Is that something we really need to worry about?

More importantly, was the coffee better?

Maybe it also equalized the spread of fines. Someone get The Hoffman on the horn, we have a mission.

Just as good is subjective, the question is, is there a noticeable difference? If there is, that difference could mean everything to serious coffee snobs.

According the the article, the espresso was rated equal to traditionally brewed. Ultrasound brewed filter coffee was rated as better than traditional.

Though it sounds like they were all cooled down since the ultrasonic brewing didn't best the water. So that is also a factor. If you like hot coffee, this wouldn't be a worthwhile brewing method.

According to the article this is aimed at the commercial/industrial level brewers to save energy. So the coffee snobs probably aren't really going to be a target audience. Though if it becomes at all widespread I'm sure people will give it a try. There aren't a shortage of people trying all sorts of wild ways to brew out there.

Maybe a more effective cold brew then

Well, they apparently had already used ultrasound to speed up the cold brew process. This was a continuation of that research.

I mean, considering how many people in the world drink coffee, it could add up if this kind of method was widely implemented

I am officially tired of seeing this article. I've blocked half a dozen people/bots reposting it. Doesn't help. Perfectly innocent morons are reposting it too.

Ah so I take it this is likely a replacement for the current process they use to make instant coffee. Which I know is usually brewed in industrial sized percolators. If that's the case I definitely think it would improve the favor.

Open source it. Don't leave it behind a patent. They'll come after you if you try.