SpudFiles

I have no idea what OP stands for....

boyntonstu wrote:Do you know how many smoke detectors have been removed because the low battery beep pissed off the owner to the point of removing them?

Do you know how many people have fallen down and injured or killed themselves attempting to silence their detectors?

Then they deserve a Darwin Award. Simple as that. They could have the patience to wait and call somebody, or simply have the common sense to know that their smoke detector is in an inaccessible location, and do something about it.

Nobody has invented a device that keeps reflectors attached to bike wheels better, because some kids take them off because they find that they detract from the overall appearance.

Do you know how many kids are killed on their bikes by cars because they driver couldn't see them due to their lack of reflectors? It doesn't matter, because it's the kids own fault for removing the reflectors from the bike. Just like it's the homeowner's fault for removing the smoke detector, which was a safety feature until they rendered it useless. Just like the kid.

You still have not yet answered our question: "Have you sold any units?"

I think he means Original Post, even though OP almost always stands for OverPowered or Original Poster. In which case, the original post would have been appropriate if it was posted at the time you actually solved a friend's problem and provided an short anecdote, instead of an ad.

Stu, I don't mind you posting these topics as long as you can take some criticism. Not everything you make is perfect. I understand that someone may ask what you could think as a stupid question but that's probably due to the fact you post almost no information with each of your inventions aside from the radiation one where you posted the patent and even then if someone criticizes your invention you have to learn to take it better than you have been.

I could hardly make out from the video what the thing looks like or even what it's specifically for. All the smoke alarms I've seen here in NZ all have a face panel that drops down on a hinge so you can change the battery or reset the alarm. I'm not sure how your invention would work with something like that or even if it'd be required.

My hammer sense is tingling.

can it plug the smoke detector back in?

boyntonstu wrote:Do you know how many smoke detectors have been removed because the low battery beep pissed off the owner to the point of removing them?
Do you know how many people have fallen down and injured or killed themselves attempting to silence their detectors?

To be honest, if you've left your smoke alarms long enough that it's giving you a low battery alarm, you've left it too long. Change it regularly and at a sensible time of day when there's someone around to help. If you're on your own, ask a neighbour.
If you're so on your own that there is no-one who can help you safely change your batteries regularly, why are you not using smoke alarms that plug into the mains ring/light socket/etc to keep themselves charged, or why have you put them in such dangerously inaccessible places?

Of the number of people who change their batteries sensibly, I'd bet the injury rates are pretty good going.

What have you invented?

Does someone need to be an film director to say that "Plan Nine from Outer Space" was terrible?
That someone has perhaps not invented or patented anything does not mean they're not allowed to have and speak an opinion of it.

If you have posted something on an opinion forum, then to disrespect someone else's opinion in such a way is a very low argument, frankly.

my smoke detector can be turn on for a test and off by shining a torch at it, and its hard wired so no need to take it down.

Keep 'em coming stu...your posts have turned into my daily chuckle.

Gippeto wrote:Keep 'em coming stu...your posts have turned into my daily chuckle.

Be sure to tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode. I think it the one where he won a Nobel Prize.

ramses wrote:My hammer sense is tingling.

can it plug the smoke detector back in?

Certainly.

5 seconds out, 5 seconds in.

A 5 year old can do it.

I am not interested in money or prizes.

I just want to save lives and prevent falling accidents.

-------------------
For those who would rather chuckle than take this invention seriously:

Non-Working Alarms in 70% of Home Fires

Jan 1, 2005 12:00 PM

About 70% of all home-fire fatalities occur in houses with no working smoke alarms, according to a November 2004 National Fire Protection Association report.

The NFPA report, “U.S. Experience with Smoke Alarms and Other Fire Alarms,” said 96% of American households have smoke alarms installed, but nearly one quarter of them don't work. “The households with smoke alarms that don't work now outnumber the households with no alarms by a substantial margin,” concludes the report's executive summary.

From 1999 to 2001, an average of 70% of home-fire deaths resulted from fires in homes with either no smoke alarms or in which none of the smoke alarms sounded. “If every home had working smoke alarms, U.S. home fire deaths would decrease by an estimated 36%, resulting in an estimated 1,120 lives saved per year,” the study concludes.

In about half the fires where smoke alarms didn't work, batteries were missing or disconnected, the report said, indicating the smoke alarms were intentionally disabled. Batteries were dead in about 15% of these cases.

NFPA suggests using these statistics to prioritize public education and fire prevention resources. “There's no telling how many lives might be saved by home fire sprinkler systems, but we have a very good idea of how many could be saved by working smoke detectors.”

Moreover, NFPA surveys have found public resistance to installing home sprinkler systems because — even if cost is not a deterrent — people often fear they will malfunction, according to NFPA public relations director Margie Coloian. “NFPA endorses home sprinkler systems, but smoke alarms are more readily available to everyone,” Coloian said. “If we just start there — with working smoke alarms — and then move on to getting sprinklers installed — just imagine!”

U.S. homes in 2004 without smoke detectors installed 4%
Homes in which smoke alarms were installed but not working 20%
Fires in which non-working smoke alarms had dead batteries 15%
Fires in which non-working smoke alarms had disconnected or missing batteries 50%
Homes fires reported by U.S. fire departments where no smoke alarm is installed 40%
Home fire fatalities where no working smoke alarm is present 70%
Source: National Fire Protection Association


Note* The above does NOT mention injuries or deaths due to accidents.

i think you need to give it up stu. before you make yourself sound like more of an ass.

Sure stu, it's cool invention - ont revolutionary but it is certainly helpful...
but WTF is the point of this thread ??

Don't waste your time on posting something that already exists - invent something new

POLAND_SPUD wrote:Sure stu, it's cool invention - ont revolutionary but it is certainly helpful...
but WTF is the point of this thread ??

Don't waste your time on posting something that already exists - invent something new

Bull! Where does it exist?

The video wasn't clear enough to show what is used to prevent the head from unscrewing from the pole. Due to the diameter of many of the smoke detectors and the torque required, the problem of the device detaching from the pole had to be addressed.

Do you have any details on the device used to prevent it from unscrewing from the pole?

Alright, I think stu's posts are becoming dogpile threads. Just because a few people disagree doesn't mean everybody needs to jump in and bash the guy. For instance:

POLAND_SPUD wrote:Sure stu, it's cool invention - ont revolutionary but it is certainly helpful...
but WTF is the point of this thread ??

Don't waste your time on posting something that already exists - invent something new

Did you even watch the video in the original post? Stu did invent the device in question. If you made the local news for building something, would you think twice about sharing this with others?

It's alright to disagree with the guy, and I do think that Stu could accept criticism a little better, but the mob mentality is a little ridiculous.

And:

-_- wrote:why are you double posting, USE the edit button


edit: woot i has over 900 posts

Technician1002 wrote:The video wasn't clear enough to show what is used to prevent the head from unscrewing from the pole. Due to the diameter of many of the smoke detectors and the torque required, the problem of the device detaching from the pole had to be addressed.

Do you have any details on the device used to prevent it from unscrewing from the pole?

Good observation.

We used a spring push button as used in an adjustable metal cane.

(For easy removal and storage of the head)

We use a through screw and nut to hold the push button to the pole.

BTW Smoke detector manufacturers are not consistent in our righty-tighty lefty-loosey convention.

Many folks fall off their ladders hard twisting counter clockwise to loosen, when they are actually tightening.

The E-Z Reach has 1" arrows to indicate the twist direction.

I named the arrows "Angela's Arrows" after Angela Rozier, the TV reporter who always twisted in the wrong direction.


It has taken us 4 man years of research and development to achieve a remarkably easy to use smoke detector maintenance system.

We spent tens of thousands of dollars in mechanical engineering and in growing the plastic prototypes.

Hopefully we can save many lives.

There are 100,000,000 smoke detectors out there that will fit our unit.

Incidentally, we made it to the semi-finals on the American Inventor TV show.

(That is another story)