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Maybe there's a way to double layer the part you hold with a
| pocket of air for insulation.
|
| Anecdotally, many people hold glasses poorly for fear of warming
| their drink with their hand.
| bux93 wrote:
| Double walled glasses exist, they are used for tea or frothy
| coffee.
|
| The glass is very thin though; the trade-off being that if it
| was regular thickness it would be very heavy and big relative
| to the contents - and your hands. This makes them even more
| likely to break!
|
| However, the brand Bodum do nice onces made from Borosilicate
| Glass.
| willguest wrote:
| > The glasses are too good for pure market thinking.
|
| A demonstration that the economy isn't economical at all, when it
| comes to resources.
| vasco wrote:
| It's the opposite, it makes no sense to build something
| forever. You have no clue what people will want or need in the
| future. If you make a bunch of forever glasses and in 50 years
| nobody wants to use glass containers anymore (or at least the
| ones you made), you just wasted a bunch of resources and energy
| making them last longer than they needed. Specially due to
| changing "taste" people want to change the items they use
| frequently.
|
| You can imagine other reasons why we shouldn't make products
| last forever, it's a huge over-investment of limited resources
| that could be used in the future for better things. Specially
| in a planet with limited resources but continuously evolving
| technology, it is really not good to make forever stuff unless
| the technological innovation stops. Because you could use the
| same resources later to do better stuff at the same cost.
|
| What we should do is wherever possible make things repairable
| and prosecute anyone that intentionally makes something harder
| to repair (not really applicable to glass, where recycling is
| the only option).
| immibis wrote:
| So let's make things that only last a day because you never
| know what tomorrow will bring.
| eru wrote:
| Are you familiar with the concept of trade-offs?
| malermeister wrote:
| Sure. Do you see glassware not being in use at any point
| in the next 100 years though?
| echoangle wrote:
| Maybe they current style of glassware. The Superfest
| glasses already look outdated and retro to me, I wouldn't
| want to decide which glasses I use in 50 years now.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Fashion is a huge driver of waste.
| vasco wrote:
| As pointed out in my original comment in the thread. The
| question is, do you want to moralize and tell people to
| not behave as they behave, or do you recognize that
| "fashion" is associated to inherent human traits and
| design the world to have a good middle ground between
| doing what people want and not messing up everything
| super fast. In the end the only way to protect everything
| is to kill all humans, so if we agree that is not a
| solution, we should understand that the concept of
| fashion or changing preferences is not going to go away
| and not design products forever.
| t43562 wrote:
| We moralize about all sorts of important things like
| washing hands, putting rubbish in the bin etc.
|
| Fashion benefits from morals - like the idea of showering
| daily benefits the cosmetics/body care industry. I have a
| relative in one of the big French companies who saw a
| huge drop-off in shampoo/bathing products during covid
| when people were working at home. If we all decided that
| fresh water was too precious to waste we might materially
| impact this person's business - so they are eager to
| convince everyone that it's morally right to wash umpteen
| times a day.
|
| Similarly clothing is marketed and that marketing works
| on us.
|
| Other than telling such people to f-off, how do we get
| out of the negative loop they are only too eager to drive
| us into?
| vasco wrote:
| I mean nobody is forcing you to buy anything. I wear
| shoes that are 5-10 years old often and clothes that are
| 15 or 20 years old. And for most normal people they look
| "disheveled", my mom would gasp if she saw it. Yet I've
| been to work offsites with holes in my 8 year old shoes
| meeting with C-levels. But whenever I feel like buying
| something that you think is superfluous I also don't want
| anyone telling me what to do.
| t43562 wrote:
| We all accept some telling what to do - like the law, tax
| and so on. Ideally it's meant to be for the general good.
|
| So if some activity were to be negative for everyone -
| e.g. if it generated a lot of waste that was hard to
| handle and caused large unnecessary carbon emissions ....
| then we could end up needing laws to limit that damage.
| guappa wrote:
| But you can't really repair a glass.
| jesprenj wrote:
| > in 50 years nobody wants to use glass containers
|
| yet here we are, 50 years later, still using glass containers
| and fluorescent tube lamps that break because they are
| designed to break every two years
| echoangle wrote:
| Im pretty happy I don't have to use a fluorescent tube lamp
| that's 50 years old, LEDs are much better. I don't think
| this is a good counterexample.
| t43562 wrote:
| Don't worry, they're probably working on 2-year LEDs
| right now.
| tristor wrote:
| They've already managed that, just buy any of the low-
| cost LED replacement bulbs in any major store made in
| bulk in China. They don't put proper heatsinks on the
| power circuitry driving the LEDs so it eventually fails,
| especially under conditions of being turned off and then
| back on again often, like the lights in most rooms in
| most houses.
| Unbefleckt wrote:
| So why doesn't this apply to plastic?
| silisili wrote:
| I realized something similar after working in auto parts for
| a few years. Not sure about now as I don't really buy them
| anymore, but at the time there was a clear difference in
| quality between the cheapest of the cheap and the normal
| items (reman alternators, brake pads, etc.)
|
| Even though I tried to steer people away from the known
| questionable quality stuff (for no benefit of my own, not on
| commission), 95% of people would get it anyways. For the same
| reason "oh, I'm thinking of selling it soon anyways." And
| they rarely actually seemed to, based on my memory, but they
| had that mindset.
|
| Glasses are perhaps more 'timeless', but I could see them not
| selling well at a premium because of the 'ephemeral' mindset
| of potential life and style changes.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This is such a weird argument by the guardian. You can simply
| charge more for more durable products as long as people want
| your product.
| t43562 wrote:
| That could assume there was a linear realationship between
| price and demand.
|
| Possibly if you need to charge x% more then your sales might
| drop off almost entirely as you raised your price to that
| level.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Obviously there are a lot of factors. The article points
| out that the plain East German style glasses were simply
| seen as uncool. I would also speculate that the company
| like many others from the GDR were heavily reliant on
| subsidies and ran rather inefficiently.
| JR1427 wrote:
| I remain to be convinced. We rarely smash glasses in my
| household. Normal glass is (presumably) cheaper and less resource
| intensive than this special glass. Sometimes making things less
| durable actually is better. Over engineering and special
| manufacturing has costs.
| JR1427 wrote:
| Also, if 120m were made, but they are now fetching 30+ dollars,
| then there can't be that many around anymore, so are they
| really that long-lived?
|
| It doesn't matter if they _theoretically_ last a long time, if
| people are still going to throw them away to freshen up their
| cupboard of glasses to keep up with the latest fashions.
| pixelfarmer wrote:
| East Germany ceased to exist in 1990. One of the glasses also
| shows the Mitropa label:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitropa but it was used on a
| broader scale.
|
| I wouldn't assume that all these "assets" of bars, pubs,
| Mitropa etc. were for example sold off, i.e. you can expect
| quite a big number being dumped/destroyed, aside of the
| numbers that went into wear and tear until 1990 in the first
| place.
|
| There is a lot of stuff that was ubiquitous during the time
| of East Germany and went poof pretty fast after the wall came
| down, usually into the dumpster in one way or another.
| ljsprague wrote:
| 6 pieces going for $283 on eBay right now with 2 days of
| bidding left.
| dabber21 wrote:
| household maybe, but bars and cafes?
|
| also usually with time companies figure out ways to reduce
| costs of production/process
| numpad0 wrote:
| This is basically Cold War predecessor to Gorilla Glass. It's not
| a lost art at all, but just one of first generation products.
| chasil wrote:
| I wonder why Corning doesn't make these as a boutique or
| novelty product.
|
| Edit: Could this also be used for window glass?
| kragen wrote:
| before they sold off the brand to a different company,
| corning started selling tempered glass as 'pyrex', resulting
| in a dozen or so hospital visits with disabling burn injuries
| every year in the usa alone
|
| i'm not sure whether to blame this kind of line extension
| fraud on unethical management, on consumers who can't tell
| the difference and consequently buy such fraudulent products
| whenever they're cheaper, or on poorly-thought-out
| regulations (making real pyrex emits boria into the air,
| which is an insecticide and therefore does environmental
| damage, a consideration probably not relevant to gorilla
| glass)
| rangerelf wrote:
| > i'm not sure whether to blame this kind of line extension
| fraud on unethical management, on consumers who can't tell
| the difference and consequently buy such fraudulent
| products whenever they're cheaper, or on poorly-thought-out
| regulations
|
| Porque no los tres? CEOs pursuing yet another vacation
| home, under-educated consumers that lose their minds over
| 'saving' 1c ("$5.00" too expensive "4.99!" OHH THIS ONE!!),
| and regulators either with a private-sector agenda or who
| have no teeth because Congress is politically compromised.
|
| There's more than enough blame to spread around.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Corning already makes Corelle, which are tempered glass
| plates and bowls. They'll also take a bounce off a tile floor
| from counter-level and have a good shot at not breaking.
| nimish wrote:
| They sold that off decades ago. The brand just hangs around
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Hasn't Corelle been enshittified as well? It used to be
| tempered glass with milk glass in the middle, but now it's
| just milk glass?
| psunavy03 wrote:
| I just got new Corelle about 18 months ago when I redid
| my kitchen, and don't see any difference between that and
| the previous stuff I'd bought probably 15 years ago,
| other than the different pattern.
| adamc wrote:
| I bought a set of Corelle 7 years ago that seems very
| much like the Corelle I bought 30 years ago. Not
| convinced it's any worse.
|
| I think dishwashing and/or age does eventually make it
| more fragile, but it seems fairly durable. I've lost one
| piece in 7 years.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Of course, such a durable product can never succeed under
| hypercapitalist environments.
|
| Phrases like planned obsolescence and market cannibalisation come
| to mind.
|
| Remember back when even a mid range HiFi amplifier came with
| quality service manuals, and lasted for a lifetime ?
|
| Sure, it was more expensive relatively. But you only had to buy
| it once.
|
| With the current climate uncertainty, we need to find a way to
| incentivise quality, reliability and repairability.
|
| There is so much ephemeral junk being produced.
| wiether wrote:
| The company's history is interesting because in France almost the
| same thing happened with Duralex, which was near bankruptcy but
| was bought back by the employees a few weeks back.
|
| And now it's popular again.
|
| Until people forget about it and buy cheap stuff again.
|
| https://www.glass-international.com/news/duralex-employees-t...
| morsch wrote:
| I wonder how Duralex compares to Superfest in terms of
| durability. Duralex is certainly more durable than regular
| glass, but I have stopped demoing it because it does break
| sometimes. Our Duralex glasses are also pretty thick, while the
| Superfest stuff is rather thin.
| mdasen wrote:
| They're kinda similar in that they're both tempered glasses -
| where you create residual compressive stress in the outer
| part of the glass which makes it stronger. However, there are
| different ways to temper glass. Superfest (and Gorilla Glass
| in smartphones) uses an ion-exchange technique where sodium
| ions on the surface are replaced with larger potassium ions.
|
| I'm guessing that Duralex uses a thermal tempering process
| where the glass is heated very high and then rapidly cooled
| to temper it, but I don't know. Maybe Duralex also uses an
| ion-exchange and it just isn't as good as the Superfest
| process. Even with smartphone screens, newer techniques from
| Corning have created much stronger screens than we had 10-15
| years ago even though they're all using the same basic ion-
| exchange technique.
|
| Personally, I love tempered glass even if it might break.
| They're a lot less likely to break, they're less dangerous if
| they do break, and they don't really cost that much more.
| Maybe you'll pay $3/glass for regular soda-lime glasses and
| $5-6/glass for nice tempered ones, but I bought my tempered
| glasses a decade ago and still have all of them, despite
| having moved 3 times (and my packing technique doesn't
| involve bubble wrap or anything). Maybe Superfest is better,
| but for my non-restaurant use, tempered glasses like those
| from Duralex or Bormioli Rocco seem to be good enough.
| consp wrote:
| > Until people forget about it and buy cheap stuff again.
|
| Until they cut themselves on the sharp edges when it breaks.
| Duralex is safety glass but some people only see "wow many
| peaces normal glass only breaks into a few".
|
| Proper cuts from Duralex look like you had a hard fall, proper
| cuts from normal glass require a trip to the hospital for
| stitches.
| khaki54 wrote:
| Yes Duralex is pretty sweet. They are thicker than normal
| glasses too. At home went from breaking / chipping a glass a
| week to maybe 3-4 a year. I have seen Duralex bounce off the
| tile unscathed many times.
| MaxikCZ wrote:
| How are you guys living? I dont use any fancy glassware and I
| break/chip a glass like once in a decade..
| vondur wrote:
| Maybe they have hearty toasting of drinks frequently?
| brewdad wrote:
| Taking "Let me just toss these dishes in the dishwasher
| real quick" literally.
| alwa wrote:
| I was astonished when I witnessed an acquaintance cycle
| his dishwasher. He would throw the clean ones out of the
| dishwasher onto the stone counter, getting air and a loud
| crashing sound out of each plate and glass, before doing
| it again into the cabinets. The dirties would rebound off
| the flexible plastic of the dish rack and smash into one
| another as he'd throw them in.
|
| This same acquaintance was surprised to learn that my
| household doesn't consume an entire roll of toilet paper
| each and every day.
|
| Amazing what we take for granted about others' basic
| habits of living, in life as in tech...
| mrexroad wrote:
| I'd hate to see how their knives are washed
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm just clumsy. Occasionally drop glasses when taking them
| out of the cupboard. All the ones I've broken are ceramic,
| though.
| tomcam wrote:
| Tell me you don't have kids without telling me you don't
| have kids ;)
| tomcam wrote:
| P.S. I've been a klutz since before you were born.
| Apparently it's not something I'll grow out of :(
| freeqaz wrote:
| Is there a link to buy any of their glass?
| wiether wrote:
| Their webshop is here : https://www.duralex.com/
|
| There is regional versions depending on where you are located
| at, available at the top right!
| duckmysick wrote:
| Form what I've seen Duralex glasses are (and have been for some
| time) quite popular in restaurants/food joints.
| rx_tx wrote:
| I tend to find large "Gigogne" Duralex mixing bowls often in
| Goodwill/second hand stores in the Bay Area, and I can't
| resist getting them. They're truly versatile and very sturdy,
| and they stack very well without getting jammed.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| They have been particularly popular in French school
| canteens, which make it a childhood memory for many. I am
| sure that this nostalgic aspect helped with its renewed
| popularity.
|
| One notable feature of Duralex glasses is that there is a
| number on the bottom that can go from 1 to 50. A tradition
| among schoolchildren is to look at that number, which is said
| to represent your age. In reality, it is the mold number,
| used for quality control, but that "age" thing is what most
| people remember it for.
| skywal_l wrote:
| Funny little video (in french) on Duralex made by
| Karambolage (years ago):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9T7JCCDeCE
| garaetjjte wrote:
| I have seen Arcoroc glassware, I guess it's similar? Normally
| they break into a million pieces, but one plate failed
| spontaneously with hole falling out the bottom... I think it
| must have been overheated earlier.
| mannykannot wrote:
| This article's brief explanation of how the process works seems
| somewhat misleading, as it claims that the ion substitution
| creates tension in the glass, which makes it harder for cracks to
| spread - but cracks propagate under tension.
|
| As I understand it, the substitution of larger potassium ions for
| smaller sodium ions in the surface layer creates a compressive
| stress in the surface, and while this results in a
| counterbalancing tension in the interior, it is the surface
| compression which inhibits crack propagation.
|
| This is how tempered glass works, except the surface compression
| and interior tension is the result in the greater shrinkage of
| the slowly-cooling interior. The interior tension is also the
| reason why these glasses shatter into tiny pieces when they do
| break (see also Prince Rupert's drops: there are many videos on
| Youtube.)
|
| I am wondering if the chemical process is slow, which might be
| another reason for it not being adopted for ordinary objects such
| as drinking glasses.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's the same process used on modern phone screens (Gorilla
| Glass). Chemical strengthening.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemically_strengthened_glas...
|
| And yes, it works the same way as thermally toughened glass
| (inducing a compressive stress near the surface).
| mannykannot wrote:
| I see this article says that chemically strengthened glass
| can be cut, and while it becomes weakened in the vicinity of
| the cut, it does not shatter as a result. The Wikipedia
| article does not explain in any detail why this is so, but it
| suggests that there is less tensile stress than in tempered
| glass. Perhaps this is because the latter needs the internal
| tension to create the surface compression, while in
| chemically toughened glass, the compression is generated
| within the surface layer?
|
| I have seen it said about Supafest drinking glasses that they
| _do_ shatter into tiny pieces when they do break, though I do
| not know whether the source was reliable. If this is the
| case, then it suggests there is some difference between the
| Supafest and Corning / Gorilla Glass processes.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's due to the thickness of the compressed layer at the
| surface. It's often thinner (but more intense therefore
| harder) in Gorilla glass, so I suppose there isn't enough
| tension in the interior to make it shatter.
|
| There's always a corresponding tension in the interior, the
| sum of forces in each direction are balanced. But if the
| outer compressed region is thin, you won't need as much
| internal tension.
| kergonath wrote:
| > This article's brief explanation of how the process works
| seems somewhat misleading, as it claims that the ion
| substitution creates tension in the glass, which makes it
| harder for cracks to spread - but cracks propagate under
| tension.
|
| The article uses "tension" informally, meaning under mechanical
| stress. I would not read too much into that. But yes, you are
| right.
|
| > I am wondering if the chemical process is slow, which might
| be another reason for it not being adopted for ordinary objects
| such as drinking glasses.
|
| The fact that such glasses tend to fail catastrophically and
| shatter in small shards is a problem, for something that is
| used in homes, often with children, and that is bound to break
| at some point. Not great from a safety perspective.
| morsch wrote:
| The cleanup after a broken tempered glass breaks isn't worse
| than after a regular glass in my experience. There are more
| shards, yes, but they are individually less dangerous. And in
| either case the annoying thing is having to be thorough.
| Regular glass shards seem to be better at hiding.
| lukan wrote:
| _" In the case of the Superfest glass, the anonymity of the
| makers was also politically desired. The GDR's regime preached
| solidarity and unity. The prevailing ideology regarded the
| collective more highly than the talents and abilities of the
| individual. Even though Superfest glasses were ubiquitous in
| every bar, canteen and household in the Soviet satellite state,
| few people had heard of Paul Bittner, Fritz Keuchel and Tilo
| Poitz, the design collective who gave them their shape."_
|
| Interesting how the article laments, that they did not name the
| designers, but then happily ignore the names of the actual
| inventors of the material:
|
| _" The groundbreaking technology they deployed was developed in
| the 1970s at the Department for Glass Structure Research at the
| Central Institute for Inorganic Chemistry near Dresden. The
| material scientists there knew that when glass breaks, it is
| typically due to microscopic cracks in the material's surface
| which form during the production process. Dramatically increasing
| the toughness of the glass surface was possible, they found, by
| replacing the smaller sodium ions in the glass with
| electronically charged potassium ions. Potassium ions need more
| space, pressing harder against neighbouring atoms and building up
| more tension that needs to be overcome for the microscopic cracks
| to get bigger"_
|
| I believe the technology in itself, is a bit more admirable and
| rather the people involved mentioning, than those who were using
| it to shape a glass.
| guappa wrote:
| I've listened to a (bad) podcast about women scientist and the
| host went on a rant about how the evil men took away from the
| real inventor of the fridge, that was a woman, to give it to a
| man.
|
| I challenge anyone to name the inventor of the fridge. At least
| in my country it is completely unknown who it was.
| LeroyRaz wrote:
| I mean, Wikipedia says "the history of artificial
| refrigeration began when Scottish professor William Cullen
| [made a fridge]"
|
| But, again (merely sourcing from Wikipedia) the idea of
| evaporative cooling is ancient.
| rvnx wrote:
| Ideas and techs are consequences over previous discoveries
| so it is never a process with a single person.
|
| Even Einstein, it's the continuity of previous works, etc.
|
| Failures that other did are also saving precious time.
|
| This is why the idea of patents is just absurd.
|
| Everybody should have the right to create anything they
| want, and the natural selection will do its work on keeping
| the best implementations alive.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > This is why the idea of patents is just absurd.
|
| Well, not _absurd_. The last person on the chain
| contributed a lot to extending the chain.
|
| But yeah, ridiculously overblown. Patents should be a
| much lighter thing.
| rvnx wrote:
| Maybe 5 years or so. Not like music where unrelated
| people are earning millions on royalties of Ravel's
| pieces that they inherited because so far-away relatives
| were cleaning their living room.
| adamc wrote:
| What you see there are the workings of power,
| particularly of large corporations. Not that different
| from copyright and Disney.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I mean, Wikipedia says_
|
| Yes, but the claim was that some kind of fame was stolen
| from the "real inventor of the fridge" (sic).
|
| And the parent's point is that the one considered the
| inventor atm (deservingly or not), hardly has any fame to
| begin with. Sure, he might have a Wikipedia entry, along
| with OnlyFans creators and every minor character in Star
| Wars lore. Including non-movie characters.
| Frieren wrote:
| > "Even though Superfest glasses were ubiquitous in every bar,
| canteen and household in the Soviet satellite state, few people
| had heard of Paul Bittner, Fritz Keuchel and Tilo Poitz, the
| design collective who gave them their shape."
|
| I guess that it is in the same way you do not hear about the
| engineers and designers at Apple, Space X, etc.
|
| > I believe the technology in itself, is a bit more admirable
| and the people involved mentioning, than the mere shaping.
|
| But we hear all the time about CEOs and their opinions, thou.
| And they are way less interesting that the tech and the
| engineers that work at their companies.
| coldtea wrote:
| Yeah, how many designers and inventors of industrial
| processes, or materials, or techniques or such we know widely
| in the west?
|
| Never mind that even for those well known to us engineers,
| regular people couldn't name what they did either, except
| maybe Edisson, Tesla, Wright Brothers, and a few more. E.g.
| would even more modern PhD holders know what Watt
| contributed? Or Lord Kelvin?
|
| People like Gates, Bezos, Musk, and Jobs on the other hand,
| everybody knows.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Yes, the engineer CEOs like Gates, Musk and Jensen Huang
| certainly become very well known. Not so much for their
| engineering prowess (though it is typically great) but for
| being the symbol of the products they create.
| Frieren wrote:
| > Not so much for their engineering prowess (though it is
| typically great) but for being the symbol of the products
| they create.
|
| They are mostly known for being rich. Very very rich. Way
| better engineers creating way better products are not
| well known.
|
| "Great engineering" is not the word choice I will go for
| to describe their legacy.
| mannykannot wrote:
| > Potassium ions need more space, pressing harder against
| neighbouring atoms and building up more tension that needs to
| be overcome for the microscopic cracks to get bigger.
|
| I just posted a comment in which I doubt the article's
| explanation of the physics behind the process:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41180590
| aeyes wrote:
| You can look them up in the patent which also explains in
| pretty good detail how the process works:
| https://patents.google.com/patent/DD157966A3
| lukan wrote:
| So Siegfried Schelinski, Dieter Patzig, Klaus Heinrich and
| Bernd Grueger did the main work inventink the "unbreakable"
| drinking glass. Just for the record.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Interesting. I resorted a year ago to using stainless steel
| glasses (for water, not wine or beer).
| laborcontract wrote:
| Article fails to mention that these glasses explode when they do
| crack. Not fun cleaning it up.
| consp wrote:
| I've had many Duralex glasses break (it has the same "issue")
| and exploding is a massive exaggeration. They break into many
| peaces yes, but they are less dangerous than normal glass. I
| also do not like cleaning up normal glass since you need to
| handle it with care. Especially around drunk people.
| RRRA wrote:
| I'm curious who is still making something similar
| jakubmazanec wrote:
| Not sure if it's the same material, but this article reminded me
| of a very funny scene from the Czech movie "Pelisky" about
| "unbreakable" glasses. Here it is with English subtitles:
| https://youtu.be/6QTieSQeNvE?si=vmtCUAKXVhtg62aq&t=1930
| timeon wrote:
| My first though after seeing the title: A sklari nebudou mit co
| zrat.
|
| But unlike plastic ones in the film, glasses in the article are
| from modified glass.
| trizoza wrote:
| Same here, even shared with my family with note: "Pelisky on
| top of hackernews today" :D
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Heh, a Czech club forming in real time :)
|
| In order to fulfill all the memes, we can defenestrate
| those glasses.
| lb1lf wrote:
| Not Czech, I just wanted to chime in that
| 'defenestration' is one of my all-time favourite words -
| that the act occurred frequently enough to warrant its
| own word being coined...
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Frequently enough to have been mentioned in the bible...
| jakubmazanec wrote:
| There was a HN post about this last year:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36737342
| echoangle wrote:
| I wonder how often people really break glasses, for me it's maybe
| once per year or less. Unless the glasses last a lifetime and you
| never replace them due to style/design preferences, I don't think
| it would be economical to go with those glasses. Ecologically
| it's different of course.
| black6 wrote:
| For each individual drinking glass it depends on how frequently
| it's handled. In a household a drinking glass may get handled
| once a week. In a restaurant or pub it can be multiple times a
| day. More frequent handling means more opportunity to break.
| hencoappel wrote:
| Now think on the scale of a restaurant/bar. Could save them a
| lot if none of the glasses broke!
| isoprophlex wrote:
| > Dramatically increasing the toughness of the glass surface was
| possible, they found, by replacing the smaller sodium ions in the
| glass with electronically charged potassium ions.
|
| This sentence angers the chemist in me. A potassium cation has
| exactly the same charge as a sodium cation, namely, +1.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Well that bothers the logician in me, they didn't say the
| sodium ions weren't charged, you are just assuming that
| implication ;)
| Log_out_ wrote:
| If they knew enough about it to write about it correctly they
| would pursuit other work then journalism.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > The glasses are too good for pure market thinking.
|
| This argument never made sense to me.
|
| Of course if you go to the big glass retailers. That just sounds
| like dumb marketing. It clearly would require a smaller retailer
| that could disrupt.
|
| The people you have to convince to buy these are the direct
| consumers who carry the cost. Combine that maybe with some
| financial products to make it easy to acquire or directly
| cooperate with drinks companies, or distribution companies.
|
| Or I mean there are lots of other potential markets for glass.
|
| At the very least they are not telling the full story here. If
| this glass is really so amazingly superior, and such a no-
| brainer, then somebody could have saved a lot of money here. More
| likely the company was just not positioned or lead well enough to
| figure out a strategy.
|
| At the vary least I need more then a one supporter with skin in
| the game saying 'we were just to good'. I have heard that often
| and its sometimes true, more often it isn't.
| iSnow wrote:
| The first years of post-reunification were not good years for
| innovative companies from the former GDR.
|
| There was lack of money for investments unless you got sold to
| Western investors who might or might not have understood the
| value of your product. Eastern companies notoriously had old
| machines and low productivity and no experience in sales &
| marketing. Wages had to be paid in hard currency all of a
| sudden while traditional markets in the East did not have this
| hard currency. Western markets usually were already very
| competitive (as mentioned in the article where they tried to
| sell to Western Germany a couple of years before).
|
| Additionally, there was no internet back then, so crowdfunding
| wasn't available, direct selling to consumers was very hard,
| and sophisticated market places did not exist.
|
| I know those glasses, they were indeed very good, but kind of
| out of fashion in the early 90's.
| 6510 wrote:
| I'm a big fan of Duralex, I've inherited a lot of their
| glasses. They look nice, feel good, I've always used them. They
| remind me of my mum, my aunt and my grandma. I've also never
| purchased any. There is no reason to think they won't last
| another 100 years? Is there?
| aeyes wrote:
| To me the most surprising property to this day is how thin and
| light these glasses were. They are almost as thin as a modern
| wine glass but I don't remember ever breaking one accidentally.
|
| Edit: The article is poorly researched. The design pictured
| wasn't the only design they sold, it was just the most common one
| used in restaurants and bars. I had these glasses with kids
| prints. I found a page which shows a few more designs:
| https://militariasammlermarkt.de/ddr/zum-thema-ddr-ostalgie/...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| They specifically mentioned they had a range of glasses, so
| don't know why you say it's poorly researched:
|
| > For their range of glasses - which included variants for
| champagne, schnapps and cognac as well as three different sizes
| for beer - the designer trio were inspired by the equally
| beautiful so-called Wirteglas, which the East German designers
| Margarete Jahny and Erich Muller created in the early 1970s.
| Retric wrote:
| He's referring to the patterns on the glass not the shape of
| the glass.
|
| > One factor that may have hindered Superfest's
| competitiveness in a unified Germany was _its functionalist,
| austere look._ Especially in southern parts of the country,
| drinkers like to swig their beer from glasses decorated with
| gold edging or engraved coats of arms. "Baroque decoration on
| a Superfest glass wouldn't work," says Hohne. "It would
| violate the design itself."
|
| The 6th image in the carousel on that page shows gold rimmed
| glasses with a decorative design, hardly an austere look.
| bravura wrote:
| Then can someone explain why the obscene and completely ludicrous
| "pfand" token system is so common still in Eastern Germany?
| c-fe wrote:
| Its common everywhere in germany and also other countries, and
| why is it obscene and ludicrous?
| thecosmicfrog wrote:
| It has just been introduced in Ireland under the name "Re-
| turn".
| jonp888 wrote:
| Since he mentions a "token", I don't think he means the
| recycling system, but rather than whenver you visit a
| festival/sports events etc., you typically have to pay a
| deposit of EUR2 for the cup your drink is served in. Before
| you leave you have to return the cup for a refund.
|
| Sometimes you also get issued a "token" and the refund is
| only possible with the token, so you can't return other cups
| you find lying around.
| bravura wrote:
| It's the concept of a pfand system that involves a token.
|
| The token is ridiculous and makes no sense. I've actively
| interrogated GPT4 on it and it becomes increasingly
| nonsensical trying to explain it.
|
| Possession of the cup itself is proof in itself that I
| possess the item of value worth the pfand. The token itself
| is pointless.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with the "pfand" system and I wish we
| had it here in Spain. However, the recycling industry actively
| lobbies against it [0].
|
| [0] (in Spanish) https://www.elsaltodiario.com/ecoembes/miente-
| investigacion-...
| distantsounds wrote:
| ah, you can get bongs made in the USA with similar strength.
|
| https://tankglass.com/
| tristor wrote:
| What annoys me about this is that due to recyclability they are
| going to replace the borosilicate glass formula with one made off
| soda-lime glass. Soda-lime glass is significantly less durable in
| heat/cool cycles, and part of the point of high-durability glass
| is it's reusability! Germany, like many parts of the world, in
| the name of being green has gone all-in on recycling but fail to
| remember the green trifecta and it's priority ordering: Reduce,
| Reuse, Recycle. That is, recycling is a /last resort/.
|
| If they continued with the prior borosilicate based formula these
| could be high-temperature sanitized and reused when making
| bottles and it works better for the hot/cold cycles typical of
| high temperature sanitization and cool wash-downs used in
| commercial bar settings.
|
| The same thing happened to the Pyrex brand. It used to be the
| gold standard for glass bakeware because it was made from
| borosilicate glass which made it much more drop resistant /and/
| better for heat/cool cycles. Now Pyrex branded products have gone
| to being made predominantly of soda-lime based formulas and newer
| Pyrex dishes are known for being prone to exploding when you move
| a casserole prepped the night before from the fridge/freezer to
| the oven.
|
| I really wish we still had seriously durable high-quality
| products available and we weren't regressing to lowest common
| denominator across our society. Soda-lime glass is not a buy-it-
| for-life product, regardless of what you do to the formula.
| fencepost wrote:
| For people talking about glass recycling, it's not NEARLY as
| simple as you might think because of input issues. Along with CoE
| (Coefficient of Expansion) concerns that may arise depending on
| the exact input materials, recycling ends up with grit and
| contaminants in the material, and those end up as inclusions in
| final products. That might not be a concern for glass blocks, but
| for anything where you care about the end quality (food
| containers, large sheets of glass for windows, etc.) inclusions
| can result in a lot of production loss. It's also not like you
| can just melt it and let the inclusions float or sink out -
| molten glass doesn't flow like water, and particles don't just
| move through it.
| morsch wrote:
| Complicated, but routinely done? Glass recycling seems to be
| routine and widespread. Glass containers and jars, that is, not
| drinking glasses.
| tgtweak wrote:
| This is why they have green and brown bottles in beverage
| industries, they're typically lower down the recycling chain so
| impurities and mixed silicates can be used without affecting
| the end use.
|
| I don't think this glass is any less prone to recycling than
| standard sodium glass since it looks to be a post process with
| largely the same input materials.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Green, but especially brown, also protects photosensitive
| contents (eg beer).
| meindnoch wrote:
| And why would this contamination not happen with non-recycled
| glass, which is made from sand?
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| One of the major products made out of recycled glass is
| Fiberglass (yes, it's literally glass) - sold in rolls for
| insulation.
| trelane wrote:
| And long, _long_ before recycling glass, people just reused the
| bottle as a bottle. Which is IMHO the better approach.
| jiehong wrote:
| You know Kintsugi, this Chinese and Japanese ceramic repair art
| by making the repair shine?
|
| Maybe we could try to do that with standard glass glasses.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| Usual problem - a glass that last meant a company that broke.
| Same for lamp. Not sure whether communism under a foreign power
| helps here.
| complaintdept wrote:
| Corning used to make these bowls (called "Grab and Go", I think)
| that were very difficult to break. You could cook in them, eat
| out of them with utensils that damage normal ceramic (like a Ti
| spork), and probably throw them out of your kitchen window onto
| cement and they'd be fine. They sold off the patent to some other
| company that couldn't afford the production and quality went way
| down -- I think prod required intense heat and/or pressure. Sad
| times.
| bombcar wrote:
| Sounds like the Pyrex story - apparently "old Pyrex" is well
| regarded and desired, "new Pyrex" is crap.
|
| https://www.allrecipes.com/article/what-is-the-difference-be...
| tdeck wrote:
| The new company is called Corelle and they make a pretty
| durable range dishes and bowls out of the same material. I
| don't think I've ever broken one by dropping it, however if you
| drop a ceramic knife blade onto one of them the Corelle will
| immediately fracture for some reason.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Corelle is legit, anecdotally. Have had a set of Corelle
| since 2004, have yet to break a single item. Mostly,
| dishwasher cycles are slowly eating away at the edges of the
| plates and bowls, but given its been 20 years, I'm OK with
| that. I'm not like the guy mentioned in another comment that
| throws his dishes onto the counter and into the cabinet,
| though.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Rule #1: Never read a Guardian article about East Germany.
| yokoprime wrote:
| Is this like a prince rupert's drop? i assume this completely
| explodes when it breaks.
| jdfedgon wrote:
| There's this anecdote, somehow connected to this topic.
|
| Some decades ago, a manufacturer from East Germany, former GDR,
| was participating at a fair for lights and light bulbs. This
| manufacturer invented a light bulb that never burns its glow
| wire.
|
| At some point during the fair the companies from West Germany had
| a big laugh on that manufacturer, mocking him and his invention.
| Their argument: If you build a bulb like this, how are you going
| to make money?
|
| Now, I cannot say why we don't have glasses like this already but
| my assumption is that the monetary incentive is seen as being
| contradictory to such an invention.
| occamschainsaw wrote:
| This actually happened much earlier in the first half of the
| 20th century. It was an international cartel with household
| names (GE, Osram, Phillips etc).
|
| "The cartel tested their bulbs and fined manufacturers for
| bulbs that lasted more than 1,000 hours."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
|
| https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy
| lesuorac wrote:
| I mean if you don't already have a large light bulb business
| this sounds like a great idea.
|
| Make a million light bulbs and sell all of them and then do
| whatever it is that you want.
|
| Similar to finding a cure for cancer. There's a huge market
| that you can just eliminate and then retire.
| cleansy wrote:
| That and producing these glasses with said technique is a lot
| more expensive. You need to heat up the glass and the potassium
| nitrate to 500C, mostly over hours because otherwise the glass
| breaks. Then you need to keep it for a couple of hours, then
| cool down slowly. What made the initial east german production
| work is, they did it on a large industrial scale, but even then
| the energy that you need makes the glasses quite expensive to
| produce. It's hard to justify buying 6-7EUR for a regular
| drinking cup when a comparable form factor is 1EUR or something
| in this region.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Maybe depends on price and market.
|
| In the US, consumers like stuff that is cheap, and don't seem
| to care much if it is poor quality and breaks - they'll just
| buy another.
|
| In the UK, at least when I lived there 30 years ago, people
| seemed content to pay more for quality items that would last
| longer.
|
| I noticed when I moved to the US and saw same brand, e.g. Black
| & Decker selling cheap plastic US-only versions of products
| compared to their heavy duty cast iron counterparts sold in the
| UK that would last forever.
| torginus wrote:
| Actually Technology Connections made a great youtube video on
| this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
|
| The gist is that by running bulbs at a lower power, you can
| greatly prolong its life, but the downside is that it doesn't
| heat up as much, and since emissions spectrum correllates with
| temperature, ends up being much worse at converting electricity
| to light, which ends up being not worth it.
| ianbicking wrote:
| "The problem with the original Superfest glass is that its
| manufacturers worked with modified alumino or borosilicate glass,
| which is not as easy to recycle as the more common soda-lime
| glass. So Soulbottles' challenge is to produce glass that is both
| durable and recyclable."
|
| Why would they care about recycling it? It's not a disposable
| product. If it breaks you can't recycle it anyway (at least in
| the US recyclers don't want broken glass). Isn't durable good
| enough?
|
| Or is this a result of Germany's obsessive recycling culture?
| sofixa wrote:
| > If it breaks you can't recycle it anyway (at least in the US
| recyclers don't want broken glass)
|
| In France glass is explicitly broken upon deposit at the
| recycle bin. I'd guess it's the same in Germany.
|
| > Or is this a result of Germany's obsessive recycling culture
|
| God forbid anyone thinks a little bit ahead to avoid extra
| waste.
| doener wrote:
| This reminds me of a column in DIE ZEIT from 1999 on the subject
| of the planned obsolescence of light bulbs:
|
| "Is it actually true that light bulb manufacturers could have
| produced light bulbs with an almost unlimited life a long time
| ago, but don't want to in order to stay in business? Rainer
| Mauersberger, Tucson (USA)
|
| I don't want to speculate here about the motives of the light
| bulb manufacturers, but just want to list a few facts.
|
| 1. every light bulb (as it is correctly called) has a limited
| service life because tungsten atoms constantly evaporate from the
| filament and the wire breaks at some point.
|
| 2. how long the wire lasts can be "adjusted", for example by
| making it thicker or thinner. However, if you make it glow less
| brightly and thus increase its service life, the already poor
| efficiency drops even further - a standard light bulb only
| converts four percent of the electrical energy into light.
|
| 3) Since December 24, 1924, there has in fact been an
| international "light bulb cartel", which was essentially
| controlled by the companies General Electric (USA), Osram/Siemens
| (Germany) and Associated Electrical Industries (Great Britain).
| This cartel not only divided up the global markets among
| themselves, but also reached agreements on how long a light bulb
| should last - since the Second World War, this has been 1,000
| hours. In the Soviet Union and Hungary, there have always been
| bulbs with a longer service life; the Chinese bulb still burns
| for 5000 hours today.
|
| 4) The inventor Dieter Binninger developed a light bulb with a
| considerably longer life expectancy, which he also patented. His
| three improvements: a new form of filament
|
| filament, a glass bulb filled with noble gas and a diode as a
| "dimmer". The Binninger bulb lasted 150,000 hours and consumed
| only around 50 percent more energy than an ordinary bulb for the
| same light output. Binninger produced the light bulbs himself,
| but then negotiated with the Treuhand to take over the GDR
| company Narva. Shortly after submitting his offer, the light bulb
| revolutionary crashed in a private plane in 1991.
|
| 5 Today, light bulbs are no longer manufactured in the new
| federal states. Light bulbs in the western world still have a
| life span of 1000 hours. Christoph Drosser
|
| Translated with DeepL.com (free version)"
|
| https://www.zeit.de/stimmts/1999/199933_stimmts_gluehbir
| BobAliceInATree wrote:
| Technology Connections did a whole video on the pros & cons of
| longer-lasting incandescents.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
| teractiveodular wrote:
| The cartel mentioned here is not merely a figure of speech or
| conspiracy theory, but an actual agreement between
| manufacturers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| > But the main reason for its decline, paradoxically, was its
| strength. Glass retailers who play by the rules of the market
| live off the fact that their products break, so they can sell
| more. A glass that didn't break was a threat to profits.
|
| I've heard this story repeated multiple times but I've never
| bought it. Unless there is a glass cartel, i.e. crony capitalism,
| I have a hard time believing that consumers wouldn't storm the
| gates for unbreakable glassware.
|
| If I were a bar owner, and I had near 100% restocking of my
| glassware annually (which I believe is in the ballpark of the
| actual number), I would be willing to bypass my supply chain and
| order these glasses directly from the manufacturer.
|
| I can't see how someone couldn't make a decent living off the
| addressable market of one time sales of this glassware.
|
| This doesn't seem like it is a true market dynamic - but I might
| be missing something.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| The best alternative is Aluminium oxynitride, a bulletproof
| transparent ceramic.
|
| It's kind of expensive, though.
|
| Would you buy a lifetime glass for 500$?
| schappim wrote:
| Previous discussion [1]: Superfest - The almost unbreakable East
| German Glass (2021)
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40260399
| idkwhatiamdoing wrote:
| This kickstarter worked together with some researchers to bring
| back to live exactly that kind of glass! Today I actually
| received the link to place my order from the pledge
| https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulkupfer/ultraglass-s...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-07 23:00 UTC)