How This Eco-Friendly Bottle Of Wine Turned Waste Into Success
Everything begun in 2015 with a humble water bottle: this was the very first handmade item by Enrico Raimondo, a mechanical designer, inventor and artisan from Veneto. The material though was one-of-a-kind: his inventor called it Raimante, crasis between the inventor's surname and the Italian word 'diamante' (diamond). It's a brand-new material that was born from the sustainable reuse of composite fiber scrap from in-mold lamination, plotter cutting, impregnation, and so on. The outcome of a special patented process (one of the current 10 patents owned by Raimondo) turns the scraps of carbon, linen, glass, or Kevlar fibers into a new material; a composite which folds and molds like fabric. This way, it can be used in endless ways to create the most diverse objects. It's extremely light and overall eco-friendly: the environmental impact to get the Raimante is close to zero. "I use these scraps in real time, when I receive them by the companies that want it to dispose of them –explains Enrico Raimondo– I do not chemically or physically alter them, and work them with my hands. The only operations that emit CO2 are the transport of offcuts from companies to my laboratory, and the storage of rolls in a cold room. The rest of the procedure is completely manual."
Although carbon fiber is not new, the way it is reused is.
To date, carbon fiber was familiar mainly to sports people. Indeed, for years it has been used both to make racing bicycles and parts for racing cars, such as the body. But nobody has ever made small objects, such as a water bottle, a glass, or a plate."
Giannitessari Lessini Durello Riserva Metodo Classico "Dosaggio Zero" in a wine bottle made with ... More Raimante material
In 2017, after obtaining an international patent for composite fibers certified for food contact, he created 'Combo', the first carbon fiber wine bottle. This special bottle combines two significant qualities: lightness (a Jeroboam, or 3-liter bottle, weighs only 400 gr.) and strength (fiberglass is virtually unbreakable). These carbon-fiber bottles might solve the issues of bottle weight, which affects the cost of transportation, and accidental bottle breakage during transportation: two deeply felt issues by those in the industry. Regrettably, those kinds of wine bottles are currently costly. Raimondo produces only Jeroboam bottles, and even empty each of them costs nearly $800. ' This is because these pieces are made entirely by hand, one by one –the inventor says–The inner lining alone takes 72 hours to dry, and this step can only be done in the air." Despite the production costs of his products, though, over the years he ended up meeting a wine producer who shared his philosophy of working for a more sustainable world: Gianni Tessari, a renowned producer of still and sparkling wines in Montecchia di Crosara (Verona, Italy).
A wine bottle made with Raimante material
Three years ago, the two entrepreneurs began a collaboration that lasts to this day. For Giannitessari winery, Raimondo has made – and still makes - a series of carbon, kevlar, and linen fiber bottles, each one being handcrafted and customized one by one. For his part, Gianni Tessari is the first producer in the Verona province who decided to bottle some of his most important wines, as the sparkling wine classic method 'Lessini Durello Extra Brut 60 Months', in very few magnums. Today, Enrico Raimondo is committed to many different projects, that range from the fashion sector (sports bags, shoes, belts, document holders) to kitchen utensils (plates, trays, glass), to the racing world (he is a Lamborghini official supplier, and collaborates also with the Ferrari racing stable), to the design for household furniture. And on and on.
'My aim has always been to create a better world for our children and for all of us –he concludes– Eventually I can say that this philosophy of sustainability begins to be understood and shared by more and more people, even taking the most unexpected directions.'
Elisabetta Tosi
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
35 minutes ago
- CNET
iGarden's Pool Cleaner K Pro 150 Combines Suction With Endurance
Owning a pool should feel like a vacation in your own yard, yet many people spend more time chasing dust and sunken leaves than floating in the sun. iGarden traced the failure point of most pool robots and discovered a simple formula: Strong suction plus a long runtime equals pool cleanliness. Lose either half and the crystal-clear water is all too temporary. The new iGarden Pool Cleaner K Pro 150 brings both sides of the equation into perfect balance, then hides the math so you can forget the chore even exists. IGarden Why suction alone is not enough Fine dust, clingy algae and water-logged leaves need serious negative pressure to dislodge. But pools are restless. Return jets circulate, kids cannon-ball and a breeze turns the surface into a moving conveyor. Debris you just vacuumed can drift and resettle minutes later. For a truly spotless basin, repeated overlapping passes make all the difference, so the battery needs to last hours, not minutes. Engineered for endurance: 15 hours per charge, 21 days carefree A high-density lithium pack delivers K Pro 150 up to 15 continuous hours of runtime, then rests for roughly 21 days between charges when you schedule two or three one-hour maintenance cycles each week. This is thanks to two features: iGarden AI-Inverter. Samples the robot's operating state in real time and fine-tunes motion control—wheel torque, pump speed, climb power—so energy is never wasted on low-load moments yet rises instantly for walls, slopes or steps. Optimized flow channel + turbine impeller. A widened intake and aero-profiled impeller keep negative pressure high without raising wattage, boosting suction while the battery sip-feeds power. iGarden Hydrodynamic shell: less drag, less re-pollution Moving bodies create pressure fronts—high at the nose, low behind. If the tail vacuum grows too large, it drags loose dirt back into water you just cleaned. K Pro 150's racecar-style tapered silhouette keeps that low-pressure zone short. Water hugs the chassis longer, eddies shrink and debris funnels into the intake instead of swirling in the wake. A widened throat and turbine-style impeller hold a strong negative-pressure differential across a broad aperture, delivering vigorous suction without turbulent waste. Turbo 200% mode: emergency sparkle Need a rapid clean-up? Tap Turbo 200% mode and the robot shifts to peak suction, blasting away stubborn debris and leaving the pool sparkling in no time. When the sprint finishes, the unit idles and waits for your next command—so for everyday maintenance you simply choose the mode again, keeping power exactly where you want it. iGarden Intelligent navigation and obstacle escape Guided by an inertial measurement unit and multiple infrared sensors, the robot charts a continuous S-curve that cleans the pool floor and walls in one seamless pass. When its tracks sense resistance—steps, drain covers or light niches—iGarden AI-Inverter instantly ramps up power output to muscle over obstacles. The result is uninterrupted, edge-to-edge coverage while you stay dry on the deck.
Forbes
42 minutes ago
- Forbes
Competition Law And Technology Platform Censorship
KRAKOW, POLAND - 2018/08/17: In this photo illustration, the Facebook logo is seen on a Huawei ... More smartphone with the word censored on a laptop monitor. (Photo Illustration by Omar Marques/SOPA Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) The Federal Trade Commission recently launched a public inquiry into technology platform censorship. Digital platform censorship clearly raises serious policy concerns. Nevertheless, before filing lawsuits, the FTC (and its fellow enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, DOJ) will need to factor in First Amendment protections enjoyed by platforms and limitations on agency statutory authority. Bringing platform censorship cases may not be the best use of limited agency resources. The FTC's Concerns In soliciting public comments in support of its inquiry, the FTC stated that it seeks 'to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users' access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.' The FTC stressed that such actions by platforms may run afoul of antitrust or consumer protection laws: 'Censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. Tech firms can employ confusing or unpredictable internal procedures that cut users off, sometimes with no ability appeal the decision. Such actions taken by tech platforms may harm consumers, affect competition, may have resulted from a lack of competition, or may have been the product of anti-competitive conduct.' The FTC could attempt to argue that such harmful behavior violates the FTC Act's prohibitions against 'unfair methods of competition (UMC) and 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices' (UDAP). Proving UMC or UDAP violations, however, could prove quite difficult. FTC and DOJ Legal Challenges First Amendment Protections FTC and DOJ enforcement powers are constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Moody v. NetChoice (2024), holding that social media platforms' content moderation decisions are protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court's Moody decision clarifies that the First Amendment applies to online platforms and that content moderation decisions are protected. Thus platforms may freely decide whether to include or exclude particular opinions – the government cannot regulate the platforms' choices 'just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas.' Unfair Methods of Competition (UMAC) The FTC's UMAC authority covers unilateral and joint anticompetitive conduct that would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The DOJ enforces the Sherman Act directly. Section 2 of the Sherman Act forbids unilateral actions of monopolization or attempted monopolization by dominant firms. The FTC would first have to show that a platform had a monopoly power over an avenue for public digital expression. This would prove almost impossible to do, given the large number of social media platforms (for example, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, YouTube, and TikTok). But even if a platform were held to monopolize some social media market, monopolization requires a showing of 'anticompetitive conduct' – such as disfavoring rivals without a legitimate business justification. Supreme Court case law, however, sharply limits a monopolist's liability for refusals to deal, meaning that such a showing would probably fail. Nevertheless, if a court found monopoly power and anticompetitive conduct, the Moody decision would preclude a court from striking down discriminatory content moderation decisions by the monopolist platform. The FTC potentially could argue that UMAC extends to 'standalone' violations – unilateral unfair platform business conduct that falls short of Sherman Act monopolization. The First Amendment would, once again, prevent this argument from restricting the platform's moderation policy. Section 1 of the Sherman Act declares illegal anticompetitive concerted conduct – contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that unreasonably restraint trade. Public comments suggest that the FTC and the DOJ are considering 3 types of potential Section 1 violations: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) Platform censorship could only constitute 'deception' or 'unfair' acts or practices under very narrow conditions that are seldom met, as explained in a commentary by George Mason Law School economics and privacy scholars. Any FTC platform UDAP cases likely would be 'legal longshots,' representing a low probability of success at a high resource cost. Deception As the economics and privacy scholars point out, 'a representation is deceptive under the FTC Act if it is material and likely to mislead a significant minority of reasonable consumers.' Applying this test, a deception claim for platform censorship would only fly if a platform could be shown to have violated very specific statements about how it would deal with particular types of content. Platforms are not likely to have made such very specific promises. Broad statements about a platform's moderation policy are inherently subjective, and would likely be seen by courts as mere 'puffery.' Furthermore, claims that a platform 'fooled' consumers by engaging in 'hate speech' or 'misinformation' are subjective as well and unlikely to pass muster in court. Unfairness The FTC Act provides that '[a]n act or practice is unfair if it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury, (2) that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) is not reasonably avoidable.' To win a platform censorship case, the FTC would have to show: (1) a direct link between breaches of platform terms of service and harm imposed on many consumers; plus (2) harm suffered by disfavored consumers that outweighed the benefits to other platform users (such as a reduction in content the second group disliked); plus (3) disfavored consumers could not have reasonably avoided their injury (unlikely, since those consumers could readily have found other platforms to post or review comments). Any 1 of those showings would be hard to prove in court, let alone all 3. Next Step for the Agencies The FTC's inquiry into technology platform censorship may well bring to light abuses of government power and actions by digital platforms that systematically favor particular viewpoints. Shedding a spotlight on such conduct plainly serves the public interest, particularly when public malfeasance is revealed – as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated, 'sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.' FTC inquiry sunshine could lead platforms to revisit and perhaps reform their content moderation policies. It might also discourage government officials from providing troublesome non-public content moderation 'advice' to platforms. Both consumers and many commercial businesses that deal with platforms would benefit. What's more, these benefits could be achieved without the costs and uncertainties of lawsuits, which would face major First Amendment challenges and a low probability of success. This reality, particularly in a time of tight agency budgets, would seem to counsel against bringing platform censorship cases. By allocating all (or virtually all) of their litigation resources to more traditional antitrust and consumer protection matters, the FTC and the DOJ could get the 'greatest bang for the enforcement buck.' This would benefit American consumers and competition.
New York Times
42 minutes ago
- New York Times
Head of S.E.C.'s Crypto Task Force Says ‘Tokenized' Stocks Are Securities
The head of the Securities & Exchange Commission's crypto task force said on Wednesday that efforts to 'tokenize,' or create digital versions of stocks and other securities, are still governed by federal securities laws. 'Tokenized securities are still securities,' Hester M. Peirce, who is also an S.E.C. commissioner, said in a statement, and 'market participants must consider — and adhere to — the federal securities laws when transacting in these instruments.' Ms. Peirce's statement is not official S.E.C. policy. But as a longstanding commissioner and leader of the crypto task force, her positions carry a good deal of weight at the regulatory agency. Ms. Peirce was nominated to the S.E.C. by President Trump during his first administration. A tokenized stock is a digital version of the security that, rather than being tied to a particular stock exchange, can be traded on a blockchain at any time. A blockchain is a digital ledger that, in theory, records all transactions involving cryptocurrencies or other digital assets and is maintained on a network of computers. The statement from Ms. Peirce, a longtime crypto proponent, comes as some in the crypto industry are pushing to permit investors to trade digital versions of stocks and other assets on their platforms in Europe and the United States. Some critics have worried that the tokenization of assets like shares in private companies that can be traded on the blockchain might mean those digital assets are not subject to federal securities laws. Ms. Peirce, whose commission recently held a hearing on the issue of tokenization, has long argued that regulators should keep an open mind about new technologies. But in her statement she said crypto companies also need to be mindful of securities laws. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
