Hi wvmarle, Thanks for your comment. Yes, the Staxxon technology and design is "variably" folding - you can create a "nest" with 2,3,4 or 5 containers. This was part of our effort to design a system that avoided the need to have an exact number of folded or collapsed containers before you could move the set. Also a reason we chose "side to side" folding (like an accordion) vs. the collapse to ground method chosen by our competitors. We've done a fair amount of stacking, racking and load testing over the last year. Stacking tests establish the maximum number of laden containers that can be on top of a container. Racking tests evaluate the ability of the container to resist longitudinal (the long sides) and transverse (the front and back sides) racking forces at sea and on rail. Loading tests evaluate the ability of the container to handle spot loads on floor surfaces, evenly balanced loads and overweight loads. There is a regulatory process that establishes the ratings for each of these critical elements. We expect to announce the regulatory testing results very soon. Safe to assume we have very high rating targets for the stacking, racking and loading elements of the Staxxon design. The tests also address weather tightness. We've tested a few dozen different gasket and hinge systems to find one that provides optimal weather tightness when unfolded. We also have a more advanced folding/nesting system in design that will address most of the concerns about safety, elapsed time and scaleability for folding/unfolding and nesting/un-nesting. We envision most folding/nesting happening off-terminal in western ports where there are off-terminal storage depots for empty containers. Thanks again for your comment. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com

Hi Solandri Since you took the time to write your thoughtful comment, I decided to try and respond on behalf of Staxxon. I don't know anything about Kirchoff's law. I do know that most container ships operate on a specific trade lane, call on a specific set of ports based on a schedule and often are part of a "string" or alliance with other container ships from other carriers brands who work together on the string to move cargo on somewhat reliable schedule. Most of the better known, higher volume/tonnage strings are "east-west" like Asia-Americas or Asia-Europe. However, there are also secondary trade lanes, often involving shorter north-south moves as well as "feeder" trade lanes. And I agree 100% with you that most container ships today move on their designated trade lane regardless of whether there is enough container cargo demand to make the move profitable for the ocean carrer. Container ships follow the same "weekly schedule" practice that has been the norm for commercial shipping for 100s of years. What could change with folding/nesting container technology? By reducing the number of moves required to stow or unload empty containers from container ships because they are folded/nested, the container ship picks up schedule agility in terms of prospective arrival/departure time and time spent at the dock or quay. This added agility could be used to implement slow or extra slow steaming (which reduces fuel consumption) and/or achieve better on-time arrival results (which achieves better retail value for the cargo, reduces retail inventory safety stock levels and reduces "expedited" land moves that typically involve trucks vs. more fuel efficient rail or barge. Over time, as the reduced stow/unload time became more reliable from folding/nesting empty containers, the number of container ship moves (not the number of container ships) might be reduced because the same volume or tonnage could be moved in the same time with fewer moves. Reducing container ship moves is distinct from reducing the number of container ships. I don't think most of the ocean carriers (Maersk might be an exception) are ready to think about seasonal and/or demand driven, variable container ship movements today. The weekly schedule is almost sacred in container maritime circles. However, as sustainability score cards move from being "nice to have" to more serious metrics of corporate performance, there will be increasing pressure on the logistics and supply chain players to adopt methods that optimize the carbon footprint and deliver the goods on time. Can it be accomplished solely with folding/nesting container technology? No. Can folding/nesting technology contribute to a more efficient, sustainable way to move containerized cargo? Yes, but the process will take time to prove and optimize. Thanks again for your comments. Tom-tstitt@staxxon.com

Chuckstar - Thanks for your comment. At Staxxon, we have built our business model around reducing empty moves at storage depots, marine and inland terminals where each move has an associated cost or fee. In terms of saving carriers, shippers and maybe eventually consumers any money on freight costs, folding/nesting or collapsing has the potential to reduce the number of moves or touches. And we agree with your observation - most of the folding/nesting (and unfolding/un-nesting) would probably happen at terminals or storage depots, not at warehouses or distribution centers. Your vision of a folding/nesting system or device is close to our design. We used forklift folding/nesting to prove the concept. Now we're working on a more robust, scaleable method that takes advantage of existing terminal and storage depot workflow We don't think that folding/nesting can reduce container ship movements in the near term. Container ships run on fixed schedules just like ships did in the day before containerization. On most routes, the ships operate even if there isn't sufficient demand to make the transit profitable. In the near term, folding/nesting containers could add agility to container ship arrival/departure schedules in terms of reducing the amount of time required to stow or unload empty containers. This added agility could lead to more flexibility around steaming speed and/or improve on-time arrival of cargo which has a serious impact on the achieved retail value of most cargo. Once the agility benefits were consistently quantified and proven, there could be consideration given to reducing container ship movements assuming the same volume and tonnage could be moved on time with fewer ship moves. Very exciting to see all the comments about container logistics, re-use and innovation. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com

PPalmgren, Anonymous Coward, dfk and thegarbz - Thanks for the comments and observations You are all correct in assuming that the Staxxon technology and design is targeting highly imbalanced trade lanes, especially those in emerging economies where the primary export commodity is moved in a pipe, on a tanker or by other bulk methods that don't involve containers. Also, in some cases, there are export commodities in laden containers that compete for space with empty containers. The opportunity on these trades lanes is twofold: 1) Reduce the net costs of empty container back-haul by reducing the number of moves or "touches" that an empty container makes (there are costs for each move or touch) by making 5 containers fit in the same space as 1 container; and, 2) Free up TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit) slots on the container ships that would otherwise be occupied by empty containers on back-haul so that the freed up slots can be used for revenue (laden) containers. Another benefit in the highly imbalanced trade lanes is that storage space at ports, terminals and storage depots occupied by empty containers can be "densified" with folding/nesting. A densified terminal or storage yard opens up more space for laden containers to be staged and moved and, prospectively, reduces pile (stacked containers) height. One of the difficulties in considering the pros/cons of folding nesting containers is trying to differentiate between TEU utilization on a container ship vs. "slot" utilization. A 2000 TEU capacity ship that is carrying 1,000 laden TEUs and 800 empty TEUS occupying 1800 slots is is said to be 80% utilized based on physical containers filling available slots. The same 2000 TEU capacity ship carrying 1,000 laden TEUS and 160 nested sets of 5 containers occupying a total of 1,160 slots would be considered 58% utilized but, in fact, is also 80% utilized if you do the math with TEUs instead of physical slots occupied by containers. Great to see so much interest in container logistics and innovation. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com

SmallFurryCreature - Thanks for your comments. Same to assume that Staxxon has a more scaleable, safe, efficient folding/nesting system designed than the forklift method shown on YouTube. As we move toward non-commercial field trials/tests, we'll get plenty of feedback from people who work everyday with containers on ways to make the folding/nesting process more safe, efficient and scaleable. As a startup, we worked with the tools we had based on our available resources. One of the tools was a forklift. While we're working with tons of steel, the "minimum acceptable product" maxim followed by most technology companies was one of our guiding principles. We solve a series of problems and then move on to the next series of problems. Certainly agree that coming up with a "door to door" folding/nesting system and solution for shipping containers isn't easy. Space is certainly one key metric. The other two metrics are Time, Moves and Money. While the Staxxon (and all the other folding/nesting designs) require incremental labor/materials for folding, nesting, maintenance, repair and manufacturing, the key arithmetic is whether the net result of reducing the number of empty container Moves or touches at a storage depot or terminal saves even more Money and Time than the incremental labor and material costs. Space, Moves, Money and Time. Very complex things. Thanks again for your comments. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com

Bladders will work with the Staxxon folding/nesting design. Complete agree that moving liquid bulk in bladders using containers is smarter than drums. There are some challenges around recycling the used bladders. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com

Hi Chuckstar Good points. Fair to assume that the "proof of concept" method shown on YouTube using a forklift to fold/nest a set of containers isn't what Staxxon has designed for scaleable, volume folding at storage depots and, where relevant, terminals or ports. As a startup, we used what we had to prove the concept - which happened to be a forklift. Going forward with additional resources, we've developed a basic folding/nesting system that addresses scaleability, safety and efficiency issues. Thanks again for all the feedback. Tom - tstitt@staxxon.com