FAQ  •   Login  •   Register  •   Subscribe 

Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.

Skip to content

Moderators: Michelle, citizen


Fourth Episode (4/6/2006)

Postby thinkoutsidethecircle » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:28 pm

User avatar
thinkoutsidethecircle
Site Admin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:21 pm
It's Thursday and its 9:00PM, time for us to sit and chat about the show. Is anyone else watching?

(existing replies)

Postby thinkoutsidethecircle » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:29 pm

User avatar
thinkoutsidethecircle
Site Admin
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:21 pm
Amarsir | 2006-05-02 17:04 | Still not on the same page

This is really negligable (longitudinal Delta-V wise). The whole contraption undergoes basically the same longitudinal velocity change as the rigidly supported baby seat
Agreed, which is why I said energy absorption is not the intended benefit. I only brought it up to counter the implication of some new force brought in.

What I was saying is that if the baby seat rotates such that the baby is positioned horizontally in an impact the forces will be acting on the spine in a similar fashion as in the aircrraft/helicopter crashes ie. in the worst possible orientation.
If, then yes. What I am saying is how would that be possible? How could the seat possibly remain horizontal in an impact? As you said, a small omega is created, negligible for energy reduction but enough to cause a position change. Assuming the common forward crash (where the standard seat works well enough), the child still has forward momentum, but now it's being stopped by the force of the (inner) seat, which is pushing against the child's back - not at all a vertical force.

And the same would happen in rear impact or rollover - the latter being something that specifically would create vertical force on a traditional seat.


email this comment
Paul N. (not verified) | 2006-04-30 23:59 | You are somewhat correct in

You are somewhat correct in saying that a aportion of the longitudinal velocity change would be converted to rotational velocity. That portion would only be due to the distance between the baby's CofG to the radius pivot point of the pendulum. Therfore that distance would be the total to aid the longitudinal deceleration process (or should I say acceleration in rotatiton). This is really negligable (longitudinal Delta-V wise). The whole contraption undergoes basically the same longitudinal velocity change as the rigidly supported baby seat. The baby undergoes basically the same longitudinal velocity change as well but a spin is introduced.

The spine issues, you may have missunderstood. The rear facing baby seats do help but the velocity change is acting in a horizontal direction (while the baby is sitting with the upper body essentially vertically). In aircraft/helicopter collision research I mentioned the velocity change is in a vertical direction and acts in a vertical direction one the body. This is probably the worst position the body can absorb high G-forces. What I was saying is that if the baby seat rotates such that the baby is positioned horizontally in an impact the forces will be acting on the spine in a similar fashion as in the aircrraft/helicopter crashes ie. in the worst possible orientation. I have also corresponded with our biomechanics expert and she was not too impressed or hopefull of this design and shared similar conclusions on injury potential.

The general consenscous on this design seems to be "great for plaintiff lawyers", since they'll have someone else to sue for their client's injuries.

I hope this makes some sense.


email this comment
Amarsir | 2006-04-29 16:28 | Seems to be the "child seat" forum

Maybe I should create a thread in the contestants forum instead but there are a number of comments on the child seat here so I'll respond. Perhaps some of you know better than I but I think the seat has benefit that's poorly represented by the way ABC edited it. (Why should this invention be any different?)

Specifically, the concerns about spine positioning seem (to me) to be off the point. Spine positioning is the benefit. Children under 12 months (or a certain weight) should always be in a rear-facing child seat, so that in a frontal collision all the impact will be absorbed through the back which is against the seat. In that regard, existing seats are fine.

However, in a side or rear collision (or God forbid, rollover), the child could be in precisely the wrong postion. What I like about this idea is that at least in theory, the seat will rotate so that their back is always facing the direction of collision. That would ensure the spine is in the right position. It's not about absorbing impact through spinning, which gives the impression of some creepy baby centrifuge.

Now much of this benefit of the doubt stems from the fact that he only had a very simple prototype. It was probably too frictionless, and the way the inner seat is weighted could play a role as well. With testing and precise engineering, combined with more traditional impact-absorbing methods, it seems like a real winner.

More specifically, Paul N. said:This means that the baby would be subjected to an unchanged velocity change and would be subjected to rotational velocity on top of the longitudinal/lateral velocity change of the collision. This would result in a much worse scenario for the infant.
I respect your credentials, and you are correct that the rotation design is not in and of itself absorbing energy (although via the aforementioned friction it could). However, a crash is a closed system - the only way to get rotational velocity is by transforming longitudinal momentum. Therefore even worst-case it's not giving rotation on top of but rather partially in place of.


email this comment
bottleslingguy | 2006-04-10 18:50 | Car Seat

It looks like there are no straps keeping the baby in place. This design will either be genius or it will be comical as the crash test dummy is launched from what looks like a washing machine on spin cycle.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-10 21:15 | i think there was a seat

i think there was a seat with straps inside the egg, like a conventional baby seat.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-10 12:17 | The build a bear utilizes

The build a bear utilizes the heart- to bring it to life. Thus the other stuffing virtues would probably not infringe on this idea, but the producers need to be sure before they market it. This would lead to a very expensive court appearance and as we know the producers are not turnips.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-09 12:44 | The seat

The idea although different is really flawed. As I mentioned before it will not help, it can only harm the child. The judges, at least the one that keeps calling himself an angineer and the one that says he understands and likes physics should have seen this. The seat will not only need to be refined but totally redesigned. The whole idea is flawed. The judge calling himself an engineer is annoying as hell and a real idiot. When he said "I do understand and that why I'll vote yes" he proved that he understands nothing and really got a chukle out of me when I was watching the show. Man that guy is dumb.

They should do some impact test with accelerometers placed in the seat and measure the G-forces. I bet this new design will turn out to be worse than the conventional baby seats. No need to repeat myself. I've been in this field for over a decade and understand occupant kinematics enough to see that this seat will not help the child.


email this comment
bygeorge (not verified) | 2006-04-08 10:07 | the seat

yes the seat does need to be refined I agree, the real point is that there really is an original idea behind it and the judges finally got a choice right in giving something new a chance to continue, I did notice that the inventor had a doll in the seat for his presentation, has he accualy put a baby in it and tried it with the extra weight, and what about a larger child, most states have laws that state, children must be in a child restraint seat under a certain age, just a thought


email this comment
Paul.N (not verified) | 2006-04-07 22:37 | Spin

The whole point of seatbelts and airbags is to give the occupant a longer ridedown time during the impact phase (seabelt webbings actually wind up on the retractor spool under load extending out some webbing). The whole point is to undergo the velocity change (of the impact) in the longest possible time. This is also why wehicls are built with crush zones. All of these things provide the occupant more time and lower G-forces. The Baby seat the guy designed does not help any. The baby seat is rigidly mounted (on tow axis) in the egg and the egg is held down like a conventional baby seat. All the baby seat can do is rotat within the egg. this introduces a rotational velociyt that the baby will be subjected to. Furthermore, its good that you brought up the positioning of the baby and the spine positioning. The horizontal positioning of the body with the impact acting up and down the spine is probably the worst positioning that there can be.

Extesive aircraft crash tests have been done showing that occupants that undergo a verticall deceleration (while seated in the aircraft seat and aircraft falling straight down) are probably in the worst possible position to withstand serious injuries. This is why I say if the baby rotates within the baby seat such that its facing in a horizontal plane alligned with the impact forces, the baby will be worse off. I really feel for the invenot of the baby seat, but realistically speaking I think his seat will harm more than help. Maybe some serious redesign of the seat will be done, but the whole premis of it rotating is flawed.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-11 12:24 | Maybe two forward and

Maybe two forward and reverse coil springs on each side of the hindge that pivots the baby seat might help. These opposite rotating springs would be much like the switchblade coil springs found in www.knifekits.com. One spring would compress on one end for front car impacts, while the one on the other side would compress for rear end collisions. Both springs would rotate freely the opposite way for the attached baby seat. Stength of compression of the springs would depend on what car speed in collision you'd want the seat to rotate. The rear end spring would probably be weaker.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-08 06:28 | INFANT SEAT

WHAT ABOUT SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME?


email this comment
Paul.N (not verified) | 2006-04-08 08:33 | What about it?

And what does it have to do with motor vehicle collisions that typically generate a single high G-force impact?


email this comment
Paul N. (not verified) | 2006-04-07 13:02 | Baby Seat

I must say that I really felt for the guy that trully from his heart invented that baby seat but being an expert in the Motor Vehicle Reconstruction field and occupant kinematics. I must say that the baby seat invented and accepted on the show would most likely do more harm to the infant than good. When a car decelerates during impact so would hte baby seat and the only thing that would happen is the baby would rotate within the device he invented. This means that the baby would be subjected to an unchanged velocity change and would be subjected to rotational velocity on top of the longitudinal/lateral velocity change of the collision. This would result in a much worse scenario for the infant.

Our fat bald headed judge that keeps saying he is an engineer, really has no clue about anything. In his bio it says he is a chemical engineer. I'm sorry but from his responses to some of these inventions, he has no real world enginnering skills or clue at all.


email this comment
bottleslingguy | 2006-04-07 19:48 | Spin

I was wondering about the baby spinning around inside once the car stops. If the seat directs the baby's momentum and the car is stopped won't the baby spin inside? What if the seat puts the baby in a position where the force is applied down the length of the spine vertically? Is that safer than restraining the infant from moving at all?

Also, what happens if the car winds up upside-down on it's roof? How easy is it to get the baby or baby/seat out? Hopefully those things have been or will be accounted for. It may be good though to have the baby inside a sort of egg enclosure. That could protect them from missile impacts. It is probably the most interesting invention I've seen so far. But remember there were a bunch of things that made it through we never saw.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-07 11:13 | repeat

I missed last nite 04/06/06 show anybody know what web site I can go to down load it


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-07 13:55 | Me, too!

Actually, I watched the show and thought I was recording it on my VCR, but discovered afterwards that it didn't work! And, to make it worse, this was the episode that finally had a clip of me at the Round 1 audition in Atlanta. If anybody can get me a copy, I would eagerly pay shipping, the amount of the DVD or tape, etc. Thanks!


email this comment
bygeorge (not verified) | 2006-04-07 11:12 | the 12

where did the 12 come from, the news paper artical and the audition application had it at 9, did they add 3 more because of the amount of people that went to the auditions?


email this comment
Laurie from Maine (not verified) | 2006-04-07 06:46 | Are these people scripted or what?

I watched the show for the first time last night and I felt like I was watching a Sat. Night Live skit from its "not-so-funny years". It wasn't the inventors - they were actually the most real of anyone there. The judges seemed like totally fake - BAD actors - scripted, and almost like they re-shot their questions/remarks after the actual presentation was over. This was a real disappointment because I really like the premise of the show (although I think the 50k prize is VERY weak.) I agree on the car seat - could be revolutionary if it pans out.


email this comment
Alexis | 2006-04-07 09:30 | Scripted / Prize

We all know (at least we should) know that round 1 auditions is not really the first round. Its the first round in front of the judges. AI auditioned contestants in all the seven locations and then called some of the contestants back to audition in front of the judges for "round 1". A friend who auditioned in front of the judges in "round 1" said that the judges tried to draw some an emotional response from the contestants. So they definitely appreciate the drama. Also, FYI - the prize is not $50K, its $1 million. The $50K is given to the final 12 contestants to improve their product. Then one person wins $1 million.


email this comment
Laurie from Maine (not verified) | 2006-04-07 14:15 | Scripted/Prize

Thanks for the FYI on the prize structure. That makes more sense. I still have to say that even though they were trying to evoke an emotional response, the fact that they seemed so scripted (they being the judges) kind of diluted the drama for me. Just my (and my husband's) opinion...


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-07 00:13 | I love love love the car

I love love love the car seat. It will be the Invention of the year I predict.

Most of the other stuff wss flugg but the car seat actually blew me away.


email this comment
bygeorge (not verified) | 2006-04-06 21:30 | finally

finally, there was an original invention on the show, the baby seat looks like the front runner in my book,guy has every thing it takes to invent an original idea, plus it's from his heart


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 21:13 | your next big idea

Definitely car seat guy! Best idea of the show. And all the right ingredients.

'cause everthing is going to be alright....

Toilet thing what? who is going to clean that mess? I can already smell the trouble there.

dial a cup- ok

centerpiece- better start from square one with the idea

remote strap- de-evolve to the beginning of remotes...they had cords too

car armor-probably cause more damage putting it on. good guy though

teddy bear- look at 'build a bear' stores(has child put heart in)hey it works for them

get up-'cause everthing is going to be alright....

cupholder- ?

coffee cup- did he say put drugs in it?

See you all next weak.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 21:05 | Doug, dougie

good job putting the car seat through. if its possible that the car seat could work, then it should get the $50K for all the testing.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 19:38 | Hey if the restroom smells

Hey if the restroom smells lite a match that takes cares of the smell also.
I think they let the best inventions go there's a lot of them right here on this site.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 21:04 | Peter, peter

I almost finished that header with a nursery rhyme. I feel like his goal in this episode was to find reasons to say no. I think its because he said, "I want to find a reason to say no" but then he couldn't to the coffee maker (was that the invention?). How could he say no to the car armor? Anyway, I'm a little disappointed in him but he still looks good.


email this comment
Mike (not verified) | 2006-04-06 19:00 | I thought for a second that

I thought for a second that the Doug butthead was going to deny the car seat. If he did, there would be a lot of pissed off people.

I'm still mad they denied the car armor!


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:50 | Oh my God!

Even I got weepy-eyed over the guy that gave up a kidney. Is this reality show stuff actually getting to me???


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:48 | Arghhh...

I'm stuck at work and can't watch until later. Does tonight totally suck or is it ok?


email this comment
Alexis | 2006-04-06 18:51 | Recap

I hope you recorded the show. If you didn't, don't worry - we will have a recap of the show on the website after the show ends. You can read all about it and make that decision yourself.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 19:02 | Kharma

I believe in kharma. You do good things and it comes back to you. You do bad things and it comes back to you. Giving up a kidney is a great deed because it helps some who really needs it. But if you are giving just to be seen giving and it kind of kills the deal. So that's the problem I have with the guy that gave up the kidney, if you do a truly magnificient thing, don't use it on AI just to try to get the judges to move you to the next round. Mary Lou was tearing up in the end because of it.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 19:12 | the next american inventor

If it works, the infant car seat has got to be the the next big invention. There is nothing else that could be that successful.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:45 | character building buddy

looks like a build a bear to me.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:39 | disgust

I am very angry that they did not accept the car protecter. Its a very practical device that could be widley used. And that bald bozo with the glasses couldn't recognize that it could be a hit. I feel so sorry for that man. And I am sad that something like that could not come to the market. I would use it for sure.


email this comment
Mike (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:32 | I liked the car armor. Very

I liked the car armor. Very good idea, it was a shame to see him go!


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:23 | remote leash

I just don't understand how someone would think that this would sell. They have those electronic remote control finders. I think that idea is so much better. Why don't they just make remote controls gigantic so you can't lose it. Did he say how much he spent on this?


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:34 | Disbelief

What?!!!!! the car armor did not make it onto the next round but the paper from last week's episode did. Can someone explain this one to me?


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:35 | Simple explanation. The

Simple explanation. The judges are crazy.


email this comment
Aries | 2006-04-06 18:21 | underundergarment

Did she say she spent $300,000 on a ripped t-shirt? It may make it on some xrated lingerie shops.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:11 | The judges are all looking

The judges are all looking like they are actually having a good time. Its rare that they actually get along. Let's see how long this lasts.


email this comment
Anonymous (not verified) | 2006-04-06 18:13 | Get rid of tiolet stink

Don't they have a million sprays out there to get get rid of the smell in bathrooms? the ones that don't just mask the smell? If they don't this is a great idea. If they do, then I think I'll go spend a couple of bucks on a spray.


email this comment

cron