h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is a system, similar to the Blonsky Device, where a baby with diapers is placed on a round table, held down by soft lambskin straps, and powered by an electric motor that gently spins the table around, increasing in speed until the bowels are fully evacuated into the diaper.
The baby can be swiveled
in its straps by 180' for centrifugal burping and spit-ups. Collection is achieved by a highly absorptive mouth-nappy.
Totally tubular to the max...
https://www.cosmopo...2418/lil-baby-xray/
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jul 13 2019]
Wall Of Death toilet
Wall_20Of_20Death_20toilet
Let the system take the strain... [8th of 7, Apr 25 2020]
[link]
|
| |
Have you run this one past your wife? Or, failing that,
girlfriend? Sister? Mother? Maybe a waitress at Starbucks?
OK, maybe a female member of the nursing staff there? |
|
| |
Lambskin? PETA will never go for this.
We gotcha covered though. [link] |
|
| |
A larger version might effectively clean out older adults
prior to that annoying every-ten-years procedure. |
|
| |
[what], we have prior art on that... <link> |
|
| |
What a great idea. I can't imagine any way in which this
could go wrong. Bun. |
|
| |
<Wonders vaguely if that is more indicative of the limited number of ways that the idea can go wrong, or more indicative of the paucity of [wagster]'s imagination/> |
|
| |
<Decides it is likely to be the latter./> |
|
| |
<Decides to assign the testing role to others/> |
|
| |
Gotta admit, every time I read the title, I instinctively duck. |
|
| |
// The baby can be swiveled in its straps by 180' // |
|
| |
<Pointless and unhelpful pedantry> |
|
| |
180' of arc is only 3°. That's not much adjustment, and limited* experimentation shows that human infants exhibit considerable flexibility when subjected to even moderate rotational forces. |
|
| |
We suggest that a much larger range should be provided. |
|
| |
</Pointless and unhelpful pedantry> |
|
| |
*Female humans get really quite remarkably intense when their offspring are used for testing. Why is that ? The damage is usually limited and comparatively easy to repair ... |
|
| |
A lower powered version could use a very dense
object, held under the babies legs. Doesn’t have
to be too big, maybe 0.000003 solar masses. The
gravitational pull of the object will suck the faeces
straight towards it, where it can be captured by
the waiting parents. |
|
| |
The benefit of this, as well as saving power, is that
you don’t have to guess the timing of the bowel
movement. With the original proposal you either
have to turn the machine on at just the right time,
or leave it on all the time. Some tired parents
may do leave it on, only to wake up and find their
baby a lot taller in the morning. And that means
buying new clothes, which gets expensive fast. |
|
| |
//maybe 0.000003 solar masses// |
|
| |
Pretty sure I've seen one of those recently. Now, where would I
have put it? |
|
| |
Maybe one of those bouncy-swings with a bit of modification... |
|
| |
// Now, where would I have put it? // |
|
| |
Look for a small, very heavy box labeled "Forced quantum singularity". |
|
| |
No, it was bigger than that ... probably underfoot
somewhere. |
|
| |
Look down the back of the sofa cushions - lots of stuff ends up back there. |
|
| |