Pretty cool beer pouring device... Pours from the bottom up:

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article...your-cup-bottom

I want it.

Awesome idea!

Except "only" costing 30¢ more than a normal cup that's probably less than 1¢ is not inconsequential....

Yeah, you're right, that actually is a pretty substantial increase. They'd have to sell advertising to offset it.

But they DO advertise... Those little magnet buttons at the bottom of the cup. Of course, nobody will REALLY read that.

Cool idea though. I've worked pro sporting events and concerts as fund raisers for various groups, and the beer pouring time (plus too many people not getting it filled correctly, or too much foam, etc) I could see the value in this... to a point...

Um... looks like the page is a video... can someone please describe it for the high-speed-internet-challenged ?

EDIT - never mind, search engines save the day

I wonder if a thicker, stouter, hoppier beer will weigh more and cause the magnet to close before it is full?

I agree, but at 6 bucks or more a cup (at a concert) I think they can afford it.

Pretty sure the filling machine determines when the magnet will close and the beer stops flowing, not the magnet in the cup .

Solution in search of a problem.

Dan, according to the article: Pressurized beer lifts the magnet up, filling the cup until the weight of the beer on top of the magnet pushes it back down, sealing the bottom.

I was under the impression that the magnet seals off the pouring after the beer is full... just Wondering if a thicker beer would seal before completely full.

Yep, I am inclined to think that the machine is programmed to fill the required amount. Then, when the machine reaches said volume, the magnet falls in place because there's no more pressure from the flow of beer.

Makes more sense that way, but the article needs to be re-worded in that case .

The way it is written, it says that the machine continues filling until the weight of the beer closes the magnet.To me, this implies that the machine doesn't know when to stop- it simply stops when the weight of the beer offsets the magnet.

It should say that the machine is programmed to fill the correct volume of the cup, and then the magnet prevents it from leaking after filling. Then again, maybe my brain just needs to interpret the wording differently

I wonder how long it takes for some drunk idiot to swallow the magnet and sue the company?

Be an easy way to steal the barkeep's tips....just slid your glass over the change. Not that I would do that, or anything.

I think it's ingenious, but I don't like it at all; it creates more waste.

Are modern coins that ferrous?

I'm not sure what you mean, Ken.

Plastic serving cups like the ones shown in the video, are recyclable. But, I highly doubt that they are when they have a magnet manufactured into the bottom of them; thus creating more garbage and waste.

Sure, it increases productivity, but it's BS as far as I'm concerned, if it's at the expense of more environmental devastation.

If something like this catches on (and I'm sure many businesses would find it desirable), our landfills will be filling up just as fast as those plastic cups.

Oh, that was in response to the one about picking up change with the cups.

I don't see it catching on unless some business will pony up 30 cents for each logo'd magnet.

So, you can pour a beer faster? The article says 56 beers/minute (It's not at all realistic that a person could actually do this, because they couldn't even open up the bags of cups quick enough, not to mention set them on top of the pourers, etc !) So, let's say that one person can realistically do 20/minute....still far faster than the 4/minute that they could probably do otherwise.

Let's say the employees are making minimum wage at $7.25 an hour...because that's the likely scenario.

If one person is pouring 20 beers a minute, they can pour 1200 an hour with the new pouring system. The new cups are .30 each ($360) and their wage is $7.25 for a total of $367.25 to pour those 1200 beers.

We won't get into the cost of the beer itself, since that's a constant.

To pour those 1200 beers at the "4 per minute" speed of regular cups it would take 5 employees. (4 per minute X 60 minutes is 240 cups per hour, so 5 employees at 240 cups each would be needed to fill 1200 cups per hour).

Using regular cups with as assumed cost of 1 cent per cup, to fill those same 1200 cups you would have a cost of $12 for the cups and $36.25 for salaries (5 employees at $7.25 per hour).

So, using the regular cups would cost $48.25 to fill 1200 beers and using these new cups would cost $367.25, or $319 more.

That's why I say that there's nothing in real-world practicality that makes these better than regular cups unless they find a sponsor to pay the full .30 per cup in ad space for the disc.....not at all likely.

And yes, there are some other factors, but they're likely to be balanced by the fact that someone who is pouring beers and getting tips is probably making less than minimum wage as well.

So..... what Tom said: "Solution in search of a problem"

No, I don't think any coins can be picked up with a magnet these days.

Nice analysis mark. I think it's more of a "cool thing" then something that will have any real success.

Don't know about American coins, but a magnet'll pick up CDN coins less a penny. (nickel is magnetic)

I don't think they use nickel in great quantities in US coins any more. Could be wrong.

One disadvantage that I've noticed with the fast filling machines is that most often the bar keep is seen placing their nose pickers all over the rim of the cup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QctXSnGAlPs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiu_IX14wLI&feature=related

Efficient beer dispensing is always a good thing. I can see it's practicality in major sporting venues but not so in our favorite pubs. At least not yet.

Any beer that needs to be dispensed that quickly, I'm probably not interested.

Nice cost accounting, Mark

Seriously - at what point is this machine competing with the brewery bottling line for efficiency? Why does putting it in a keg and then putting it in a cup later make more sense than just filling bottles in the first place?

This newfangled technology is still not as efficient as lying with your head under the tap, although it's certainly catching up quickly.

Did anyone else have to learn "Chevaliers de la table ronde" at school ?

It could be even more efficient if they poured the beer directly into the urinals.

Just make the beer twice as strong. Then you only have to pour it half as fast, problemo el solvido.

Good call Charles. You think it would effect the taste though?

For full simulation they need to make sure and only make about half of it into the urinal, the rest should go on the floor.

F-ing magnets...how do they work?

In Belgium they have Chimay Blue on tap. Twice as strong *and* really tasty.

Belgian beer should virtually always be absurdly strong.