Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
by AmericanCynic » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:23 am
- AmericanCynic
- Yellow Belt
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:07 pm
bottleslingguy wrote:"Not bad for free huh? "
That's my point with coming here.
Completely incomparable. RS was referring to getting to go to Hollywood twice, meeting Simon Cowell, being on national TV, etc. As "free" as this website is, you can come here forever and it'll never give you free airfare and hotel expenses (sorry, Michelle).
by bottleslingguy » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:46 pm
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Actually Pat said it and who cares about the "free" stuff you get to do if you make it past the initial auditions? I got some of the "free" perks too and it did nothing for me.
But ultimately your point is right. If you are not serious about your invention, especially after hearing all the horror stories and seeing the results on prime time tv, you should audition. If you want to be taken more seriously and give your invention a more credible shot at success, then just sign up here and put your product in the gallery and even make a video. You get to blog and clear up any misconceptions there may be about your invention unlike the myriad misconceptions the show clouds around it. If you want to be a part of the myopic distortions the show creates then fine, go for it, good luck, yes the show and website are "completely incomparable". I'm talking to the people who want to be taken seriously.
But ultimately your point is right. If you are not serious about your invention, especially after hearing all the horror stories and seeing the results on prime time tv, you should audition. If you want to be taken more seriously and give your invention a more credible shot at success, then just sign up here and put your product in the gallery and even make a video. You get to blog and clear up any misconceptions there may be about your invention unlike the myriad misconceptions the show clouds around it. If you want to be a part of the myopic distortions the show creates then fine, go for it, good luck, yes the show and website are "completely incomparable". I'm talking to the people who want to be taken seriously.
by chiasmus » Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:50 pm
- chiasmus
- White Belt
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:49 am
There's a reason I waited to respond to this thread, for obvious reasons.
My dad is Mike Miller, and I've been lurking on this site ever since we auditioned in Houston.
He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (I don't know what kind) back in 1996 which is why he retired. He was open about everything on his initial application, but he never wanted to include that with his invention.
He was encouraged, much like Pat, to share his "story" about his disease.
He refused, which is why I think he was so badly edited on last night's episode.
You can call sour grapes on me if you like, but I am not heartbroken that he didn't make it to the top three. That contract scared me.
Dad (and Joe, eventually!) went into this knowing full well that this was a tv show first and foremost. Ratings rule supreme, right? I'm not surprised at what happened to him, but I am upset by it. My biggest fear throughout this whole thing that they would portray Dad as a crazy. I just didn't even imagine that they'd make him out to be... a jerk, although I know that he's been called worse.
No matter what, I'm glad that my father decided not to exploit his medical condition for another week in LA.
My dad is Mike Miller, and I've been lurking on this site ever since we auditioned in Houston.
He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (I don't know what kind) back in 1996 which is why he retired. He was open about everything on his initial application, but he never wanted to include that with his invention.
He was encouraged, much like Pat, to share his "story" about his disease.
He refused, which is why I think he was so badly edited on last night's episode.
You can call sour grapes on me if you like, but I am not heartbroken that he didn't make it to the top three. That contract scared me.
Dad (and Joe, eventually!) went into this knowing full well that this was a tv show first and foremost. Ratings rule supreme, right? I'm not surprised at what happened to him, but I am upset by it. My biggest fear throughout this whole thing that they would portray Dad as a crazy. I just didn't even imagine that they'd make him out to be... a jerk, although I know that he's been called worse.
No matter what, I'm glad that my father decided not to exploit his medical condition for another week in LA.
by bottleslingguy » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:15 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
So then join my crusade to dissuade folks from possibly hurting their and their invention's credibility next year if there is a third season. Through editing the show contorts not only you but your product. They have to make it look bad in order to justfy canning it and you along with it. It's what tv is all about, manipulating reality to suit their needs. If your dad is still motivated he should put the TeaBrain in the gallery here and he'll have a chance to clear up any misconceptions concerning the invention caused by the show. He can get some down and dirty criticism and also good advice where to go next.
It really bothers me how the show makes sure you see the total impact on inventors' faces when they've had the hammer drop on them. The long drawn out suspenseful seconds of everyone's face closeup. The smiles turning into tears and dejection. It's sadistic and at the viewer's expense we go off thinking the show was right to kick the loons off and how DARE THEY be confident and optimistic!
Even the top three have problems that haven't been dealt with. There is a reason why bras attach across your back, it takes the strain off your shoulders. So large breasted women especially need the support there or else all the weight in put on the shoulders pulling them foreward. I know women put up with all sorts of uncomfortable things for fashion sake, but will they put up with the chance of having such a serious wardrobe malfunction? The tree extinguisher is a liability nightmare. I don't get it why he doesn't use dry chemicals on what is usually an electrical fire. And IS two gallons of water enough on an eighteen foot tree? The electric cars/planes don't steer, don't allow variations in design other than paint scheme and probably wouldn't last outside in the weather for five minutes. I thought he patented the "tools" to make them and it turns out it's the software, that's lame. The producers have created the GongShow on steroids and they should be hearing a very loud gong right now from all of us bitter bitter rejects.
(that last part was a joke, I'm not bitter, just on a mission 
)
It really bothers me how the show makes sure you see the total impact on inventors' faces when they've had the hammer drop on them. The long drawn out suspenseful seconds of everyone's face closeup. The smiles turning into tears and dejection. It's sadistic and at the viewer's expense we go off thinking the show was right to kick the loons off and how DARE THEY be confident and optimistic!
Even the top three have problems that haven't been dealt with. There is a reason why bras attach across your back, it takes the strain off your shoulders. So large breasted women especially need the support there or else all the weight in put on the shoulders pulling them foreward. I know women put up with all sorts of uncomfortable things for fashion sake, but will they put up with the chance of having such a serious wardrobe malfunction? The tree extinguisher is a liability nightmare. I don't get it why he doesn't use dry chemicals on what is usually an electrical fire. And IS two gallons of water enough on an eighteen foot tree? The electric cars/planes don't steer, don't allow variations in design other than paint scheme and probably wouldn't last outside in the weather for five minutes. I thought he patented the "tools" to make them and it turns out it's the software, that's lame. The producers have created the GongShow on steroids and they should be hearing a very loud gong right now from all of us bitter bitter rejects.
(that last part was a joke, I'm not bitter, just on a mission )
by porkchop » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:33 am
- porkchop
- White Belt
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:23 pm
2 things.
First off, I think chiasmus father is one of the brothers from Missouri, not the people from Florida with the tea invention. Correct me if I am wrong. And, yes water is the best treatment to extinquish a WOOD fire. The whole point of Guardian Angel is to extinguish a fire that nobody is next to. If there is a fire and wires burn, electrical shock should be the last concern on the list. Smoke inhilation is the number #1 cause of fire deaths. If the wire is exposed, then it is exposed. Get the fire out. He is on to something here. It will work with the way the spray is coming out. Even though it is only a few gallons, it should work fine in the early stages of the fire by the way it is flowing from the angel.
And, NO, bsg, I am not related to nor do I know the inventor.
Pork
First off, I think chiasmus father is one of the brothers from Missouri, not the people from Florida with the tea invention. Correct me if I am wrong. And, yes water is the best treatment to extinquish a WOOD fire. The whole point of Guardian Angel is to extinguish a fire that nobody is next to. If there is a fire and wires burn, electrical shock should be the last concern on the list. Smoke inhilation is the number #1 cause of fire deaths. If the wire is exposed, then it is exposed. Get the fire out. He is on to something here. It will work with the way the spray is coming out. Even though it is only a few gallons, it should work fine in the early stages of the fire by the way it is flowing from the angel.
And, NO, bsg, I am not related to nor do I know the inventor.
Pork
by AmericanCynic » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:35 am
- AmericanCynic
- Yellow Belt
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:07 pm
You're quite right. Chiasmus has made it clear that his father was one of the Miller brothers.
I think the main problem with the Guardian Angel is one of laziness, economy or complacency. There are very inexpensive products out there that keep a cut Christmas tree watered and thus extremely unlikely to burn. Some of them are convenient, with remote reservoirs so you don't have to crawl under the tree to refill it and some of the reservoirs can be camouflaged as presents. If people can't be bothered to buy these waterers -- whether because they never get around to it, don't want to pay the price or don't think they'll have a fire -- what chance is there that they'll pay for the much more expensive Guardian Angel? It's also questionable just how much IP protection Chavez has. He claims he has a patent pending, but pending can still mean denied. Meanwhile, at least one patent holder has already threatened to sue for infringement if Chavez goes on the market with it, although Chavez swears the GA is sufficiently different.
I think the main problem with the Guardian Angel is one of laziness, economy or complacency. There are very inexpensive products out there that keep a cut Christmas tree watered and thus extremely unlikely to burn. Some of them are convenient, with remote reservoirs so you don't have to crawl under the tree to refill it and some of the reservoirs can be camouflaged as presents. If people can't be bothered to buy these waterers -- whether because they never get around to it, don't want to pay the price or don't think they'll have a fire -- what chance is there that they'll pay for the much more expensive Guardian Angel? It's also questionable just how much IP protection Chavez has. He claims he has a patent pending, but pending can still mean denied. Meanwhile, at least one patent holder has already threatened to sue for infringement if Chavez goes on the market with it, although Chavez swears the GA is sufficiently different.
by bottleslingguy » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:11 pm
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Hey Pork, take it easy. It hadn't crossed my mind. Let's not get off to a bad start here ok? I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to who was who.
I still don't see why dry chemicals wouldn't be better. Wouldn't they be more likely to cover the whole tree and surrounding furniture? Have you ever seen one of those things go off? Poof! Powder all over the place. You think he'd at least try it, what's he go to lose? Have two canisters which attach to the center of the tree with nozzles at both ends of each one. That way it would be more likely to detect the flame earlier and also spread the retardant over a wider area and most likely faster. It wouldn't ruin the presents under the tree either.
It's still a liability nightmare. He's inviting lawsuits with such claims. There can be so many variables in the whole circumstance of having a tree in your living room- curtains, furniture, plastics. Is there a flame retardant in a can you could spray your tree with? Eight bucks a can and you don't have to worry if the tree falls over before the fire starts (GuardianAngel won't work then). How top heavy does the device make the tree? I wonder what's up with the existing patents on the other ideas? Do you think there'll be this flood of tree extinguishers this year or next? Maybe a bunch of lawsuits against the show?
And Mr Cynic, where did you hear about the patent holder threatening to sue Chavez?
I still don't see why dry chemicals wouldn't be better. Wouldn't they be more likely to cover the whole tree and surrounding furniture? Have you ever seen one of those things go off? Poof! Powder all over the place. You think he'd at least try it, what's he go to lose? Have two canisters which attach to the center of the tree with nozzles at both ends of each one. That way it would be more likely to detect the flame earlier and also spread the retardant over a wider area and most likely faster. It wouldn't ruin the presents under the tree either.
It's still a liability nightmare. He's inviting lawsuits with such claims. There can be so many variables in the whole circumstance of having a tree in your living room- curtains, furniture, plastics. Is there a flame retardant in a can you could spray your tree with? Eight bucks a can and you don't have to worry if the tree falls over before the fire starts (GuardianAngel won't work then). How top heavy does the device make the tree? I wonder what's up with the existing patents on the other ideas? Do you think there'll be this flood of tree extinguishers this year or next? Maybe a bunch of lawsuits against the show?
And Mr Cynic, where did you hear about the patent holder threatening to sue Chavez?
by jtc6913 » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:47 am
- jtc6913
- White Belt
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:58 am
- Location: webster, nh
Maybe the best solution to this invention is to design a detection device like a smoke detector that will sound an alarm at the earlist possible sign of fire. The detector could resemble a Christmas ornament. Also, it could send a signal that would activate existing smoke detectors in the house which would give the residents more time to get out. Just a thought.....
jtc6913
jtc6913
by bottleslingguy » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:02 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
Maybe the solution to burning trees is found at the source? Companies who sell real Christmas trees might want to start spraying them with a flame retardant at the same time they wrap them at the time of purchase. Isn't there some sort of chemical that when applied would make the tree less likely to burn? Just watering the tree at the stump isn't enough peace of mind for me (I only have a small plastic tree anyway for nostagia's sake), I would feel more comfortable knowing the tree was already flame retardant and not have to rely on a complicated contraption to put out a flame.
I can't stand to see the trees lining the roadsides after Christmas. It's saddening for some reason.
I can't stand to see the trees lining the roadsides after Christmas. It's saddening for some reason.
by bottleslingguy » Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:57 am
-
bottleslingguy - Black Belt
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
http://www.defensedevices.com/firtreshiel.html
Here's a spray-on flame retardant for Christmas trees. Ok, so maybe it's not $8 a can but it's a start. How much was the Guardian Angel? Did anybody hear a price?
Here's a spray-on flame retardant for Christmas trees. Ok, so maybe it's not $8 a can but it's a start. How much was the Guardian Angel? Did anybody hear a price?
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3