Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CT scans of coffee-making equipment

scanofthemonth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#101

Post by rfrey »

felipc wrote: post #60

The point about the newer Bialettis being cheaper is absolutely true. My mother has an old (>10 years) Moka that feels heavy and sturdy. A couple of years ago, after accidentally leaving it on the stove for too long, the bottom chamber and the filter basket got a permanent burnt coffee taste, and we bought a new one to replace it. That one was lighter and came with a significant thinner filter basket, which I also at…

James Hoffman gives a good history of Bialetti here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upgQsA5kLAk including their sale to Faema and later to a cookware manufacturer, their numerous brushes with bankruptcy, and the stiff competition they've gotten from... even in Italy... pod machines.

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#102

Post by q7xvh97o2pDhNrh »

C-x_C-f wrote: post #68
tdullien wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any insights into what went wrong?

I'm not sure about the details. IMHO a contributing factor is that they're a company historically centered around manufacturing nearly indestructible appliances (even the newer mokas, however flimsier, don't break easily); once the market was saturated with the flagship product, there's only so much profit they could squeeze out of selling accessories and the like.

I don't know if this is the ideal takeaway. Otherwise, we should all prioritize making our products flimsier and more expensive.

I think it's just a straightforward failure of creativity — or, even more plainly, a failure to understand their customer. They had a great product, which led to a loyal following — why not expand into adjacent markets?

The cruel irony is that their product was related to something that's extremely disposable. Why not get into the business of coffee beans? Why not partner with interesting coffee growers? Subscription businesses have been huge for decades, now — why not offer consumers the ability to buy an espresso bean subscription to go with their Mokapot, thereby generating a reliable recurring revenue stream?

A glimpse at their Wikipedia page [1] suggests they never even tried to branch out from the small, comfortable niche of cookware.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bialetti

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#103

Post by s0rce »

msds wrote: post #91

CT is the wrong imaging tech for Moka pots at least - they're much cooler looking if you're doing neutron imaging and can see the water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESMU7JfVHU

Very cool, if you don't care about seeing the condensed steam this could be done with X-rays by adding Sodium metatungstate or very toxic thallium formate/malonate to the water. You could also probably replace the water with bormoform or if you don't care about destroying everything, elemental bromine.

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#104

Post by SamBam »

angst_ridden wrote: post #20
bowmessage wrote: post #3

Incredible scans! > Removing used coffee immediately after brewing and storing the AeroPress with the seal pushed all the way through the chamber (as shown) can help minimize wear by reducing compression to extend the gasket’s life. But, that's not what's shown. Pushing the gasket all the way through isn't possible unless the filter head is removed.

Proper storage is just pulling the plunger out entirely. Every few years, soaking the rubber seal in mineral oil overnight then cleaning will restore flexibility (otherwise it shrinks over time, reducing the quality of the seal). Unrelated: using paper filters is less eco-responsible than the gold foil filter, but makes for better coffee.

A year's supply of paper aeropress filters weighs about 1.4 oz. This is significantly less paper than a single Monday New York Times, so if you've ever read a paper newspaper, you've eco-sinned more than drinking a year of aeropress.

Indeed, the paper is so little that I'd be really surprised if the ecological impact of mining and making that metal filter will ever be recouped.

It's a little how cotton groceries bags are so resource-intensive that you'd need to use them hundreds and hundreds of times before they're better than daily plastic bags. (Litter aside, which isn't an issue with paper filters.)

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#105

Post by MarkMarine »

anamexis wrote: post #74
MarkMarine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see a similar thing with the glass chemex. There is a healthy market on eBay for pre-1980 models that were hand blown from great quality glass. My wife got me one for a gift and the difference in feel is remarkable. New ones feel fragile, this feels solid and strong. I’ve broken two of the newer versions and it’s dangerous. The old one is still standing strong in my house, surviving trips in my RV, and generally…

They still make high quality ones, you just have to specifically get the "handblown series" (at 2-3x the price of the regular). e.g. https://www.chemexcoffeemaker.com/eight-cup-handblown-series...

I am aware of those, but from what I understand the pre-80s ones are still better. I’m sure given a little time someone who is chemex expert will chime in and give a definitive comment.

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#106

Post by frakkingcylons »

advisedwang wrote: post #41
mlsu wrote: post #34

This has to be a marketing exercise by the CT machine maker, right? "We spotted casting issues with the new pot" "We can see the density difference in the plastic" "We found aluminum shavings" For the right audience, this would definitely sell one of those big fancy CT machines. Not that I'm complaining -- visuals, presentation, content is all thoroughly interesting, speaking as someone with an Aeropress, a Moka. Pre…

Yes, in the about us page they say it is "powered by" Lumafield.

Finally, a use for the $700K burning a hole in my pocket.

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#108

Post by jghn »

MarkMarine wrote: post #70
felipc wrote: post #60

The point about the newer Bialettis being cheaper is absolutely true. My mother has an old (>10 years) Moka that feels heavy and sturdy. A couple of years ago, after accidentally leaving it on the stove for too long, the bottom chamber and the filter basket got a permanent burnt coffee taste, and we bought a new one to replace it. That one was lighter and came with a significant thinner filter basket, which I also at…

You see a similar thing with the glass chemex. There is a healthy market on eBay for pre-1980 models that were hand blown from great quality glass. My wife got me one for a gift and the difference in feel is remarkable. New ones feel fragile, this feels solid and strong. I’ve broken two of the newer versions and it’s dangerous. The old one is still standing strong in my house, surviving trips in my RV, and generally…

This feels like it might be similar to the difference between PYREX and pyrex [1]

[1] https://www.allrecipes.com/article/what-is-the-difference-be...

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#109

Post by xcdzvyn »

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #102
C-x_C-f wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the details. IMHO a contributing factor is that they're a company historically centered around manufacturing nearly indestructible appliances (even the newer mokas, however flimsier, don't break easily); once the market was saturated with the flagship product, there's only so much profit they could squeeze out of selling accessories and the like.

I don't know if this is the ideal takeaway. Otherwise, we should all prioritize making our products flimsier and more expensive. I think it's just a straightforward failure of creativity — or, even more plainly, a failure to understand their customer. They had a great product, which led to a loyal following — why not expand into adjacent markets? The cruel irony is that their product was related to something that's e…

> Otherwise, we should all prioritize making our products flimsier and more expensive.

It's the view of many that this is indeed what most companies prioritize — I'm not saying it's true, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly fringe opinion. It's in the vein of enshittification.

Also, might I ask how you inserted that em-dash? A keyboard shortcut? It's interesting to see fancy typography online.

Re: CT scans of coffee-making equipment

#110

Post by peterhadlaw »

xcdzvyn wrote: post #109
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if this is the ideal takeaway. Otherwise, we should all prioritize making our products flimsier and more expensive. I think it's just a straightforward failure of creativity — or, even more plainly, a failure to understand their customer. They had a great product, which led to a loyal following — why not expand into adjacent markets? The cruel irony is that their product was related to something that's e…

> Otherwise, we should all prioritize making our products flimsier and more expensive. It's the view of many that this is indeed what most companies prioritize — I'm not saying it's true, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly fringe opinion. It's in the vein of enshittification. Also, might I ask how you inserted that em-dash? A keyboard shortcut? It's interesting to see fancy typography online.

One can look up the utf8 character for different typographical characters and copy and paste them in. On macOS at least, there is a keyboard shortcut for "emojis" (Cntl+Cmd+Space) and a little window shows up where you can search for emojis by name, and typographical characters by name (such as "em dash"). —pjh
Post reply on HN