A validation method and means for the production of clear coating mixtures

Abstract

A method of validating a mixing of components in a live process. The live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid. The method comprise the steps of performing a first fluid test after the first component has been added to a base fluid and before the addition of the second component (101), performing a second fluid test after both the first and second components are mixed together within the fluid (102), and determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created (103).

Description

[0001] A Validation Method and Means for the Production of Clear Coating Mixtures

[0002] Field of Invention

[0003] The present invention is in the field of validation methodologies and apparatuses implemented in the production of clear coating mixtures. More specifically the present invention is in the field of validation methodologies and apparatuses implemented in the production of clear coating mixtures that are to be used in the glass bottle production industry or to coat glass bottles.

[0004] Background

[0005] Glass bottles are often coated with a scratch resistant coating mixture. For many applications, this coating mixture is a transparent, or clear, substance to allow for a view into the internal contents of the bottle.

[0006] Historically, many compounds and methodologies have been trialled with producing this coating mixture. One such practice that is still used involves the depositing of compounds of tin (monotinbutyl chloride) in a vaporised form onto the surface of the glass bottles when they are in a pseudo molten state at 700°C. This step is then followed by the addition of an ethylene emulsion that has been diluted with water atop the tin compounds at a much reduced temperature. Industry would like to move away from the above described two-step process, mainly due to the high costs and complexity associated with each step. The heavy processing of the glass bottles themselves that are required as part of the procedure of creating the coating mixture also provide inconvenience in this practice. Tin has also been found to be a carcinogen and hence is to be avoided moving forward.

[0007] There are technical problems associated with how to perform a validation of a new method replacing the tin based approach.

[0008] Statements of Invention

[0009] Aspects of the present invention are set out in the independent claims. Optional features are set out in the dependant claims.

[0010] In accordance with a first aspect of invention there is disclosed a method of validating a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises the steps of: performing a first fluid test after the first component has been added to a base fluid and before the addition of the second component; performing a second fluid test after both the first and second components are mixed together within the fluid; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created. Advantageously, the above two part methodology may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process. This may allow for more efficient error spotting, for example, deducing which stage of the live process is operating outside of acceptable conditions. Additionally, this methodology may further enable live information to be received from the fluid itself from two pivotal stages of the live process i.e. after the addition of each component into the base fluid. For a process such as this that creates a coating mixture that is transparent and that too which is made from transparent constituents, this may be particularly beneficial as observatory analysis of the end mixture alone may not provide any inclination as to which process step is faulty.

[0011] Optionally, wherein the live process comprises mixing the first component with the base fluid in a first mixing chamber. Advantageously, this may ensure the first component is adequately dispersed within the base fluid which may ensure the first fluid test is representative of the amount of the first component in the base fluid.

[0012] Optionally, wherein the live process comprises mixing together the first and second components within the fluid in a second mixing chamber. Advantageously, this may ensure the first and second components are adequately dispersed within the fluid which may ensure the second fluid test is representative of the amount of the first and second components in the fluid, or representative of any product should the first and second components react together.

[0013] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test is taken at a location in the live process after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber. This may ensure the first fluid test is representative of the amount of the first component in the base fluid and, optionally may not account for the presence of any other substance. Optionally, wherein the second fluid test is taken at a location in the live process after the second mixing chamber. This may ensure the first fluid test is representative of the amount of the first and second components in the fluid, or representative of any product should the first and second components react together.

[0014] In accordance with a second aspect of invention there is disclosed a method for coating a glass bottle with a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises; adding a first component to a base fluid; performing a first fluid test after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber; adding a second component to the first component and base fluid; performing a second fluid test after the second mixing chamber; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created; applying the coating mixture to the glass bottle. This method of coating a glass bottle with the coating mixture and the validation method steps conducted alongside it may be useful in many ways. Advantageously, the above two part fluid testing methodology may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process. This may allow for more efficient error spotting, for example, deducing which stage of the live process is operating outside of acceptable conditions. Additionally, this methodology may further enable live information to be received from the fluid itself from two pivotal stages of the live process i.e. after the addition of each component into the base fluid. For a process such as this that creates a coating mixture that is transparent and that too which is made from transparent constituents, this may be particularly beneficial as observatory analysis of the end mixture alone may not provide any inclination as to which process step is faulty. Such method steps may further ensure only coating mixtures of sufficient quality are applied to the glass bottle (with feedback received prior to application on the bottles too). This may reduce the waste of glass bottles that have had an incorrect coating mixture applied. This may also allow the method to replace the tin-based method as the verification process allows manufacture of the bottles without the prospect of unrecognised faults developing.

[0015] In accordance with a third aspect of invention there is disclosed a method of validating a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises the steps of; adding a first component to a base fluid; mixing the first component and the base fluid in a first mixing chamber; adding a second component to the first component and base fluid; mixing the second component with the first component and base fluid in a second mixing chamber; performing a first fluid test after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber; performing a second fluid test after the second mixing chamber; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created. Advantageously, the above two part methodology may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process. This may allow for more efficient error spotting, for example, deducing which stage of the live process is operating outside of acceptable conditions. Additionally, this methodology may further enable live information to be received from the fluid itself from two pivotal stages of the live process i.e. after the addition of each component into the base fluid. For a process such as this that creates a coating mixture that is transparent and that too which is made from transparent constituents, this may be particularly beneficial as observatory analysis of the end mixture alone may not provide any inclination as to which process step is faulty. Furthermore, the first and second component addition and mixing steps in each respective mixing chamber may ensure each component is adequately dispersed within the base fluid and fluid respectively which may then ensure each fluid test is representative of the amount of the components it is validating. The below optional features relate to any of the first, second or third aspects.

[0016] Optionally, wherein the method further comprises comparing the results of the first fluid test and the results of the second fluid test. This comparison may ensure that each component has been successfully added to the base fluid and the fluid respectively and that the coating mixture is created as intended.

[0017] Optionally, wherein comparing comprises comparing the results of the first fluid test and the results of the second fluid test against a first reference value and a second reference value or ranges of said first and second reference values respectively. This comparison against specific stored reference values may ensure uniformity within the live process and that each cycle of the live process is in line with the previous if so desired. Each reference value may also be calibrated for the desired coating mixture. Comparison of the fluid tests against the stored reference values may be a computational efficient way to validate the quality / success of the live process and the creation of the coating mixture.

[0018] Optionally, wherein the first and second reference values or the ranges of the first and second reference values are derived from the third fluid test. Advantageously, this may tailor the first and second reference value to the base fluid in the live process and is a natural calibration step that may better detect the presence of the first and second components.

[0019] Optionally, wherein the method further comprises performing a third fluid test of the base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components.

[0020] Advantageously, this may allow for the validation methodology to confirm base fluid quality.

[0021] Optionally wherein the base fluid is water. This may be the most optimum starting fluid for the live process in the creation of the coating mixture.

[0022] Optionally wherein the base fluid is water derived from reverse osmosis. Optionally wherein this reduces water waste.

[0023] Optionally wherein the pH of the base fluid is between 5 and 7. This may be water obtained from reverse osmosis and hence utilises water that is not distilled, reducing costs associated purification or distillation of the water or the like.

[0024] Optionally wherein first component added to the base fluid gives an aqueous solution of the first component. Advantageously, said aqueous solution allows the first fluid test to be conducted as the liquid state of this solution is compatible with means to conduct such fluid test. Optionally, wherein the third fluid test is taken at a location in the live process prior to the first mixing chamber. This may ensure the third fluid test is representative of the base fluid only and does not account for the presence of any other substance.

[0025] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the third fluid test against a known third reference value. This comparison against specific stored reference values may ensure uniformity within the live process and that each cycle of the live process is in line with the previous if so desired. Each reference value may also be calibrated for the desired coating mixture. Comparison of the fluid tests against the stored reference values may be a computational efficient way to validate the quality / success of the live process and the creation of the coating mixture. This may also allow for the validation methodology to confirm base fluid quality.

[0026] Optionally, wherein the method further comprises, performing a fourth fluid test after the second component has been added to a second base fluid.

[0027] Optionally, wherein the second component being added to the second base fluid is a separate branch of the live process to the addition of the first component to the base fluid. Advantageously, the above two statement accounts for an alternative arrangement of the live process wherein both the first and second components are added together when each is dispersed in a base fluid. A fourth fluid test may therefore may ensure the addition of the second component into the second base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition.

[0028] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test is performed before the addition of the second component to the first component. This may ensure the fourth fluid test is representative of the amount of the second component in the second base fluid and is not accounting for the presence of any other substance.

[0029] Optionally, wherein the fluid is the combination of the base fluid and the second base fluid when added together. This may be a single source of a base fluid that spits into two branches for the addition of each of the first and second components in each branch and then are added together to form the coating mixture. Alternatively, the base fluid and the second base fluid may be obtained from different sources.

[0030] Optionally wherein second component added to the second base fluid gives an aqueous solution of the second component. Advantageously, said aqueous solution allows the fourth fluid test to be conducted as the liquid state of this solution is compatible with means to conduct such fluid test.

[0031] Optionally, wherein the live process comprises mixing the second component with the second base fluid in a third mixing chamber. This may ensure the second component is dispersed evenly within the second base fluid.

[0032] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test is taken at a location after a third mixing chamber. This may ensure the fourth fluid test is representative of the amount of the second component in the second base fluid and is not accounting for the presence of any other substance

[0033] Optionally, wherein the method further comprises the steps of, adding the second component to a second base fluid prior to adding the second component to the first component and base fluid, wherein the second component being added to the second base fluid is a separate branch of the live process to the addition of the first component to the base fluid; mixing the second component and second base fluid mixture in a third mixing chamber prior to adding the second component to the first component and base fluid; performing a fourth fluid test after the third mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber. Advantageously, this accounts for an alternative arrangement of the live process wherein both the first and second components are added together when each is dispersed in a base fluid. A fourth fluid test may therefore may ensure the addition of the second component into the second base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition.

[0034] Optionally, wherein the method further comprises performing a fifth fluid test of the second base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components. Advantageously, this may allow the validation to self-calibrate any determination of a successful, or unsuccessful, coating mixture creation to the second base fluid at the start of the live process.

[0035] Optionally wherein the second base fluid is water. This may be the most optimum starting fluid for the live process in the creation of the coating mixture.

[0036] Optionally wherein second component added to the second base fluid gives an aqueous solution of the second component. Advantageously, said aqueous solution allows the fourth fluid test to be conducted as the liquid state of this solution is compatible with means to conduct such fluid test.

[0037] Optionally wherein the method further comprises comparing a fifth fluid test against a fifth reference value or range of a fifth reference value. This comparison against specific stored reference values may ensure uniformity within the live process and that each cycle of the live process is in line with the previous if so desired. Each reference value may also be calibrated for the desired coating mixture. Comparison of the fluid tests against the stored reference values may be a computational efficient way to validate the quality / success of the live process and the creation of the coating mixture.

[0038] Optionally, wherein the comparison between the first fluid test and the first reference value or range of the first reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the first component in the base fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture. Advantageously, Comparison of the fluid tests against the stored reference values may be a computational efficient way to validate the quality / success of the live process and the creation of the coating mixture. This step may confirm whether or not the addition of the first component into the base fluid is within an acceptable operating condition. In the event it is not, an alert may be communicated. By fluid testing the addition of each component, the validation methodology implements greater error spotting capabilities that identifies where in the live process the error occurs.

[0039] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test being above or below the first reference value or range of the first reference value indicates an unsuccessful creation of the coating mixture. This step may confirm whether or not the addition of the first component into the base fluid is within an acceptable operating condition.

[0040] Optionally, wherein the comparison between the second fluid test and the second reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the mixed first and second components in the fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture.

[0041] Optionally, wherein the second fluid test being above or below the second reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above two statements may determine whether or not the addition of the first and second components into the fluid is within an acceptable operating condition. Optionally, wherein the method further comprises comparing the results of the fourth fluid test against a fourth reference value or range of a fourth reference value.

[0042] Optionally, wherein the comparison between the fourth fluid test and the fourth reference value or range of the fourth reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the second component in the second base fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture.

[0043] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test being above or below the fourth reference value or range of the fourth reference value indicates an unsuccessful creation of the coating mixture. The above three statements may determine whether or not the addition of the second component into the second base fluid is within an acceptable operating condition.

[0044] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the first fluid test against the third fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first component into the base fluid.

[0045] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the first fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the first fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0046] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0047] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first component into the base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0048] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the third fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components into the base fluid.

[0049] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0050] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second components into the base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0051] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the first fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the second component into the first component when mixed in the base fluid.

[0052] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the first fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the first fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0053] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0054] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the second component into the first component when mixed in the first fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0055] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the fourth fluid test against a fifth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the second component into the second base fluid.

[0056] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the fourth fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the fourth fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0057] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0058] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the second component into the second base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0059] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the fifth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components from that of the second base fluid. Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0060] Optionally, wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0061] Optionally, wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second components into the fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0062] Optionally, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the fourth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components into the fluid.

[0063] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fourth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fourth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0064] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0065] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second component into the fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0066] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test is a measure of conductivity.

[0067] Optionally, wherein the second fluid test is a measure of conductivity.

[0068] Optionally, wherein the third fluid test is a measure of conductivity.

[0069] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test is a measure of conductivity.

[0070] Optionally, wherein the fifth fluid test is a measure of conductivity. The above five statements may have the advantage that they measure a parameter of the fluid that is not dependant on the fluid being visible and that can still provide a measure of different components in the fluid or base fluids.

[0071] Optionally, wherein the first reference value is a reference conductivity value. Optionally, wherein the first reference value is determined from the conductivity of the third fluid test. Advantageously, this may allow the first reference value to be calibrated to the base fluid conductivity value in the live process.

[0072] Optionally, wherein the second reference value is a reference conductivity value.

[0073] Optionally, wherein the second reference value is determined from the conductivity of the third fluid test. Advantageously, this may allow the second reference value to be calibrated to the base fluid conductivity value in the live process

[0074] Optionally, wherein the third reference value is a reference conductivity value.

[0075] Optionally, wherein the fourth reference value is a reference conductivity value.

[0076] Optionally, wherein the fifth reference value is a reference conductivity value. The above seven statements have the advantage that they relate to a parameter of the fluid that is not dependant on the fluid being visible and that can still provide a measure of different components in the fluid or base fluids.

[0077] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test is a measure of pH.

[0078] Optionally, wherein the second fluid test is a measure of pH.

[0079] Optionally, wherein the third fluid test is a measure of pH.

[0080] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test is a measure of pH.

[0081] Optionally, wherein the fifth fluid test is a measure of pH. The above five statements may have the advantage that they measure a parameter of the fluid that is not dependant on the fluid being visible and that can still provide a measure of different components in the fluid or base fluids.

[0082] Optionally, wherein the first reference value is a reference pH value.

[0083] Optionally, wherein the first reference value is determined from the pH of the third fluid test. Advantageously, this may allow the first reference value to be calibrated to the base fluid conductivity value in the live process.

[0084] Optionally, wherein the second reference value is a reference pH value.

[0085] Optionally, wherein the second reference value is determined from the pH of the third fluid test. Advantageously, this may allow the second reference value to be calibrated to the base fluid conductivity value in the live process.

[0086] Optionally, wherein the third reference value is a reference pH value. Optionally, wherein the fourth reference value is a reference pH value.

[0087] Optionally, wherein the fifth reference value is a reference pH value. The above seven statements have the advantage that they relate to a parameter of the fluid that is not dependant on the fluid being visible and that can still provide a measure of different components in the fluid or base fluids.

[0088] Optionally, wherein pH is measured by placing an electrode of a pH meter into the live process. This may enable live data collection from the live process and need not require the fluid to be removed from the live process thereby maintaining efficiency and yield of the coating mixture.

[0089] Optionally, wherein the pH meter is placed into the fluid or base fluid.

[0090] Optionally, wherein the pH meter is continuously submerged in the fluid.

[0091] Optionally, wherein conductivity is measured by an electrical conductivity meter comprising a probe.

[0092] Optionally, wherein the method comprises placing the probe into the live process such that it contacts the fluid or is submerged within it. The above five statements may enable live data collection from the live process and need not require the fluid to be removed from the live process thereby maintaining efficiency and yield of the coating mixture.

[0093] Optionally, wherein electrical conductivity meter is placed into the fluid at intervals. This may remove the need to remove fluid from the live process hence maintaining efficiency and yield of the live process and coating mixture.

[0094] Optionally wherein the sampling rate of the electrical conductivity meter is 0.5kHz.

[0095] Optionally, wherein it is l-3kHz.

[0096] Optionally, wherein it is 2kHz. The above three statements may enable a sampling rate that provides regular updated conductivity values so as to respond to any changes in operating conditions efficiently.

[0097] Optionally, wherein the electrical conductivity meter is continuously submerged in the fluid.

[0098] Optionally, wherein the electrical conductivity meter provides a continuous measure of conductivity. The above two statements may enable an immediate response or detection to any changes in operating conditions. Optionally, wherein there is more than one electrical conductivity meter that provides continuous measurements of conductivity at different stages of the live process. Preferably there is a first electrical conductivity meter that is upstream of the addition of the first component. Preferably, there is a second electrical conductivity meter that is downstream of the addition of the first component but upstream of the addition of the second component. Preferably, there is a third electrical conductivity meter that is downstream from the addition of both the first component and the second component. This beneficially allows for monitoring of each stage of the live process without needing to interrupt the process to perform a measurement.

[0099] Optionally, wherein there is more than one electrical conductivity meter that are placed into the fluid at different stages of the live process at intervals. Preferably there is a first electrical conductivity meter that is upstream of the addition of the first component. Preferably, there is a second electrical conductivity meter that is downstream of the addition of the first component but upstream of the addition of the second component. Preferably, there is a third electrical conductivity meter that is downstream from the addition of both the first component and the second component. This may remove the need to remove fluid from the live process hence maintaining efficiency and yield of the live process and coating mixture.

[0100] Optionally wherein the sampling rate of the electrical conductivity meter is 0.5kHz.

[0101] Optionally, wherein it is l-3kHz.

[0102] Optionally, wherein it is 2kHz. The above three statements may enable a sampling rate that provides regular updated conductivity values so as to respond to any changes in operating conditions efficiently.

[0103] Optionally, wherein the first component comprises a silane based compound.

[0104] Optionally wherein the silane is oxysilane.

[0105] Optionally wherein the first component comprises a combination of silane and one or more alcohols.

[0106] Optionally wherein the alcohols are any of ethanol, methanol or isopropanol.

[0107] Optionally the above four statements may provide a non-carcinogenic replacement for the tin compound previously used in industry. Optionally, wherein the second component is a wax.

[0108] Optionally wherein it is a polyethylene wax. The above two statements may form part of a live process that creates a coating mixture prior to its application on a glass bottle.

[0109] Optionally, wherein the coating mixture is applied to the glass bottles when the glass bottles are at a temperature within 80-150°C.

[0110] Optionally wherein the temperature is between 110-140°C.

[0111] Optionally wherein the temperature is 125°C. Advantageously, the above three statements may relate to a temperate range that is substantially lower than other equivalent processes and hence provide substantial cost savings over such processes.

[0112] In accordance with a fourth aspect of invention there is disclosed an apparatus for coating a glass bottle with a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the apparatus comprises; a first mixing chamber configured to mix the first component with a base fluid; a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is configured to perform a first fluid test, a second mixing chamber configured to mix the first component and a second component in the fluid; a second sensor, wherein the second sensor is configured to perform a second fluid test; a coating application means configured to coat the glass bottle with the coating mixture. Advantageously, the above two part fluid testing methodology as enabled by the first and second sensors may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process. This may allow for more efficient error spotting, for example, deducing which stage of the live process is operating outside of acceptable conditions. Additionally, this methodology may further enable live information to be received from the fluid itself from two pivotal stages of the live process i.e. after the addition of each component into the base fluid. For a process such as this that creates a coating mixture that is transparent and that too which is made from transparent constituents, this may be particularly beneficial as observatory analysis of the end mixture alone may not provide any inclination as to which process step is faulty. Furthermore, the first and second mixing chambers may ensure each of the first and second components are dispersed evenly within the base fluid and fluid to enable a representative sample of fluid to be detected by the sensors.

[0113] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test is of the first component in a base fluid; wherein the first sensor is configured to perform the first fluid test after the first mixing chamber; wherein the second fluid test is of the first and second components mixed in the fluid; and / or wherein the second sensor is configured to perform the second fluid test after the second mixing chamber. Advantageously, the above two part fluid testing methodology as enabled by the first and second sensors may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process.

[0114] In accordance with a fifth aspect of invention there is disclosed a validation apparatus for a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the validation apparatus comprises; a first mixing chamber configured to mix the first component with a base fluid; a second mixing chamber configured to mix the first component and a second component in the fluid; a first sensor configured to perform a first fluid test, wherein the first fluid test is to determine the concentration of the first component in a base fluid; and a second sensor configured to perform a second fluid test, wherein the second fluid test is to determine whether the coating mixture has been produced; wherein the first sensor is configured to perform the first fluid test after the first mixing chamber; wherein the second sensor is configured to perform the second fluid test after the second mixing chamber. Advantageously, the above two part fluid testing methodology as enabled by the first and second sensors may enable a particularly useful validation method for the successful creation of a coating mixture made from two substances. The first fluid test may ensure the addition of the first component into the base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition and the second fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component is too. These two steps account for the validation of the main steps of the formation process. This may allow for more efficient error spotting, for example, deducing which stage of the live process is operating outside of acceptable conditions. Additionally, this methodology may further enable live information to be received from the fluid itself from two pivotal stages of the live process i.e. after the addition of each component into the base fluid. For a process such as this that creates a coating mixture that is transparent and that too which is made from transparent constituents, this may be particularly beneficial as observatory analysis of the end mixture alone may not provide any inclination as to which process step is faulty. Furthermore, the first and second mixing chambers may ensure each of the first and second components are dispersed evenly within the base fluid and fluid to enable a representative sample of fluid to be detected by the sensors.

[0115] The below optional features relate to any of the fourth or fifth aspects.

[0116] Optionally, wherein the validation apparatus further comprises a third sensor, wherein the third sensor is configured to perform a third fluid test, wherein the third fluid test is of the base fluid prior to any addition of either the first or second components. Advantageously, this third sensor may allow the validation methodology to self calibrate any determination of a successful coating mixture creation to the base fluid at the start of the live process.

[0117] Optionally, wherein the validation apparatus further comprises a third mixing chamber, wherein the third mixing chamber is configured to mix the second component with a second base fluid. This may ensure the second component is dispersed evenly within the second base fluid. Optionally, wherein the validation apparatus further comprises a fourth sensor, wherein the fourth sensor is configured to perform a fourth fluid test, wherein the fourth fluid test is of the second component in the second base fluid, and wherein the fourth sensor is configured to perform the fourth fluid test after the third mixing chamber. A fourth fluid test may ensure the addition of the second component into the second base fluid is accurately executed and operating within an acceptable operating condition. The fourth fluid test being performed after the third mixing chamber may ensure the fourth fluid test is representative of the amount of the second component in the second base fluid.

[0118] Optionally, wherein the validation means further comprises a fifth sensor, wherein the fifth sensor is configured to perform a fifth fluid test, wherein the fifth fluid test is of the second base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components, wherein the fifth sensor is configured to perform the fifth fluid test prior to the third mixing chamber. A fifth fluid test may provide a calibration reading for the second base fluid with nothing added to it which may allow for the gauging of the accurate addition of the first and second components later in the live process. The fifth fluid test being performed prior to the third mixing chamber may ensure the fifth fluid test is representative of the second base fluid with nothing added to it.

[0119] Optionally, wherein the validation means comprises a controller.

[0120] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to store reference values. This may enable comparison of the detected fluid test values against acceptable values of operating conditions for a successful coating mixture. Stored values may enable any comparison between the fluid test values and the reference values to be computationally efficient.

[0121] Optionally, wherein the controller stores a first reference value.

[0122] Optionally, wherein the controller stores a second reference value.

[0123] Optionally, wherein the controller stores a third reference value.

[0124] Optionally, wherein the controller stores a fourth reference value.

[0125] Optionally, wherein the controller stores a fifth reference value. The above five statements may be a computationally efficient way to enable any future comparison between the fluid tests and the reference values. Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare values of the first fluid test with the first reference value, wherein the value of the first fluid test being above or below the first reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. This may determine whether the correct amount of the first component has been added to the base fluid.

[0126] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the second fluid test with the second reference value, wherein the values of the second fluid test being above or below the second reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. This may determine whether the correct amount of the first and second components have been added to the fluid and that this is in line with normal operating conditions.

[0127] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the third fluid test with the third reference value, wherein the values of the third fluid test being above or below the third reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. This may determine whether properties of the base fluid are within normal operating conditions.

[0128] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the fourth fluid test with the fourth reference value, wherein the values of the fourth fluid test being above or below the fourth reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. This may determine whether the correct amount of the second component has been added to the second base fluid.

[0129] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the fifth fluid test with the fifth reference value, wherein the values of the fifth fluid test being above or below the fifth reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture. This may determine whether properties of the second base fluid are within normal operating conditions.

[0130] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the first fluid test with the third fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first component into the base fluid.

[0131] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the first fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the first fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0132] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first component into the base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0133] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the third fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components into the base fluid.

[0134] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0135] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0136] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second components into the base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0137] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the fourth fluid test with the fifth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the second component into the second base fluid.

[0138] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the fourth fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the fourth fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0139] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0140] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the second component into the second base fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0141] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the fifth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components from that of the second base fluid.

[0142] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0143] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0144] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second components into the fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0145] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the first fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the second component into the first component when mixed in the base fluid.

[0146] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the first fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the first fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0147] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0148] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the second component into the first component when mixed in the first fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison.

[0149] Optionally, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the fourth fluid test. This may ensure a change is recorded from the addition of the first and second components into the fluid.

[0150] Optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fourth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fourth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0151] Optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

[0152] Optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture. The above three statements may ensure a suitable change has occurred from the addition of the first and second component into the fluid for a successful outcome. The larger the error range the more sensitive the comparison. Optionally, wherein the first sensor is an electrical conductivity meter.

[0153] Optionally wherein the second sensor is an electrical conductivity meter.

[0154] Optionally, wherein the third sensor is an electrical conductivity meter.

[0155] Optionally, the fourth sensor is an electrical conductivity meter.

[0156] Optionally, wherein the fifth sensor is an electrical conductivity meter. The above five statements may allow for a comparison of the fluid in the different stages of the live process based on a parameter not dependant on the visibility of the fluid.

[0157] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test gives a conductivity value.

[0158] Optionally, wherein the second fluid test gives a conductivity value.

[0159] Optionally, wherein the third fluid test gives a conductivity value.

[0160] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test gives a conductivity value.

[0161] Optionally, wherein the fifth fluid test gives a conductivity value. The above five statements may allow for a comparison of the fluid in the different stages of the live process based on a parameter not dependant on the visibility of the fluid.

[0162] Optionally, wherein conductivity is measured in Siemens / meter or is a measure of resistance per unit length.

[0163] Optionally, wherein the first sensor is a pH meter.

[0164] Optionally wherein the second sensor is a pH meter.

[0165] Optionally, wherein the third sensor is a pH meter.

[0166] Optionally, wherein the fourth sensor is a pH meter.

[0167] Optionally, wherein the fifth sensor is a pH meter. The above five statements may allow for a comparison of the fluid in the different stages of the live process based on a parameter not dependant on the visibility of the fluid.

[0168] Optionally, wherein the first fluid test gives a pH value.

[0169] Optionally, wherein the second fluid test gives a pH value.

[0170] Optionally, wherein the third fluid test gives a pH value.

[0171] Optionally, wherein the fourth fluid test gives a pH value. Optionally, wherein the fifth fluid test gives a pH value. The above five statements may allow for a comparison of the fluid in the different stages of the live process based on a parameter not dependant on the visibility of the fluid.

[0172] Brief Description of

[0173] Figure 1 shows a flowchart outlining a methodology for validating a mixing of components in a live process.

[0174] Figure 2 shows a first embodiment of the apparatus arrangement of the live process.

[0175] Figure 3 shows a second embodiment of the apparatus arrangement of the live process.

[0176] Figure 4 shows a third embodiment of the apparatus arrangement of the live process.

[0177] Figure 5 shows an application means applying a coating mixture onto the glass bottles.

[0178] Detailed Description of Figures

[0179] Figure 1 shows a method 100 of validating a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises the steps of: performing a first fluid test after the first component has been added to a base fluid and before the addition of the second component 101; performing a second fluid test after both the first and second components are mixed together within the fluid 102; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created 103.

[0180] One new way of creating this transparent coating mixture is from the addition of two components added sequentially to a base fluid, usually water, which is only applied to the glass bottles after its formation (and optionally during the cooling phase within a temperature range of 70-150 degrees Celsius, more preferably in the range of 110 degrees Celsius to 140 degrees Celsius). On an industrial scale, this process takes place as a continuous live process to ensure high efficiency of production and minimal operator requirements. As the live process of producing this coating mixture is now a continuous process and not a distinct two part process that involves feedback from the state of the glass bottles, validating the successful completion of each component of the production procedure is difficult and currently not possible.

[0181] Further validation complexities are due to the coating mixture and its constituent components both being transparent and thus providing no visual cues that can be relied upon to gauge successful outcomes. As the new process is not a batch process where amounts of each constituent can be more carefully monitored or prepped to ensure correct addition, this makes it difficult to know for sure if components have been added in the right amount. An industry applicable validation means will therefore account for deducing which stage of the new process is operating out of normal conditions and ensure efficient error spotting.

[0182] There is yet to be disclosed a validation means that allows for such live validation of a two part transparent mixture that can be used to create a coating mixture to be used in the glass manufacturing industry. The present invention addresses this technical issue.

[0183] The live process onto which the methodology 100 of Figure 1 is to be implemented alongside relates to the production of a coating mixture that is to be applied onto a glass bottle towards the final stages of its manufacture. The concerned live process sees the addition of two components in a form when they are dispersed in a fluid. Each component being able to most effectively react / combine with the other component when in this fluid dispersed form. A first embodiment of this live process is a series arrangement seen in Figure 2 and a second embodiment is a parallel arrangement seen in Figure 3.

[0184] In the first embodiment of this live process seen in Figure 2, the first component is added to the base fluid first and then the second component is then added to this mixture when it is in a solid or non-fluid dispersed state. Completion of both these steps in turn forms the coating mixture. In the parallel arrangement of Figure 3, both the first and second components are added to a base fluid independently of one another and only then are these solutions of the base fluids combined to form the coating mixture.

[0185] Although described with particular importance in the glass bottle industry, the herein described validation steps may also be implemented alongside any process involving the production of a compound from the sequential addition of two components and following the above described templates (series or parallel). With regards to the terminology used to describe method 100 seen in Figure 1, although the term fluid in step 102 is described as distinct to the term base fluid in step 101, it is to be understood that both these terms relate to the same liquid merely at different stages of the live process. As such, the fluid at the end of the live process is the same base fluid at the start of the live process just after it has had both the first and second components added to it. For the parallel arrangement of Figure 3 (to be described in more detail later), each branch comprises a base fluid (labelled base fluid for the branch of the live process associated with the addition of the first component and labelled a second base fluid for the branch of the live process associated with the addition of the second component). These base fluids then combine to form the fluid at the final stage of the coating mixture's production. For such embodiments, the base fluid and second base fluid may be the same fluid and obtained from the same source. In other embodiments, the base fluid and second base fluid may be different fluids entirely. In the production of a coating mixture to be applied to glass bottles, the base fluid and the second base fluid are both water. This may be water with a pH range between 5-7. Such water may be that obtained from reverse osmosis to reduce waste and cost.

[0186] Method step 101 is performing the first fluid test that takes place after the addition of the first component to the base fluid. This fluid test enables a comparison assessment to ensure that the addition of the first component into the base fluid is executed as intended (i.e. with the correct amount of the first component added) and the live process is operating within an acceptable operating condition. Here (and throughout the specification), the acceptable operating condition is one that produces a successful coating mixture. The fluid test itself relates to obtaining fluid information related to parameters of the fluid that may indicate such a successful addition of the first component. The obtained information relates to parameters of the base fluid that do not depend on the base fluid (or the first component) being visible. As such, the parameters obtained from the base fluid relate to its electrical conductivity and / or pH (although other non-optical parameters may also be investigated). Details of how these are obtained are described later in this specification.

[0187] Method step 102 is of performing the second fluid test and takes places after the addition of the second component to the first component (when dispersed within the base fluid). Likewise as the first fluid test, the second fluid test enables a comparison assessment to ensure that the addition of the second component to this solution is executed as intended (i.e. with the correct amount of the second component added) and the live process is operating within an acceptable operating condition. The second fluid test may obtain information directly from the coating mixture itself or it may retrieve information from the fluid configured to form the coating mixture after a further processing step (or steps) that are not shown here.

[0188] Once again, the obtained fluid information relates to parameters of the fluid that do not depend on the fluid being visible. These properties also relate to pH and electrical conductivity (although other non-optical properties may also be investigated). Details of how these are parameters are investigated are described later in this specification.

[0189] Method step 103 is a determination step executed through comparison analysis of the retrieved fluid (or base fluid) data against values representative of normal operating conditions. Here, the normal operating condition is one that produces a successful coating mixture. This determination step may be executed by use of a controller. These representative values, termed reference values from herein, may be stored values or those calibrated live for each cycle of the live process.

[0190] The details of method 100 are best described with reference to the practical arrangements or apparatuses of the live process embodied in Figures 2 and 3. Method 100 is first described with reference to only the series arrangement of Figure 2.

[0191] Figure 2 comprises a first mixing chamber 201 and a second mixing chamber 202. Figure 2 also comprises fluid delivery means 203, such as pipes or hoses, connecting the two mixing chambers 201, 202, wherein each chamber is equipped with inlets and outlets present for such delivery means. Each chamber 201, 202 may further comprise an inlet 204, 205 for the first or second components that are to be added. In this embodiment, the first component (component itself not shown) is added to the base fluid in the first mixing chamber 201 through inlet 204, and the second component (component not shown) is added to the mixture of the first component in the base fluid in the second mixing chamber 202 through inlet 205. In other embodiments, it is entirely possible that each of the described components are added prior to their respective mixing chambers (for example through an opening in a pipe or hose (not shown)) and the chambers 201, 202 are used exclusive for mixing.

[0192] When applying the method 100 steps in the context of these mixing chambers 201, 202, the first fluid test FT1 is performed after the first mixing chamber 201 and before the second mixing chamber 202. This obtains values of the base fluid that are not corrupted by the presence of any other component and the fluid information obtained is representative of only the first component addition step to the base fluid. Since the fluid test takes place at a physical location after the first mixing chamber 201, this also ensures that the first component is evenly dispersed within the base fluid so that any data collected from the base fluid is fully representative of the amount of the first component in it. This may be important for such fluid interactions as if not properly mixed, boluses (not shown) of the first component may form within the base fluid leading to areas of high or low concentration that would provide inaccurate fluid data.

[0193] The second fluid test FT2 is performed after the addition of second component to the above mixture of the base fluid and first component. This is performed after the second mixing chamber 202. This location of the second fluid test ensures that the obtained fluid values are of the final composition of the coating mixture (or a composition that will lead to the final coating mixture through a further processing step - not shown). This further ensures that the coating mixture has the correct amount of each of the components (or products thereof) to be created successfully- although this analysis is executed at a later step. Since the fluid test takes place at a physical location after the second mixing chamber 202, this ensures that the components are evenly dispersed within the fluid and there are no hot or cold concentration spots.

[0194] In other embodiments (not shown or annotated), the first and second fluid tests may be performed at physical locations within the first and second mixing chambers 201, 202 respectively. For such embodiments, there may be a time delay from the fluid first entering the mixing chamber to the fluid tests being executed to ensure fluid mixing. Alternatively, for a sufficient length of the mixing cylinder the fluid tests may be performed at a second end to the end the first end where the fluid first enters the mixing cylinder.

[0195] Although not seen, method 100 may further comprise a third fluid test FT3 that is performed on the base fluid prior to the base fluid entering the first mixing chamber 201. The third fluid test is performed on the base fluid prior to the addition of the first or second components into it. The third fluid test obtains data from the base fluid in its initial form to ensure that the base fluid parameters are within the normal operating conditions. This may be particularly important for process cycles wherein the base fluid is not distilled pure water and is recycled water or that obtained from reverse osmosis. It may ensure that the acidity of such water sources is within the acceptable pH range of 5-7 or any value considered suitable for the live process. The information obtained on the based fluid at this stage in the live process may further be used as part of the comparison assessment in method step 103 to determine the success of method steps 101 and 102 as it ensures a sufficient baseline to record any changes to the base fluid by the addition of the first and second components. More on this later. At a more detailed level, the determination of the successful creation of a coating mixture in step 103 of Figure 1 will be executed by a comparison analysis of the fluid data obtained from the various fluid tests FT1-3. These comparisons can be executed in at least two distinct modes of analysis or a combination of these two modes, or in high precision processes both these modes may be applied concurrently.

[0196] A first mode of analysis involves comparison with a corresponding reference value and the results of each executed fluid test, i.e. the results of the first fluid test against a first reference values, and the results of the second fluid test against a second reference value.

[0197] As mentioned, said analysis can be executed by a controller (not shown) that stores each reference value (or a range of reference values depicting acceptable operating conditions) and compares the values of the results of the fluid tests against these stored values. This comparison may be an error calculation configured to determine the difference between the two values, wherein values differing by more than 5-10% of the reference values indicating an unsuccessful coating mixture. In more precise applications, this range may be 1-2% of the value of the reference values. For such unsuccessful indications, the live process may be configured to stop entirely or an error notification may be issued alerting a technician or engineer. This mode of comparison establishes if the correct amount of each component is added to the base fluid (or fluid) at the correct stages of the live process. This mode of comparison includes the third fluid test too as described above. The third fluid test being compared against a third reference value to confirm base fluid quality.

[0198] A second mode of analysis requires an initial processing of the results of the third fluid test to gauge a baseline environment for the parameters of the base fluid entering the first mixing chamber 201. This baseline environment can then be used as basis for a comparison assessment for the first and second fluid test. In its simplest form, this mode of comparison may simply compare the results of the first and second fluid tests against the third fluid test to confirm whether a change has been recorded to the fluid parameters from the addition of the first and second components.

[0199] In a more detailed comparison, this recorded change may need to meet certain thresholds, for example differ from the results of the third fluid test by a particular amount (or greater than a particular amount) to show adequate change and adequate amount of addition for each component. In an exemplary calculation of the first fluid test, the first fluid test, or more specifically, the results and values of fluid parameters obtained by the first fluid test are compared against the corresponding values of the third fluid test. Such comparison may once again be an error comparison, wherein values of the first fluid test are required to differ by more than 10% to the values of the third fluid test to ensure adequate change has taken place from the addition of the first component. Note that this time, a successful outcome is determined by an error calculation beyond the threshold error range whereas above it was within (as an unsuccessful outcome was determined for values outside of the required error range).

[0200] In less sensitive processes, this error threshold may only require a change over a set value depending upon what is being measured such as pH or conductivity (i.e. any change from the obtained base fluid parameters), to indicate a successful outcome. Once again, the successful outcome is one of successfully creating the coating mixture. Values within the error range indicate an unsuccessful outcome and hence can follow the same process truncating or alerting protocol as discussed above for the first mode of assessment.

[0201] The same comparison metrics can be applied to the results of the second fluid test when compared with the results of the first fluid test to ensure an adequate change has been measured in each process stage.

[0202] In some embodiments, the first and second reference values of the first mode of comparison may be calculated from the results of the third fluid test.

[0203] In this sense, any mode of comparison that utilises the third fluid test implements a self-calibrated validating means that is capable of measuring fluid parameter changes throughout the various stages of any one cycle of the live process (wherein cycle refers to a control volume travelling through each stage of the live process). This may be particular useful should the base fluid parameters change between cycles, for example the pH of the base fluid of a first cycle of the live process may be different to that of a second cycle. Said difference may have a consequential effect on the thresholds for comparison further down the live process. This self-calibration provides an adequate solution to this issue.

[0204] As mentioned, the parameters of the fluid, or base fluid, obtained by the fluid tests relate to those parameters that are not dependant on the fluid being visible, (i.e. the fluid tests are not performed to retrieve data depending on an optical change or those associated with being seen to be recorded). This is because the live process for the production of the coating mixture uses clear fluids and components (or components that will be clear upon entry into the fluids). And of course produces a coating mixture that is clear too. Hence, there is very little optical data that can be processed to gauge the relevant changes to the fluid, or base fluids, at the various stages of the live process. As such, the fluid tests performed may be a measure of the fluid's electrical conductivity or a measure of the pH of the fluid.

[0205] The pH is measured by use of a pH meter (not shown). Said pH meter may comprise an electrode that is submerged into the fluid or base fluid. This submerging may be a continuous submergence so as to record changes in pH instantly for comparison assessments.

[0206] The electrical conductivity may be measured by use of an electrical conductivity meter (not shown). Said electrical conductivity meter may comprise a probe that contacts or is submerged into the fluid or base fluid. This submergence may be a continuous submergence and wherein the electrical conductivity meter may be configured to collect the fluid data with a sampling rate between l-3kHz, for example 2kHz. In some embodiments this sampling rate may be as low as 0.5kHz for more sensitive processes requiring more immediate alerts. For all electrical conductivity measurements, the units of measurement may be Siemens / meter or any other measure of resistance per unit length

[0207] In other embodiments, both the electrode of the pH meter and the probe of the electrical conductivity meter may be placed into the fluid or base fluid at intervals. The main infrastructure of the pH meter and the electrical conductivity sensor may reside on an external side of any delivery means, such as the pipes or hoses, that are transporting the base fluid or fluids through the process and wherein the fluid contactable portions of these sensors may be placed within an opening in a pipe or delivery means. For embodiments where the various fluid tests are conducted within the mixing chambers 201, 202, said probe or electrode may be placed within the mixing chambers 201, 202 too.

[0208] Figure 3 is a parallel, or branched, arrangement of the above described live process. This parallel arrangement enables a live process in which both the first and second components are to be mixed when both are in fluid form (i.e. both components in fluid form rather than just the first component in fluid form and second component added to this solution). As such, the parallel arrangement comprises a third mixing chamber 301 configured to mix the second component with a second base fluid. In line with the practice mentioned above, the second component may be added to the mixing chamber directly, through an opening in the mixing chamber 304, or at a location prior to the mixing chamber 301 and wherein the mixing chamber is used purely for mixing (not shown). The two base fluids, first and second, comprising each of the first and second components may meet in the second mixing chamber 202 to from the coating mixture or a mixture that in turn forms the coating mixture through further processing steps that are not shown. These two base fluids may further unite at a location prior to the second mixing chamber and the mixing chamber just used for mixing in such embodiments.

[0209] With these additional process steps as compared to the series arrangement, additional fluid tests are also conducted to ensure the same validating method steps are followed and upheld. The step of adding the second component to the second base fluid is an equivalent step to that of adding a first component to the base fluid in the series arrangement. As such, it can be validated in the same manner. Here, a fourth fluid test FT4 takes place after the addition of the second component to the second base fluid. This fluid test enables a comparison assessment to ensure that the addition of the second component into the second base fluid is executed as intended and the live process is operating within an acceptable operating condition. The fluid test itself relates to obtaining fluid information related to properties of the fluid that may indicate such a successful addition of the second component. In this sense the fourth fluid test is equivalent to the first fluid test but in relation to the second component in a second base fluid as opposed to the first component in the first fluid. In addition, the first mixing chamber and the third mixing chamber also have the same function and are equivalent features therefore.

[0210] In line with this, the parallel arrangement further comprises a fifth fluid test FT5. The fifth fluid test is consistent with the third fluid test but in relation to the second base fluid. The details of this test are not repeated for the sake of conciseness. In embodiments, such as that shown in Figure 4, only one of the third or fifth fluid tests may be executed as the base fluid and the second base fluid may be from the same source.

[0211] The same two modes of comparison assessment as described previously may be implemented once more for the additional process steps now present in this parallel arrangement of Figure 3. These additional comparison assessments are thus implemented on top of the comparison assessments already discussed for the series arrangement of Figure 2 (as this portion of the arrangement remains consistent between Figures 2 and 3, there is merely another branch to accommodate).

[0212] In some embodiments, the fourth reference value (and the second reference value) may be calculated from the results of the fifth fluid test in line with that described above for the series arrangement of Figure 2. The second reference in said arrangement may comprise two components or be dependant on both the fifth and third fluid tests. With regards to the first mode of comparison, each of the fourth and fifth fluid test results may be compared against the fourth and fifth reference values wherein the reference values may be stored by the controller too. This comparison shall follow the same error comparison as described above for the first mode of comparison in the series arrangement.

[0213] With regards to the second mode of comparison, the additional comparisons for the parallel arrangement includes the comparison of the fourth fluid test with the fifth fluid test (equivalent to the first fluid test with the third fluid test); the comparison of the second fluid test onto the fifth fluid test (equivalent to the second fluid test onto the third fluid test); and the comparison of the second fluid test onto the fourth fluid test (equivalent to second fluid test onto the first fluid test).

[0214] The apparatus required to conduct the validation methodology as described above alongside a live process as described above comprises, in addition to the mixing chambers required for each arrangement, any of a pH sensor or an electrical conductivity sensor. The use of these items and their arrangement has been described in great detail above and is not repeated once more for the sake of conciseness. An applicator means (not shown) that applies the coating mixture to the glass bottles may also be present as part of the apparatus and may be used to apply the successfully validated coating mixture onto a glass bottle surface.

[0215] As such as shown in Figure 5, the final stages of the manufacturing process of a glass bottle may comprise a coating mixture application step 500. This step takes place after the initial manufacturing steps related to the manufacture of the main body of the glass bottles 501, 501a, wherein main body refers to the glass bottles 501, 501a in their final structural form yet missing the scratch resistant coating as an outermost layer. Said initial manufacturing steps may involve any number of moulding steps (or any other technique) conducted on molten glass to result in the generic or final shape of the glass bottle body. The application of the coating mixture, may be the final additive step of the manufacturing process of said bottles and may be achieved by an applicator means 502 that applies the coating mixture atop the surface of the glass bottles.

[0216] The coating mixture may be delivered for such application in the form it is in when the second fluid test is performed on the fluid or it may involve further processing steps to transform it into a second form for easier application. This may involve temperature changes or changes of state (although particular attention may be paid to keep consistent the ratios present of the first and second components). The glass bottles may have the coating mixture applied onto them when they are in an increased temperature state. Said temperature may be 125°C. Alternatively it may be in the range of 110-140°C or more broadly between 80-150 °C.

[0217] The applicator means 502 may be a spraying or depositing utensil used to deposit the coating mixture atop the surface of the glass bottle 501, 501a. For such method steps, the glass bottles may be arranged in rows, wherein a first row of glass bottles is said to be those behind glass bottle 501, and second row of bottles that are behind glass bottle 501a. The applicator means 502 being a spraying utensil, or head, spraying the coating mixture onto the glass bottles whilst travelling in between the rows of glass bottles. Here, a single translation in between the rows may deposit the coating mixture onto the right hand side of the glass bottles in the row of glass bottle 501 and the left hand side of the glass bottles in the row of glass bottle 501a (directions provided in relation to the view of Figure 5). In other embodiments said rows need not be so proximal to one another and hence each row may have the coating mixture applied independently of the other.

[0218] In alternative embodiment, the applicator means may simply be a vessel into which the glass bottles are submerged. Said vessel may comprise a moulded portion so as to form a pattern onto the surface of the glass bottles upon such submergence. The glass bottles may be submerged until the coating mixture is set on the surface of the glass bottles, or the coating mixture may set upon removing the glass bottles from the vessel.

[0219] In an exemplary embodiment the first component is a compound comprising silane, or a silane based compound. The silane in such compound may be in the form of oxisilane. Said compound may further comprise an alcohol such as ethanol, methanol or isopropanol. As such the first component may be a particular compound of oxisilane and an alcohol. Dispersion within the base fluid may break this compound into a reactive state whereby the alcohol and oxisilane separate into their respective ions.

[0220] The second component may be a wax. Said wax may be a polyethylene wax. In embodiments where the second component is added to the first component in a second base fluid form, this wax may be in a state where it sits atop or below the fluid or mixed within it (dissolved within it).

[0221] The first and second components interact in the base fluid to form the coating mixture.

[0222] Example Proof of concent tests were carried out to ensure that fluid tests were able to analyse whether the components were mixed into a fluid and the coating had been successfully created.

[0223] Conductivity measurements were carried out to confirm that it was possible to detect the presence of the components of the single step process when added to the base fluidin this example, the base fluid was deionised water, the first component was Total Energies Basekote 1 ®, and the second component was Arkema Tegoglas RP40 CoMeasurements were performed using a HM Digital CM 100 conductivity meter.

[0224] Measurement was bv mass on a scale with a resolution of 0.01g. For the initial testing, two separate test sequences were completed. Each test used 500a of deionised water, this was added to a measuring beaker and the scale zeroed. Deviations from absolute linearity can be attributed to imprecise measuring of the products and repeatability of the scale used.

[0225] Test 1

[0226] The first component was added to 500g of deionised water in increments of lg to 9g at 23°C.

[0227] This test shows that it is possible to detect the presence of the first component in the base fluid using conductivity measurements. Through calibration, this can be used to measure the concentration of the first component in the base fluid. This may allow a threshold for a deviation per 0.5g to be set with deviations above that figure (or below that figure) creating an alarm condition. This value may be 150 ps 0.5g-l for this step. A lower threshold may optionally be 50 ps 0.5g-l.

[0228] Test 2

[0229] The second component was added to 500g of deionised water in increments of lg to 9g at 23°C.

[0230] This test shows that it is possible to detect the presence of the second component in the base fluid using conductivity measurements. Through calibration, this can be used to measure the concentration of the second component in the base fluid.

[0231] For the second set of tests, the first and second components were individually mixed with deionised water in the desired ratio of 100 to 1. To each of these mixtures, the other of the first and second component was added in 0.5g steps.

[0232] This may allow a threshold for a deviation per 0.5g to be set with deviations above that figure (or below that figure) creating an alarm condition. This value may be 30ps 0.5g-l for this step. A lower threshold may optionally be 10 ps 0.5g-l.

[0233] Test 3

[0234] 5q of the first component was thoroughly mixed with 500q of deionised water. The second component was then added to the mixture in increments of 0.5q from lq to 9q at 20.5°C.

[0235] This test shows that it is possible to detect the presence of the second component being added to the mixture of the first component in the base fluid using conductivity measurements. Through calibration, this can be used to measure the concentration of the second component in the mixture and ensure correct stoichiometry of each component for the coating.

[0236] This may allow a threshold for a deviation per 0.5q to be set with deviations above that figure (or below that figure) creating an alarm condition. This value may be 30us 0.5g-l for this step. A lower threshold may optionally be 5 us 0.5g-l. Test 4

[0237] 5g of the second component was thoroughly mixed with 500g of deionised water.

[0238] The first component was then added to the mixture in increments of 0.5g from lg to 9g at 20.5°C.

[0239] This test shows that it is possible to detect the presence of the first component being added to the mixture of the second component in the base fluid using conductivity measurements. Through calibration, this can be used to measure the concentration of the first component in the mixture and ensure correct stoichiometry of each component for the coating. This shows that it is possible to introduce the first and second component in any order to the base fluid and the coating mixture can still accurately be monitored.

[0240] In both tests, the indicated conductivity value at the optimal 100: 1: 1 mixture (100 parts water, 1 part first component, 1 part second component) was very similar (581 vs 584ps). The average deviation in conductivity, resulting from variance in the RP40 dosing, was 7.9ps 0.5g'1and 47.8ps 0.5g'1as a result of variation in the first component dosing.

[0241] This may allow a threshold for a deviation per 0.5g to be set with deviations above that figure (or below that figure) creating an alarm condition. This value may be 75ps 0.5g-l for this step. A lower threshold may optionally be 25ps 0.5g-l. This may be to the nearest 25 in this case (in other words the error in this value may be +-12.5).

[0242] Whilst the tests were performed on the specific first and second components disclosed herein, any suitable first and second components may be used. Moreover, this illustrates the effectiveness of embodiments of the present invention. In particular, the embodiment of Figure 2, and even more particularly the embodiment of Figure 2 in which conductivity is utilised to verify the addition of the components. This method and apparatus is therefore highly advantageous in terms of confirming that the correct components have been added, in the correct concentration, and to provide verification to the user that the mixing has been successful. As optical and visual confirmation of the application of the mixture to the bottles post-application is challenging, expensive and time consuming this provides a significant technical benefit over such approaches. This also prevents shipments of bottles without this surface coating. Without the coating bottles are liable to scratching and the like, potentially rendering the bottles (and their contents) lower value due to consumer preferences for unscratched bottles. The above embodiments are to be understood as illustrative examples. Further embodiments are also envisaged. It is to be understood that any feature described in relation to any one embodiment may be used alone, or in combination with other features described and may also be used in combination with one or more features of any other of the embodiments, or any combination of any other of the embodiments. Furthermore, equivalents and modifications not described above may also be employed without departing from the scope of the invention, which is defined in the accompanying claims.

[0243] In some examples, one or more memory elements can store data and / or program instructions used to perform the methods described herein. This may particularly relate to a processor used to determine the steps to be performed, and when each step has been completed. Embodiments of the disclosure provide tangible, non- transitory storage media comprising program instructions operable to program a processor to said method.

[0244] The processor / controller of such method of use (and any of the methods, activities or instructions outlined herein) may be implemented with fixed logic such as assemblies of logic gates or programmable logic such as software and / or computer program instructions executed by a processor. Other kinds of programmable logic include programmable processors, programmable digital logic (e.g. a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or any other kind of digital logic, software, code, electronic instructions, flash memory, optical disks, CD-ROMs, DVD ROMs, magnetic or optical cards, other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions, or any suitable combination thereof.

Claims

39Claims1. A method of validating a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises the steps of: performing a first fluid test after the first component has been added to a base fluid and before the addition of the second component; performing a second fluid test after both the first and second components are mixed together within the fluid; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the live process comprises mixing the first component with the base fluid in a first mixing chamber, optionally wherein the live process comprises mixing together the first and second components within the fluid in a second mixing chamber, optionally wherein the first fluid test is taken at a location in the live process after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber, optionally wherein the second fluid test is taken at a location in the live process after the second mixing chamber.

3. A method for coating a glass bottle with a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises; adding a first component to a base fluid; performing a first fluid test after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber; adding a second component to the first component and base fluid; performing a second fluid test after the second mixing chamber; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created; applying the coating mixture to the glass bottle.

404. A method of validating a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the method comprises the steps of; adding a first component to a base fluid; mixing the first component and the base fluid in a first mixing chamber; adding a second component to the first component and base fluid; mixing the second component with the first component and base fluid in a second mixing chamber; performing a first fluid test after the first mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber; performing a second fluid test after the second mixing chamber; determining that the coating mixture has been successfully created.

5. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the method further comprises comparing the results of the first fluid test and the results of the second fluid test, optionally wherein comparing comprises comparing the results of the first fluid test and the results of the second fluid test against a first reference value and a second reference value or ranges of said first and second reference values respectively, optionally, when dependant on claim 6, wherein the first and second reference values or the ranges of the first and second reference values are derived from the third fluid test.

6. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the method further comprises performing a third fluid test of the base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components, optionally wherein the base fluid is water, optionally wherein the base fluid is water derived from reverse osmosis, optionally wherein the pH of the base fluid is between 5 and 7, optionally wherein first component added to the base fluid gives an aqueous solution of the first component, further optionally wherein the third fluid test is taken at a location in the live process prior to the first mixing chamber, optionally41 wherein the method comprises comparing the third fluid test against a known third reference value.

7. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the method further comprises, performing a fourth fluid test after the second component has been added to a second base fluid, optionally wherein the second component being added to the second base fluid is a separate branch of the live process to the addition of the first component to the base fluid, optionally wherein the fourth fluid test is performed before the addition of the second component to the first component, optionally wherein the fluid is the combination of the base fluid and the second base fluid when added together, optionally wherein the second base fluid is water, optionally wherein the base fluid is water derived from reverse osmosis, optionally wherein the pH of the base fluid is between 5 and7. optionally wherein second component added to the second base fluid gives an aqueous solution of the second component, optionally wherein the live process comprises mixing the second component with the second base fluid in a third mixing chamber, optionally wherein the fourth fluid test is taken at a location after a third mixing chamber.

8. The method of claims 3-6, wherein the method further comprises the steps of, adding the second component to a second base fluid prior to adding the second component to the first component and base fluid, wherein the second component being added to the second base fluid is a separate branch of the live process to the addition of the first component to the base fluid; mixing the second component and second base fluid mixture in a third mixing chamber prior to adding the second component to the first component and base fluid; performing a fourth fluid test after the third mixing chamber and before the second mixing chamber.

9. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the method further comprises performing a fifth fluid test of the second base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components, optionally wherein the second base fluid is water, optionally wherein second component added to the second base fluid gives anaqueous solution of the second component, optionally wherein the method further comprises comparing a fifth fluid test against a fifth reference value or range of a fifth reference value.

10. The method of any preceding claim, when dependant on claim 5, wherein the comparison between the first fluid test and the first reference value or range of the first reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the first component in the base fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture, optionally wherein the first fluid test being above or below the first reference value or range of the first reference value indicates an unsuccessful creation of the coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 5, wherein the comparison between the second fluid test and the second reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the mixed first and second components in the fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture, optionally wherein the second fluid test being above or below the second reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 7 or 8, wherein the method further comprises comparing the results of the fourth fluid test against a fourth reference value or range of a fourth reference value, wherein the comparison between the fourth fluid test and the fourth reference value or range of the fourth reference value is an indication as to the required concentration / amount of the second component in the second base fluid to result in the successful creation of the coating mixture, optionally wherein the fourth fluid test being above or below the fourth reference value or range of the fourth reference value indicates an unsuccessful creation of the coating mixture.

11. The method of any preceding claim, when dependant on claim 6, wherein the method comprises comparing the first fluid test against the third fluid test, optionally, wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the first fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the first fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionallywherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 6, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the third fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the first fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the first fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the first fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claims 7 or 8 or 9, wherein the method comprises comparing the fourth fluid test against a fifth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the fourth fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the fourth fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 9, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the fifth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or44 when dependant on claim 7 or 8, wherein the method comprises comparing the second fluid test against the fourth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fourth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fourth fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

12. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the first fluid test is a measure of conductivity; and / or wherein the second fluid test is a measure of conductivity; and / or when dependant on claim 6, wherein the third fluid test is a measure of conductivity; and / or when dependant on claims 7 or 8, wherein the fourth fluid test is a measure of conductivity; and / or when dependant on claim 9, wherein the fifth fluid test is a measure of conductivity.

13. The method of any preceding claim, when dependant on claim 5, wherein the first reference value is a reference conductivity value, optionally when dependant on claim 12, wherein the first reference value is determined from the conductivity of the third fluid test; and / or when dependant on claim 5, wherein the second reference value is a reference conductivity value, optionally when dependant on claim 12, wherein the second reference value is determined from the conductivity of the third fluid test; and / or when dependant on claim 6, wherein the third reference value is a reference conductivity value; and / or wherein the fourth reference value is a reference conductivity value; and / or when dependant on claim 9, wherein the fifth reference value is a reference conductivity value.4514. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the first fluid test is a measure of pH; and / or wherein the second fluid test is a measure of pH; and / or when dependant on claim 6, wherein the third fluid test is a measure of pH; and / or when dependant on claims 7 or 8, wherein the fourth fluid test is a measure of pH; and / or when dependant on claim 9, wherein the fifth fluid test is a measure of pH.

15. The method of any preceding claim, when dependant on claim 5, wherein the first reference value is a reference pH value, optionally when dependant on claim 14, wherein the first reference value is determined from the pH of the third fluid test; and / or when dependant on claim 5, wherein the second reference value is a reference pH value, optionally when dependant on claim 14, wherein the second reference value is determined from the pH of the third fluid test; and / or when dependant on claim 6, wherein the third reference value is a reference pH value; and / or when dependant on claim 10, wherein the fourth reference value is a reference pH value; and / or when dependant on claim 9, wherein the fifth reference value is a reference pH value.

16. The method of claim 14, wherein pH is measured by placing an electrode of a pH meter into the live process, optionally, wherein the pH meter is placed into the fluid or base fluid, optionally wherein the pH meter is continuously submerged in the fluid; or when dependant on claim 12, wherein conductivity is measured by an electrical conductivity meter comprising a probe, optionally wherein the method comprises placing the probe into the live process such that it contacts the fluid or is submerged within it, optionally46 wherein at least one electrical conductivity meter is placed into the fluid at intervals, optionally wherein the sampling rate of the at least one electrical conductivity meter is 0.5kHz, preferably wherein it is l-3kHz, most preferably wherein it is 2kHz, optionally wherein the at least one electrical conductivity meter is continuously submerged in the fluid, optionally wherein the at least one electrical conductivity meter provides a continuous measure of conductivity.

17. The method of any preceding claim, wherein the first component comprises a silane based compound, optionally wherein the silane is oxysilane, further optionally wherein the first component comprises a combination of silane and one or more alcohols, optionally wherein the alcohols are any of ethanol, methanol or isopropanol; and / or wherein the second component is a wax, optionally wherein it is a polyethylene wax.

18. An apparatus for coating a glass bottle with a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the apparatus comprises; a first mixing chamber configured to mix the first component with a base fluid; a first sensor, wherein the first sensor is configured to perform a first fluid test, a second mixing chamber configured to mix the first component and a second component in the fluid; a second sensor, wherein the second sensor is configured to perform a second fluid test; a coating application means configured to coat the glass bottle with the coating mixture.

19. The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first fluid test is of the first component in a base fluid; wherein the first sensor is configured to perform the first fluid test after the first mixing chamber;47 wherein the second fluid test is of the first and second components mixed in the fluid; and / or wherein the second sensor is configured to perform the second fluid test after the second mixing chamber.

20. A verification apparatus for a mixing of components in a live process, wherein the live process is a process for coating glass bottles and comprises the creation of a coating mixture, wherein the coating mixture is formed from the addition of a first component and a second component to a fluid, wherein the verification apparatus comprises; a first mixing chamber configured to mix the first component with a base fluid; a second mixing chamber configured to mix the first component and a second component in the fluid; a first sensor configured to perform a first fluid test, wherein the first fluid test is to determine the concentration of the first component in a base fluid; and a second sensor configured to perform a second fluid test, wherein the second fluid test is to determine whether the coating mixture has been produced; wherein the first sensor is configured to perform the first fluid test after the first mixing chamber; wherein the second sensor is configured to perform the second fluid test after the second mixing chamber.

21. The verification apparatus of any of claims 18-20, wherein the verification apparatus further comprises a third sensor, wherein the third sensor is configured to perform a third fluid test, wherein the third fluid test is of the base fluid prior to any addition of either the first or second components; and / or wherein the verification apparatus further comprises a third mixing chamber, wherein the third mixing chamber is configured to mix the second component with a second base fluid; and / or wherein the verification apparatus further comprises a fourth sensor, wherein the fourth sensor is configured to perform a fourth fluid test, wherein the fourth fluid test is of the second component in the second base fluid, and wherein the48 fourth sensor is configured to perform the fourth fluid test after the third mixing chamber; and / or wherein the verification means further comprises a fifth sensor, wherein the fifth sensor is configured to perform a fifth fluid test, wherein the fifth fluid test is of the second base fluid prior to the addition of any of the first or second components, wherein the fifth sensor is configured to perform the fifth fluid test prior to the third mixing chamber.

22. The verification apparatus of any of claim 18-21, wherein the verification means comprises a controller, optionally wherein the controller is configured to store reference values, optionally wherein the controller stores a first reference value, optionally wherein the controller stores a second reference value, optionally wherein the controller stores a third reference value, optionally wherein the controller stores a fourth reference value, optionally wherein the controller stores a fifth reference value.

23. The verification apparatus of any of claims 18-22, when dependant on claim 22, wherein the controller is configured to compare values of the first fluid test with the first reference value, wherein the value of the first fluid test being above or below the first reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the second fluid test with the second reference value, wherein the values of the second fluid test being above or below the second reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the third fluid test with the third reference value, wherein the values of the third fluid test being above or below the third reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the fourth fluid test with the fourth reference value, wherein the values of the fourth fluid test being above or below the fourth reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or49 when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the values of the fifth fluid test with the fifth reference value, wherein the values of the fifth fluid test being above or below the fifth reference value indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture.

24. The verification apparatus of any of claims 18-23, when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the first fluid test with the third fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the first fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the first fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the third fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the third fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the third fluid test indicates an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the fourth fluid test with the fifth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the fourth fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the fourth fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the fifth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fifth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fifth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating50 mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the first fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the first fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the first fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture; and / or when dependant on claim 22 and claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare the second fluid test with the fourth fluid test, optionally wherein the comparison is configured to calculate the error between the second fluid test and the fourth fluid test, wherein values of the second fluid test within a range of ±10% of the fourth fluid test indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein values within ±5% indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture, optionally wherein identical values indicate an unsuccessful coating mixture.

25. The verification apparatus of any of claims 18-24, wherein the first sensor is an electrical conductivity meter, optionally wherein the second sensor is an electrical conductivity meter, optionally when dependant on claim 21, wherein the third sensor is an electrical conductivity meter, optionally wherein the fourth sensor is an electrical conductivity meter, wherein the fifth sensor is an electrical conductivity meter, optionally wherein the first fluid test gives a conductivity value, optionally wherein the second fluid test gives a conductivity value, optionally when dependant on claim 21, wherein the third fluid test gives a conductivity value, wherein the fourth fluid test gives a conductivity value, wherein the fifth fluid test gives a conductivity value, optionally wherein conductivity is measured in Siemens / meter or is a measure of resistance per unit length; or wherein the first sensor is a pH meter, optionally wherein the second sensor is a pH meter, optionally when dependant on claim 21, wherein the third sensor is apH meter, wherein the fourth sensor is a pH meter, wherein the fifth sensor is a pH meter, optionally wherein the first fluid test gives a pH value, optionally wherein the second fluid test gives a pH value, optionally when dependant on claim 21, wherein the third fluid test gives a pH value, wherein the fourth fluid test gives a pH value, wherein the fifth fluid test gives a pH value.

Images