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.
Yes, it will fan the flames, but flame isn't what kills people. It's the heat and especially the smoke. By the time fires reach people, they are already dead.
For a while now they've had gas engine powered fans. They open the front door, open a hole on the roof, and point the thing straight into the house. The cool air blowing in displaces the heat and smoke so the firefighters can enter and see what they are doing. Usually, the hoses are right behind them, so the fact that the hoses and people can get right into the house with the water offsets any flame fanning effects.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Actually, it's interesting that no one has mentioned wildland firefighting in this discussion yet. Although I think you're right that the basic techniques of combatting wildfires hasn't changed very much--and probably won't in the foreseeable future--I think there have been tremendous technological changes in determining when and where wildfires are fought.
The most obvious change has been lightning detectors. There are very few fire lookouts staffed these days; automated detection systems plot where strikes hit, and planes can check out almost immediately if they have started a fire or not. Ground-based systems are still prevalent but there are now orbital imaging systems coming into play to do the same thing, with even greater accuracy.
Every leap in weather forecasting has helped wildland firefighters. Knowing when the wind and humidity are going to be on your side is a critical factor for deciding when to take on the fire and when to stay back. Being able to assess these factors in the field with smaller and better detection equipment has changed the nature of the game.
Helicopters, parachutes, air-drops... these are all fairly recent innovations that have dramatically expanded options for firebosses.
Then there are the more pedestrian advances, such as GPS and lightweight mountain gear, which benefit any backcountry traveler, but of course also make life easier for people who are not only having to fight a monstrous wildfire, but having to hike some of the most rugged terrain in the world to do so.
I'd say there have been more changes from technology in wildland firefighting in the last hundred years than there have been in structural firefighting--they're just not as obvious.
No relation to Happy Monkey