h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
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,
|
|
|
So the original genesis for this idea was a comic about
child proofing electrical outlets, but I've thought of
several
related applications.
This would be a transformer, ideally installed at the
time
of construction, that wires into all of the floor level
outlets. It allows the home owner
to dial down the
voltage
in these outlets to levels that produce an uncomfortable
or
painful, but not dangerous shock. Thus, when baby
sticks
their finger or a fork or whatever in the outlet, they
learn
that it's a bad idea, but (probably) aren't actually
harmed.
Also in this line are the stove burner that reaches
temperatures just the cool side of causing serious burns,
the cool burning candle, the thin padding table corner
protector, the two step down baby safety net, and
various
"look alike" household chemicals that taste horrible
without actually being harmful.
Disclaimer: MechEnterprises does not certify any of the
above for use with actual babies, pets, or random
flightless
waterfowl.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
How about run the transformed voltage to metal face plates instead? Give the little random flightless waterfalls a static-electricity like shock just for brushing up against the outlet. Electric livestock fence, Pavlov, etc. |
|
| |
Another suggestion would be a range of electrical
cords designed to give a mild shock if touched by
human skin. |
|
| |
No on [21]'s mildly shocking electrical cords. That
serves to enforce the rules you've given, but doesn't
teach the child about natural consequences. It may
make them unduly afraid of all electrical cords until
at some point you tell them the whole truth. Not
to mention that you'll end up shocking grandma as
well. |
|
| |
This whole topic got me thinking. We spend a
whole lot of time and money on protecting our
children. As a result we're now worried that the
children are missing out on lessons learned the
hard way, so now we're going to spend even more
time and money to pretend (to them) that we're
not protecting them. I think that this is generally
positive, but I note that in different countries,
and in the past here (USA is my main perspective)
more risk was accepted. I think it comes down to
economics. We may spend a lot of money
protecting our kids, but since it is still a fairly small
percentage of our income, it's worth it. But for
those with less resources, if it comes to the
certainty of not having food on the table vs. a
fairly small risk of injury to the child, taking the
risk is the reasonable choice. |
|
| |
The thing is, the social norms and even the laws
regarding how much we should protect our
children are set based on what seems reasonable
to typical people in a society. If someone is
unable to meet those standards they can be faced
with loss of custody their children or even jail
time for neglect. Yet that child my still be much
better off and have a higher chance of survival
than thousands of children in other parts of the
world. There are of course some resources to help
people in these situations, but how much should
we try to make people conform to typical
standards vs. accept that they may not meet our
standards but help them do the best they can
with their own resources. Hmm... hard to allow
the poor to be held to a lower standard while
maintaining a reasonable standard for those that
can afford it. |
|
| |
"We'll going to have a good lunch here Dorthy, but only after you run the obstacle course." |
|
| |
Maybe a special playground similar to jungle gym attached to McDonald s with shocks, bad tastes, mild acids and bases, too bright lights, pin pricks, mild diseases, drop pits into freezing water, speeding cars of hard foam, and so on. Whatever the market will bear. Spiders ?, Skunks ?, and Bears ? - Oh My! |
|
| |
Your not in Kansas anymore Dorthykins. |
|
| |
This is fine until your 4-year-old, having learned that
poking a knife in a socket causes an unpleasant but
non-serious shock, tricks her 3-year-old brother into
trying it on a regular socket. |
|
| |
Also, as I think has been mentioned before, ground
leakage sensors mean that even poking a knife into a
regular socket will not produce a significantly
dangerous shock. |
|
| |
//even poking a knife into a regular socket will not produce a significantly dangerous shock// - (Disclaimer: Halfbakery readers take electrical safety advice from eminent microbiologists at their own risk) |
|
| |
*TABLOID HEADLINE*
"What did this eminent microbiologist discover about the
dangers hidden in your own house? The answer will SHOCK
you!" |
|
| |
There's plenty of outlets out there without ground leakage
protection, at least here in the states. |
|
| |
Well, there's ya problem then. You're living in the
wrong country. |
|
| |
Actually, the budding adult needs the important "Practical
application of probability and assessment of risk" lesson,
due to the 1 in 3 chance of receiving a surprise. |
|
| |