THE

"HAZARD"

IN

THIS

INVENTOR'S

LIFE

Having a wife who is a qualified secretary has

distinct advantages for someone like me who is dyslexic.

Today the 30/3/1994 she is the training administrator at the head office of

a DIY chain (who shall remain nameless), There are only two in their

department, her boss Nic and her, so she has to

DO IT ALL.

It is generally believed that a spellchecker  on a

computer enables a dyslexic like me to correct their own

spelling mistakes. It don't. To use even a dictionary

you must have some idea of how the word is spelt. To

know you have found the right individual word you

have to read what the word means and it takes a long

long time.  I can read say, a newspaper quite easily, but I

tend to understand the sentence not read the words. For

instance, when tested, I could not read the word

petroleum in isolation but in this sentence I could read

"the petroleum vapours ignited on the forecourt".

Anyway it's usually easier and quicker to get my wife to

do it. It also has its disadvantages in that on this

particular night, in order to get the spelling corrected in

a long letter on the computer, I had to volunteer to

deliver  paperwork to a training centre 30 miles away Nr Evesham.

It was a dark dry and windless night, with little

traffic on  the journey, and when I joined the M5

heading for home I started to get sexited because in

addition to correcting the spelling I had also managed to

extract an extra nuptial promise from the wife . I had

travelled only half a mile along the motorway when I

saw the first ROAD WORKS AHEAD sign, stating

two lanes closed.

No hold-ups were anticipated though, because of

the light traffic and I was awaiting the usual one eyed

yellow winking monsters sitting on every other cone.

BUT when the coned off lanes arrived every one

that had had a hazard light on was lying on it's side,

most of which were smashed. Of course to an inventor

this sort of observation (problem) demands explanation

and a solution.  By the time I had reached the end of the

two miles or so of cones I had reasoned a solution out,

but not all the problem,  so at the next available junction

I returned in the opposite direction and en route I noted

on the other side that the police parking point was

adjacent to a couple of still working hazard lights

(insanely winking at the moon instead of warning

motorists of the danger).  Turning once again at the next

junction and back onto the motorway, this time pulling

off the motorway onto the police parking hillock, and

justifying my unauthorised stopping by believing that

"what I do now is for the greater good and safety"

(with possibly some small monetary gain),  I uprighted

the two still flashing cones and it wasn‘t long before my

suspicions were confirmed when the wind from a lorry

blew them both down again. Even when the lights were

positioned with the heavy batteries on the approach side

they were still felled by the wind from a juggernaut.

Obviously for the rest of the journey home I was

preoccupied with confirming whether it would be

possible to alleviate the problem without prohibitively

increasing the cost of manufacture.  I had to

contemplate most all possibilities and weigh up the pros

and cons and had by the time I reached home conceived

the entire money saving solution.

Needing only to confirm that the two 6v lantern

batteries used in hazard lights each contained 4 x 1.5v

standard cells connected in series, I satisfied my

curiosity by routing out and dissecting one, proving that

indeed they are made up of 4 separate cells contained in

a moulded case.  I could not tell the wife about the new

exciting innovation because by this time she had gone to

bed and was fast asleep.  The light was out, and so was

my extra nuptial promise.

Having seen that at least in this instance there

was a problem I needed to see if and how it was

minimised by the end user.

A trip the next day to the local motorway

maintenance depot gained me two broken lights, and a

chat to the supervisor explained that it was a problem

and that their solutions were:- first, having two

complete cones stacked together served to eliminate

toppling, second, they had collected extra bases

salvaged from smashed cones (motorway cones are

made in two parts) and an extra base added to cones

with hazard lights minimised toppling, and lastly, to add

a sandbag to the bottom of the cone. He also said the

situation I had seen was unusual because a new man had

not been told to use two cones.   He also conceded that

although their solutions worked it added to the work

load etc, but knew of no other solution.

Encouraged by this I used the broken lights and

made the working prototype.

My first observation and

intention  was to turn the

weight of the batteries into an

advantage instead of the basic

disadvantage that they are.

Using the 8 standard 1.5v cells

only (cells as in an ordinary

hand torch) served also to

eliminate the need to produce

two 4 cell containers and associated connections

(money saved). Eight cells placed in series and parallel

end to end in a plastic tube borrowed from the kitchen

sink still gave plenty of clearance to ground when hung

INSIDE cone utilizing existing hole on top.

Using an extruded plastic tube would be much

cheaper and once again eliminate the need for ALL

THESE very expensive and complicated plastic

injection mouldings, plus the bracket.

All in all a MUCH MUCH cheaper product,

neater looking, and arguably a SAFER product in that

the batteries were now protected inside a single cone

and no  heavy, potentially lethal  flying objects.

Having had all this hands on experience I also

noted that each light, even with a darkness sensor, has to

have it's batteries changed periodically (a very labour

intensive and costly exercise). This, coupled with the

original problem and my new design features, suggests

the development of a small wind turbine for each light. I

have visions of the new shaped hazard lights being

transported standing upright in rows being recharged en

route by the wind.

Satisfied that this would and will solve the

problem I then considered how to protect my idea. This

reasoning and the outcome are elaborated on with others

in another chapter called Do the numbers add up.

Advised reading, especially for the inventor.

At this stage it is normally advised to have a

patent attorney do a search and if nothing shows up you

are then advised to apply for a patent. This of course

costs time and money. I elected not to use this avenue

because the problem still exists and if someone else had

arrived at  the same solution it would surely have been

implemented. Instead I decided the way forward was to

attend an appointment made with one of the larger

manufacturers to demonstrate and explain the concept

and advantages. It had been agreed that I would be

accompanied by one of my brothers and that the

meeting was to be videoed by me as proof of priority and

the meeting would be in confidence.

The camcorder was set up at one end of the

conference table and the recording started.  My brother

and I sat with the two representatives from the company

at the other end.

The meeting lasted 28 minutes but was over

effectively in 1 minute.  I merely showed them the

prototype and as soon as the one man saw it he said

"Dare I say right now, we have already done something

like that and it didn't catch on.  Ours had a mercury

switch. Later he said it was around 3 years ago"

I disclosed all of my observations and solutions

to no avail.  He suggested that a robust wind turbine

could possibly be interesting but as for introducing a

new type of hazard light "The customer is happy with

what he has got". We thanked them for the coffee and

their time and left.

Content at that stage to accept their explanation

that there was not a problem that needed  solving, the

hazard light was shelved alongside many others. It had

been merely a relatively inexpensive diversion fulfilling

my inventive urge while I had waited for a response on

my major project "MMBOLT"

Today, armed with more knowledge and insight,

I am able to speculate the real reason why a product

such as my hazard light is not on the market. I had

failed to pinpoint WHO had the problem.

THE problem still exists for  YOU the end user

(and TAX payer) It can be seen on any motorway if you

look close at the bases that two cones are used to stop

them toppling. But it is NOT the manufacturer's

problem. Think about it. The more Hazard Lights that

are smashed the more he sells, to stop them smashing

you buy more cones so why introduce something

cheaper with less profit.   It just so happens that the

same guy makes the cones  etc etc etc. I believe it is

contemptuous of them! to do this because I suggest that

the public are put at greater risk because the weight of

two cones together is potentially more lethal.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE FIELD OF INNOVATION

HAVE THE PROFITS OF THE FEW

BEEN DEFENDED SO ABSOLUTELY

AT THE EXPENSE OF THE

MANY

BY WIZARD MERLYN M.M.C.

@COPYRIGHT1994