Slashdot Mirror
Advances in Fire and Rescue Technology?
He Definitely Didn't Inhale asks: "As anyone could imagine, being trapped inside a burning building would be terrible, but people risk their lives every day to save people stuck in that situation. While fire sprinklers are installed in some buildings they are far from ubiquitous, and also tend to cause plenty of water damage during their use. Some server rooms are isolated and can be filled with an inert gas in the case of a fire, but people - and fire - need oxygen to live. Another idea has recently been patented (USP#6,446,731), whereby a truck mounted high capacity fan is used to remove smoke and heat from burning buildings through the use of an extensible tube. This could make it much easier and safer for firefighters to rescue building occupants and put out the fire. Are any similar technologies or methodologies in use today? What are some design issues that may need to be resolved before this concept can be used safely and effectively? Are there any reasons not to pursue the development of this potentially life-saving idea?" Earlier this year, Ask Slashdot discussed Halon systems. Folks interested in this topic may want to give that previous article a read.
Another idea has recently been patented (USP#6,446,731), whereby a truck mounted high capacity fan is used to remove smoke and heat from burning buildings through the use of an extensible tube. This could make it much easier and safer for firefighters to rescue building occupants and put out the fire.
Now I haven't read the patent, but wouldn't such a system cause a negative pressure situation in the building, causing it to pull in more fresh air, thus fanning the flames?
Maybe I'll go read the patent and see how they deal with that...
It seems to me that just sucking the air out of a burning building, without carefully figuring out where the fresh air is going to enter, is likely to make the fire more intense.
It might make more sense if it was an equalized system, where the amount of air being sucked out, was replaced with an equal amount of fresh air being blown in. You could also atomize water into the blown air to help increase the humidity in the room.
I don't see this system working well for a whole building, but seems like it could increase the amount of time a single room/area is livable by quite a bit, depending on how close it was to the fire.
Am I the only one that thinks sucking out post-combustion gasses (which will ge replaced by nice fresh air full of oxygen) is a terrible idea?
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
I've just cut my hand off with a power tool so I'm typing this with one hand. I'm not sure if I should call the hospital or if they have an email address or web form that I can use to submit a request for an ambulance. Does anyone know?
(Some things just don't seem appropriate for Ask Slashdot, ya know?)
Please go do your own research, Joe Sorosky. If you're going to make a corporate pitch, it'd be better for you to have factual references other than "Well, these guys on Slashdot said ..."
Let's see, 'IANAL' won't work here. How about 'IANYPRB' (I Am Not Your Personal Research B*tch) ?
Advances in Fire and Rescue Technology???
A FART?
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
This building's safety system knows what floor an event has occured on. As soon as an alarm is triggered, the floor above and below the event floor start pumping in extra air to pressurize those areas. While the exaust flume on the event floor(s) start sucking air out of the event zone. The exaust creates a vacume this aiding in removal smoke/heat and also helping to prevent any heat, fire, or gas from escaping the area (as the areas around it have a higher pressure.
Pretty smart little building.
Just for some reference, I am a volunteer firefighter in my spare time.
First we need quick lessons in one of many effective venting techniques called Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV).
Here is an example of a PPV fan.
The vehicle-mounted fan basically works in the opposite direction. We actually have an electric fan that was used in a similar fashion (Smoke Ejector). "Used" being emphasized. It has been proven over and over again in training and actual fire events that "sucking" air out of a building is not anywhere near as effective as PPV.
One of the keys that makes ventilation so successful today is the close timing of fire attack with ventilation techniques. You vent too soon, you draw the fire further away from the seed of the fire. You ventilate too late, and you steam firefighters and victims still in the building. To position and start ventilation using a vehicle mounted fan is just not reasonable.
Assuming that this truck can displace large volumes of air quickly, you might actually push too much fresh air into a building, pushing the fire further from the seed faster than attack crews can respond (especially in larger buildings such as skyscrapers).
One other thing to consider is the cost of a fire apparatus. To purchase a new vehicle without any tools or custom options, you are looking at over $250,000. To be able to justify the cost of a vehicle that did nothing but ventilate buildings is impossible. Volunteer and even paid companies are struggling with increasing costs to maintain and improve firefighting techniques and equipment. New vehicles need careful considerations. I don't expect any fire company to have a "vent" truck available to them in the near or far future.
Speaking as a fire fighter, I can say this, sprinklers are usally cut off almost immediately upon arrival. The reason is this, the water supply is limited as it is, and the stand piper are intdended to be filled by the arriving pumper/tanker trucks.
Additionally, I like the idea of having sealed rooms. I have seen some concrete enclosure that are great for keeping the room cool in general, although sometimes a moisture buildup is the side effect, but is also good for keeping heat out. As an aside, firefighters are notorious for breaking stuff. A good way to help keep the extra water from being introduced is advise the fire department of certain rooms of importance. Believe it or not, fire departments are willing to work with your company, as long as you give them advance notice, this is also a good time to let them come in and do a 'Pre-Plan' of your building.
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
DAMN!!! You stole my joke!
But despite cool stuff, it seems most firefighting is not technological and has only evolved slowly over the last 100 years. Wildland firefighters still use a shovel and not much else, even with air drops. Someone must still risk life entering a burning structure to retrieve victims; and is is a big risk.
It's the same reason that blowing on a fire reignites coals, and they have those blowing devices for fireplaces (yeah, I'm sorry, the name escapes me at the moment). As long as there is any oxygen content, moving air will just provide a fresher fuel and inflame the fires.
Obligatory, karma-whoring quote "Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"
We have a co-location where they use FM 200 and you can Google for FM 200. It does not displace oxygen, thereby not inducing the risk of suffocation. It's very expensive, but compared to the loss of life price shouldn't matter and could be cheap at thrice the price.
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
I live in a small Texas town with a volunteer fire department. Our fire department has has a truck with a fan for about 10 years now. Admittedly, it doesnt have the ducting but is effective none the less. This is not a new concept.
I Don't Work Here
Maybe you should look here and here bfore you get dollar signs in your eyes. That is unless you own the patent and want to pull a SCO in the fire fighting industry.
While fire sprinklers are installed in some buildings they are far from ubiquitous, and also tend to cause plenty of water damage during their use.
"It is proven that fires controlled by sprinklers result in less business interruption and and water damage than those that have to be extinguished by traditional fire department members." There's a direct quote from Essentials of Fire Fighting. If your sprinkler system is installed properly and it is activated, water damage is probably the least of your concerns.
I know that we used to use some old bellows for stoking the fire at home. [A little hand held version, as opposed to the giant ones that you'd find in a blacksmith's shop]
But yes, air makes fire hotter. That's why you close the vents to slow cook on a charcoal grill, and why they force air into blast furnaces for smelting.
Although part of the issue is oxygen being fed in, it also helps to blow off the layer of ash that forms over the coals, allowing them to get enough oxygen for them to burn, and to keep it from smothering itself out.
[as the three necessary components of fire are heat, oxygen and fuel, to put out a fire you have to deplete the fuel, choke it, or cool it off. [amount of heat necessary depends on the fuel, as some fuels will flash below room temperature]]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I just want to say that this is fascinating... good work.
Slightly Off-Topic but a couple of hours ago was wondering this, then noticed this article.
Could someone explain the differences in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-alarm fires?
I've heard it was the number of stations that are asked to respond to the fire, but dont know how accurate that is.
I searched google for things like, fire alarms fire alarm codes, fire codes, three alarm, five alram, but all i get or advetisers for cheap fire alarms and news stories about varying alarmed fires in the news.
There is a company that uses the water itself to cut through a wall, which means that the fire is defeated as soon as you get inside without any unnecessary oxygen addition.
Since you only need one tool to get inside, rescue and extinguish this can save a lot of time and maybe lives. There might be cases where it's not the perfect tool so it cannot replace everything else, but for those cases it excels it have had a lot of success.