Slashdot Mirror


Fighting Fires With Beams of Electricity

cylonlover writes "It's certainly an established fact that electricity can cause fires, but a group of Harvard scientists have presented their research on the use of electricity for fighting fires. In a presentation at the 241st National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society, Dr. Ludovico Cademartiri told of how they used a unique device to shoot beams of electricity at an open flame over one foot tall. Almost immediately, he said, the flame was extinguished. 'Such a device could be used, for instance, to make a path for firefighters to enter a fire or create an escape path for people to exit, he said. The system shows particular promise for fighting fires in enclosed quarters, such as armored trucks, planes, and submarines.'"

137 comments

  1. Who you gonna call? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

    Not another obvious joke, the fire department of course! Now with laser beams that are not attached to sharks!

    1. Re:Who you gonna call? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'll love it, because walking through "beams of electricity" [which I must assume would commonly be known as "bolts of lightning"] instead of fire.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Who you gonna call? by dintech · · Score: 1

      I think this will probably end up like "Electric Avenue" from Jackass 3D. But with bonus fire. Awesome.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vJjBNNVOZ4

    3. Re:Who you gonna call? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I hereby announce my invention of the fire-fighting Tesla Coil Hat, which is also a terrific chick magnet at parties. Here at the Gizmonic Institute we are two steps closer to the future than you are. Now I have to go and ready my device for the Invention Exchange. Frank? Where's my Electric Jock Strap?

    4. Re:Who you gonna call? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Another category of civil servant that you have to tell 'Don't tase me, bro!' when they are coming to your house.

    5. Re:Who you gonna call? by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna call Lord Palpatine for sure.

    6. Re:Who you gonna call? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would happen if they cross the beams?

  2. Submarines... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1, Funny

    So your submarine is on fire, burning up your oxygen, underwater, while you're, say, launching nuclear missiles and being pursued by enemy subs, and your solution is to electrify it?

    Awesome. All your base...

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Submarines... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      Woo! Time to submit my patent to the PTO:
      "Description of Selachimorpha-mounted Electrical Fire Suppression Systems"

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    2. Re:Submarines... by skids · · Score: 1

      "Cademartiri envisions that futuristic electrical devices based on the phenomenon could be fixed on the ceilings of buildings or ships, similar to stationary water sprinklers now in use."

      Hey don't smoke that in here, you might set off th.... burbleburbleburble!

    3. Re:Submarines... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Capt. Nemo would approve.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:Submarines... by ruthless+reader · · Score: 1

      All your base are electrified...

  3. I saw a movie once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... about this "Ludovico technique." It didn't end well.

    1. Re:I saw a movie once... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Nobody named "Dr. Ludovico" can possibly be anything but a mad scientist. Beams of electricity to fight fires? Madness!

    2. Re:I saw a movie once... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I loved his eyes. Especially with the speculums.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  4. logical next step: firesabers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please oh please.

  5. "beams of electricity"? by oldhack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like streams of electrons or ions?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:"beams of electricity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, magic!

    2. Re:"beams of electricity"? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Like streams of electrons or ions?

      No, protons baby! Using those has certain... fringe benefits.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:"beams of electricity"? by Slutticus · · Score: 1

      Most likely photons and other various bosons

      Never slime a guy with a positron collider

      And never cross the streams. Or was it don't feed them after midnight? Fuck!

    4. Re:"beams of electricity"? by c0lo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like streams of electrons or ions?

      No, positrons baby! Using those definitely has certain... fringe benefits.

      FTFY

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:"beams of electricity"? by necro81 · · Score: 2

      No, more like "I'm not an actual scientist, and possibly not even a good journalist, so rather than explain what these scientists are really working on, I'll just say 'beams of electricity' to sound all good and technical. My editor won't know the difference any better than me."

    6. Re:"beams of electricity"? by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Comon, proton packs would be awesome.

      It has the added benefit of the fire department also being able to reconcile poltergeist infestations.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    7. Re:"beams of electricity"? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Protons are ions. :p

    8. Re:"beams of electricity"? by Cogita · · Score: 1

      No, protons baby! Using those has certain... fringe benefits.

      Like that they could yell, "fire the proton torpedoes!" when they get to the emergency?

      --
      -- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
    9. Re:"beams of electricity"? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That would be mixing memes, they are photon torpedos (torpedos of light?)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:"beams of electricity"? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      They meant "electric field" but of course they don't know what the difference is between "electricity" and "electric fields".

      They only tell you what's really going on if you bother to read the "complex" explanation:

      But how does it work? Cademartiri acknowledged that the phenomenon is complex with several effects occurring simultaneously. Among these effects, it appears that carbon particles, or soot, generated in the flame are key for its response to electric fields.

  6. "It's certainly an established fact that electrici by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's certainly an established fact that electricity can cause fires" - is it?

  7. Anyone have any idea how it works? by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone have any idea how this thing actually works?

    The best I could come up with is based on a very small part of the article:

    But how does it work? Cademartiri acknowledged that the phenomenon is complex with several effects occurring simultaneously. Among these effects, it appears that carbon particles, or soot, generated in the flame are key for its response to electric fields. Soot particles can easily become charged. The charged particles respond to the electric field, affecting the stability of flames, he said.

    So I guess what happens is that the electrical field charges the soot and other light carbony things generated in the fire, which causes them to disperse sort of like what happens with this toy? How does that help extinguish the fire, though? Wouldn't the outward motion of the carbon particulates just bring in more oxygen?

    What other effects are going on?

    1. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps the dispersion of the combustible particles disrupts the fuel/air mixture and halts combustion? It's a stretch but I guess possible. From what I learned in Hazmat class some years ago, you extinguish fire by depriving it of one of the following: Heat, Oxygen, or Fuel. Every extinguishing material does one or more.

    2. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be the creation of ozone smothers it. Does the field actually ionize air?

    3. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/28/6362578-fight-fire-with-a-magic-wand was a small statement that helped me wrap my head around this a lot better: "By applying oscillating fields, the effect was much, much larger"

      Usually this type of thing would be picked up by mainstream media long after technical papers have been written, but in this case the article says they're still 6 months or more away from understanding it well enough to write papers about it.

    4. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article was almost totally information-free. And journalists wonder why the respect they get from society ranks somewhere between that given to prostitutes and trial lawyers.

    5. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll guess:

      First thing that comes to mind is "ion wind". As air ions are usually for the most part consisting of clusters of water molecules, ion wind should have cooling effect. The second thing is repelling the oxygen by electrifying the flames with negative charge. However, TA mentions "waves", so perhaps it is all about inducing instability, breaking the convective circulation, dispersing the flames to lower the temperature bellow ignition point ...

    6. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who'd think that EM fields can affect the distribution of an ionized gas. You know, flames being combustion products in that plasma state or whatever.

      A wild guess would say it's doing something to valence electrons in vaporized fuel so that it doesn't readily react with oxygen.

      Now I'm just waiting for some firefighter to say "Got juice? Aaaaayyy!"

    7. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fire's an ongoing dynamic process. Using electrical fields to temporarily disrupt it puts several parts of the process on hold, potentially damping the fire. At that point, conditions would have to be right for it to spontaneously restart.

      That latter part is the reason why I'm dubious that this would be of much use beyond as a parlor trick. Conditions are almost always right for a major fire, and existing extinguishing methods are probably superior (at least adequate and easier to bottle) for a minor fire. Still, neat trick, and maybe I'm wrong.

    8. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by AB3A · · Score: 1

      A diode can be constructed by trying to pass a small current through a probe in the flame. This diode is caused by the movement of ions through the flame area. However, I wonder what would happen if you tried to pass a larger current through the flame? Might it be able to temporarily neutralize or bind the ions to other molecules? If it did that, would you still have a flame?

      I don't know. I'm just speculating.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    9. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      By Hazmat class, did you mean in grade school? The "fire triangle" is taught to 11 year olds in the UK.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 1

      It's a Fire Quadrangle. The fourth point is Chemical Reaction. Halon systems work from this angle. It doesn't deprive the fire of oxygen, it disrupts the oxidation process itself. Sounds like this magnetic beam does this also, in a different way.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
    11. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of that link is in the description"

       

      Powered by static electricity, aka "science"

    12. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/3/29/electrical-flame-field-scientists/

    13. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by unitron · · Score: 1

      A diode can be constructed by trying to pass a small current through a probe in the flame. This diode is caused by the movement of ions through the flame area. However, I wonder what would happen if you tried to pass a larger current through the flame? Might it be able to temporarily neutralize or bind the ions to other molecules? If it did that, would you still have a flame?

      I don't know. I'm just speculating.

      Do you mean that while the probe is in the flame current will flow through it in one direction but not the other, or that the act of putting it in the flame and running current through it will cause it to have the properties of a diode after it has been removed from the flame? Your use of the word "constructed" has me unsure.

      Of what is this probe made? Is it U-shaped? (current can't just go to end of conductor and stop, it has to get back to its point of origin)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    14. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still a triangle. That's just another way to deprive fuel.

    15. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Scatterplot · · Score: 1

      It's actually a Fire Tetrahedron, but the other dimension is pretty obscure, you probably haven't heard of it.

    16. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Vapors Burn 1947 Chemistry of Fire US War Department

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFPs4xsED74

    17. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      If they're able to cause the carbon atoms to form C60 and then drop to the ground...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    18. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      So I guess what happens is that the electrical field charges the soot and other light carbony things generated in the fire

      An electric field can't charge anything -- charge is produced by charged particles. An electric field is just a field. However, it can separate charges if strong enough, and it can influence charged particles. You can test this yourself by putting a lit candle in a microwave. Obviously do not do this in your fancy microwave.

    19. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by AB3A · · Score: 1

      Do you mean that while the probe is in the flame current will flow through it in one direction but not the other, or that the act of putting it in the flame and running current through it will cause it to have the properties of a diode after it has been removed from the flame? Your use of the word "constructed" has me unsure.

      Of what is this probe made? Is it U-shaped? (current can't just go to end of conductor and stop, it has to get back to its point of origin)

      I meant the former. Google flame diode and you'll see what I'm talking about. Many gas stoves and furnaces now use this technique to assure a flame is present.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    20. Re:Anyone have any idea how it works? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      I don't know... I do know that if you put a burning candle into a microwave oven that because the fire is a conductive plasma, that its sort of like putting metal into the microwave. The conductive plasma gets inflated by the energy of the microwaves to like the size of a grapefruit or larger. And it's bright too! Way fun.

      --
      ...
  8. Gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does this mean the best way to keep gasoline from catching fire is to throw electrical sparks at it?

    1. Re:Gasoline by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      I hear if you do something like that they give you this cool award named after that evolution dude. Go for it man!

    2. Re:Gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, done. I went outside and started my gasoline powered lawn mower. Now where to I go to collect this award you spoke of and how much money will I be receiving?

    3. Re:Gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many appendages did you lose? and did you lose "that" one?

  9. Firefighters are usually wet. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 2

    Water dripping off you, down your neck, sliding around in foam and soaked to the skin kind of wet. You could pee your pants and know one would even know, except for the funny coffee smell, kind of wet. The fist thing that happens is utilities disconnect the gas and power meter before anyone enters the structure (power and water don't mix). Never mind the Scott packs. Now water around your feet and a battery strapped to your back where do you put your Scott pack? Also your gear already weighs about 60 pounds with Scot pack. This is stupid we already have a grenade like device that will snuff out a fully engulfed house for 12 minutes the only side effect is a fine white powder on everything.

    1. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by somersault · · Score: 1

      we already have a grenade like device that will snuff out a fully engulfed house for 12 minutes the only side effect is a fine white powder on everything.

      Is the device called Charlie Sheen?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by icebrain · · Score: 2

      Not all of use use Scott packs... ours are MSA.

      Second, please give me more information about this "grenade like device that will snuff out a fully engulfed house", because I'm sure our chief would like to buy a case or three of them to try out. It would make things a lot easier if all we had to do was lob a grenade into a house instead of humping a bunch of hose.

      To get back on subject, this technology doesn't appear to do anything to cool the heated gases down, put out smoldering embers, get rid of smoke or prevent reignition (or backdraft/flashover). Putting the flame out is great, but without adequate ventilation and some means to cool the surroundings, you're not doing too much for the people inside. Everything else will still have to be done the old way.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    3. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except if firefighters use electricity instead of water to extinguish the flames, they won't be wet. Fire trucks seem like good places to keep a large mobile battery, or a capacitor for recharging from power lines nearby the disconnected building, or a transformer while the building is disconnected. Or maybe buildings will have fire suppression power equipment installed that uses this electric effect.

      The point is that electricity replaces water, so they don't have to mix.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by dredwerker · · Score: 1

      Not all of use use Scott packs... ours are MSA.

      Second, please give me more information about this "grenade like device that will snuff out a fully engulfed house", because I'm sure our chief would like to buy a case or three of them to try out. It would make things a lot easier if all we had to do was lob a grenade into a house instead of humping a bunch of hose.

      To get back on subject, this technology doesn't appear to do anything to cool the heated gases down, put out smoldering embers, get rid of smoke or prevent reignition (or backdraft/flashover). Putting the flame out is great, but without adequate ventilation and some means to cool the surroundings, you're not doing too much for the people inside. Everything else will still have to be done the old way.

      A quick google and I wonder if it's these stat X grenades. Every house should have some. http://www.jhcfirestopbuyamericanmaterials.com/stat-xgrenade.html">

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    5. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe I read an article about the grenades in Firehouse a couple months ago. The grenades have only been tested in specific situations. You will have to find the article. I can't remember all it entailed.

    6. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

      We have the AGS-5 Red Grenade. In our area the insurance companies are now replacing the device for us if we deploy it simply because the insurance companies want as little water damage as possible. (These devices cost a little over a thousand dollars) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfVzfxD1iPY

    7. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

      Sorry wrong device looks similar but our have greater volume of aerosol but I can't remember the brand we just call it the grenade.

    8. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "This is stupid"

      Thanks, that is the first ok commentary I've seen. That should be the title of the article... Now I'm thinking if I should tag it.

      There is no need to save the peole if you electrocute all of them while fighting the fire. Oh, and for the other posts that say you won't need to bring water, well, those people are made of water, and quite condutive. People normaly don't face kV/cm electrical fields very nicely, most of them fall out dead, and after a while start to burn.

      That said, it could be that this research brings useful knowledge. How to fight fires using electricity is just not one of those.

    9. Re:Firefighters are usually wet. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      1)Plenty of people work around high voltage equipment in wet environments.
      2)Strong electric fields don't necessarily mean exposed conductors.
      3)A device like this would lead to less of a need to be completely sopping wet.

      Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses rise up into heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas and burn more mass from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severely slow the runaway feedback process. A much lower amount of water can then be effective at covering and cooling the parent material to the point that it stops outgassing.

      It'd be like drinking and taking sleeping pills for the fire. Say a fireman now carries 30lbs of water in an extinquisher (just made up numbers. Work with me here.) What if 5lbs of batteries and electronics can make that extinquisher as effective as 120lbs (the water doubles the effect of the EM field, which doubles the effect of the water)?

      Will it work? The researcher has no way of knowing what he/she is working on will work. That's the difference between research and engineering. But don't paint yourself into a corner but trying to cling to hard to the way things are done now.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  10. REALLY want video! by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there's a story that is crying out for some audio-visual documentation, this had got to be it!

    I mean electricity and fire (and maybe they use a laser to create an ionized channel for the electricity to go through).

    1. Re:REALLY want video! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean electricity and fire (and maybe they use a laser to create an ionized channel for the electricity to go through).

      And make sure to throw in a few sharks as well.

  11. Magnesium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they can put out a magnesium fire with this device then I will be impressed. I would also like to see it tested in a room full of hydrogen/oxygen mix.

    1. Re:Magnesium by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      It probably wouldn't work, based on the few details in TFA. It seems that key to this technique is the effect on soot particles, which aren't present in neither magnesium/oxygen or hydrogen/oxygen fires. Soot particles are what makes the flames visible, so this seems to work only on fires with visible flames.

    2. Re:Magnesium by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's see them take on a metal-fluoride fire! For those, I've always recommended a good pair of running shoes.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    3. Re:Magnesium by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I would also like to see it tested in a room full of hydrogen/oxygen mix.

      Either you just mean a room full of water vapor, or it will just be a room full of water vapor in about a split second if it ignites. Minus whatever water vapor escaped when the roof blew off.

  12. why not 'adjust' the 'weather' with 750k A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    definitely slow down a big crowd? stop starting fires? the required downward A is much less to be shaken (&/or stirred?)? yikes. the walking dead talknicians on the news were trench warn (bloody nails). their voices have changed,, again. the urgency of not waiting to see the images is rising? the images/data we've (all of us) seen already are more than prosecutable. wrong images? we'll wait? fauxking fatal theater of the damned? no thanks. disarm

  13. Re:"It's certainly an established fact that electr by Adambomb · · Score: 2

    All they had to do was reverse the polarity!

    It's so simple!

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  14. Fire, Schmire ! by Rollgunner · · Score: 2

    Who cares about putting out the fire... I just want the Lightning Cannon.

    Evil Overlord Notice #1 : Discontinue Operation : Weaponize Shark immediately.
    Evil Overlord Notice #2 : The Commissary of Evil will be serving fish sticks all week.

  15. Don't cross the beams... by PureRain · · Score: 1

    "Shooting beams of electricity" sounds like Ghostbusters, not real world physics.

  16. giving fake 'science' it's day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obviously, all them jules is rearranging the oxygen thereabouts, sucking the wind out/or away from the blaze. & the juice will dissipate as well. electric backdraft? pure genius? some of the bips could do it without a gadget? now that's meeting the need? stop starting fires?

  17. 'correct' amount of carbon stops any thriviality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's exactly like putting depleted fire on the fire? the 'correct' amount, not already on fire, not only might not ignite, but could extinguish us all? after the .5 billion population is re-established, there'll be better order, less fires, (put the less fires out with buckets of radioactive water/homer drinking it,,,,) so that's good?

  18. DARPA Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Instant_Fire_Suppression_(IFS).aspx

  19. in some buybulls the sky goes on fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they're all not completely free of hot air. there's evidence that we're (body, mind & spirit) biologically near perfect, & improving.

    however, it is now still unclear as to weather or not some of the profitseized holycost in the 'new' buybull, are really deity related, although millions are attributing our difficulties to truly imaginary characters, which let's a lot of real time death peddlers 'off the hook' & leaves same maintaining our unwitting, or fear based (-e) support?

    tell the babys?

  20. Birthday party fun... by Polo · · Score: 2

    This would be a fun way of extinguishing the candles on your birthday cake...

    Might even work with those "prankster" candles that relight ... :)

    1. Re:Birthday party fun... by mevets · · Score: 1

      yeah, that'll shut the little buggers up.

  21. Meddling with forces they cannot possibly control. by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    With technologies such as these, we will take over ze world! Also - did they have to use a UV high power laser to allow the air to make a plasma conductor conduit? That always spoils my zappers as the mill spec. capacitors wind up being to huge - air's practically coloress to UV so go figure ... Now how did ID Software do theirs? Hmmm...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  22. Using calcium? by greycortex · · Score: 1

    I know that calcium was instrumental in the development of imcimal baratilam.

  23. Why does it work? by skeffstone · · Score: 1

    I'm not feeling very competent, but:

    a) Soot particles aggregate, lowering their surface-to-volume ratio, shutting down the combustion, or
    b) Soot particles escape the plasma, shutting down combustion, or
    c) Electron flow from the gun interferes with the combustion reaction itself, which would be awesome

  24. deities implicated/engaged in holycost, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saw it on o.rile.me. wouldn't we know, the two most awesome fearsome chosen ones are now enemies in a death swath over women's rights?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtvG59VckEc&feature=player_embedded

    disarm. stop facading the motives of your massacres. life is inseparable

  25. 0329 by hqrdqa1 · · Score: 1

    Cool!

  26. Beams of electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And what the hell are beams of electricity?

  27. It's called Charlie Sheen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is now

  28. Give it a chance guys! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Come on! Fire, water, and now beams of electricity! What could happen!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  29. Orlando Prom Limo by mariahills · · Score: 0

    The post is very informative. It is a pleasure reading it. I have also bookmarked you for checking out new posts. http://www.parislimousineorlando.com/prom-limousine.html"> Orlando Prom Limo

  30. other eunuch like sub-gods taking sides? yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    & it could be that the unproven aliens have hymens (not likely)? so, if there's only .25 billion of us left (by mistake, honest), there'll still never be enough leisurely pleasure seeking to be done by the victorious (again) chosen ones, as it was written? fortunately (according to unbiblical rantings of the unchosen humans), there's also wildcard physical possibilities unexpected but well intended. it can already be felt by even the least sensitive of us, in between all the shaking & exploding. in spite of ourselves. feels like we were all chosen? hard to separate? not designed to kill or be killed.

  31. Finally, by Fengpost · · Score: 1

    The police and fireman can share a tool, a tazer doubles as a fire extinguisher!

    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
  32. Great. I'm looking forward to.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    being automatically electrocuted every time I burn the toast.

  33. Seen this technology before! by SirLoadALot · · Score: 2

    Danilo Odell: Yeah, what the hell was that thing?
    Lieutenant Worf: Automated fire system. A force field contains the flame until the remaining oxygen has been consumed.
    Danilo Odell: Ah, yeah, w-what if I had been under that thing?
    Lieutenant Worf: You would have been standing in the fire.
    Danilo Odell: Yeah, well, leaving that aside for the moment, I mean, what would have happened to me?
    Lieutenant Worf: You would have suffocated and died.
    Danilo Odell: Ye-ah, sweet mercy.

  34. Some idea by dackroyd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flames are ionised (i.e. charged) particles. If you have a strong enough electric field (which is really not the same as 'shooting electricity' as per the article) when the charged particles move through the electric field there will be a force on them perpendicular to their motion and to the field i.e. the flame will curve over into spiral.

    If you could get this to happen on a large enough scale, the flame would suppress itself as instead of the flame moving away from the fuel it would hang around - stopping oxygen from reaching the fuel.

    If this all sounds really unlikely, that's because it is. Here it a video showing an electric field affecting a small candle:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fKGeV4NrrA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

    It looks like you need an electric field on the order of 10keV per 5cm to get this effect. So if you wanted to do it on a fire that was say 5 meters across you'd need an electric field in the order of 1MV which while obtainable is not exactly an easy thing to setup - particularly when there's a fire going on.

    --
    "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    1. Re:Some idea by d3ac0n · · Score: 2

      Flames are ionised (i.e. charged) particles. If you have a strong enough electric field (which is really not the same as 'shooting electricity' as per the article) when the charged particles move through the electric field there will be a force on them perpendicular to their motion and to the field i.e. the flame will curve over into spiral.

      If you could get this to happen on a large enough scale, the flame would suppress itself as instead of the flame moving away from the fuel it would hang around - stopping oxygen from reaching the fuel.

      If this all sounds really unlikely, that's because it is. Here it a video showing an electric field affecting a small candle:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fKGeV4NrrA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

      It looks like you need an electric field on the order of 10keV per 5cm to get this effect. So if you wanted to do it on a fire that was say 5 meters across you'd need an electric field in the order of 1MV which while obtainable is not exactly an easy thing to setup - particularly when there's a fire going on.

      And yet, according to TFA, the researchers were able to extinguish a foot-high flame (presumably fed via compressed gas of some sort) with only a 600 watts of electricity AND they suspect they could do it with much less.

      In the new study, they connected a powerful electrical amplifier to a wand-like probe and used the device to shoot beams of electricity at an open flame more than a foot high. Almost instantly, the flame was snuffed out. Much to their fascination, it worked time and again.

      The device consisted of a 600-watt amplifier, or about the same power as a high-end car stereo system. However, Cademartiri believes that a power source with only a tenth of this wattage could have similar flame-suppressing effect. That could be a boon to firefighters, since it would enable use of portable flame-tamer devices, which perhaps could be hand-carried or fit into a backpack.

      I'm not saying your calculation is wrong, but it certainly diverges dramatically from the information supplied in TFA. (What little there is.) If the researcher is correct, then we are looking at a device potentially as low-powered as a 60 watt electric amplifier. That's small enough to be handheld. If you add some 12v LiPo batteries to supply short term power you are looking at a large but still manageable backpack-sized unit. (Note: it doesn't have to be LiPo, but they have the best weight to power density ratio of any easily commercially available battery, and can be made in any shape, in quantity.) Sounds VERY doable to me. Assuming the research pans out, of course.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:Some idea by dackroyd · · Score: 1

      And yet, according to TFA, the researchers were able to extinguish a foot-high flame (presumably fed via compressed gas of some sort) with only a 600 watts of electricity AND they suspect they could do it with much less.

      Watts != voltage differential

      If there is no electricity being carried then a small power supply can build up an almost arbitrarily high electric field, until it either either arcs or the electric field becomes strong enough to start electrons streaming from it as an ion wind.

      foot-high flame (presumably fed via compressed gas of some sort)

      That sounds like it could have been a bunsen burner - i.e. the flame could still have just been a centimeter or two across, which is a much easier fire to deal with that a wide fire. In fact you could probably put that flame out by just licking your thumb and sticking it over the fuel source.

      --
      "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    3. Re:Some idea by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      You may very well be correct. But then, that is what research is for, isn't it?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    4. Re:Some idea by Manywele · · Score: 1

      Flames are ionised (i.e. charged) particles. If you have a strong enough electric field (which is really not the same as 'shooting electricity' as per the article) when the charged particles move through the electric field there will be a force on them perpendicular to their motion and to the field i.e. the flame will curve over into spiral.

      That's for a magnetic field. Charged particles move along the direction of electric fields.

    5. Re:Some idea by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      I shadowed a couple of firefighter trainees while working on some promotional materials for a large city fire department. One of the things I went with them on was a hot room exercise where everyone got geared up, entered a room, and the trainer cranked up some truly massive flames. The point of this was to show you how much heat the protective gear could take and what exactly happened when it took too much. Anyway, cool story short, we melted a few fire helmet visors and there is no damn way that a system with a LiPo battery could survive that sort of heat. You do know what happens to LiPo batteries when they get hot, right?

    6. Re:Some idea by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Which is why I said that it doesn't have to be a LiPo. I know their drawbacks, I use them regularly. That said, Insulation and basic liquid cooling would be helpful in staving off overheating.

      The use for a man-carried device would be limited anyway. It is doubtful a firefighter would want to carry ANY large battery pack into a raging inferno. The application would more likely be from an initial approach vector. IE: Start outside the fire and bore a pathway into it for a short distance, much like they do with an extinguisher and an axe now.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    7. Re:Some idea by idontgno · · Score: 2

      And yet, according to TFA, the researchers were able to extinguish a foot-high flame (presumably fed via compressed gas of some sort) with only a 600 watts of electricity AND they suspect they could do it with much less.

      Probably generated with a Fleischmann/Pons cold fusion generator they whipped together from spare parts.

      Let's see how this discovery fares in independent validation.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Some idea by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      600W? A deep-cycle automotive battery has something like 1.3KWh of capacity. Plenty of power.

    9. Re:Some idea by Prune · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, as they only used 40 kV for a 50 cm flame, and the mode of operation is the reverse of what you suggested, that is, it removes the flame from the fuel (not to mention that they use time-varying electric fields which is different from what you're talking about): http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/28/6362578-fight-fire-with-a-magic-wand

      Pro tip: next time do some research before posting.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:Some idea by Prune · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yet another poster that didn't bother to do an iota of research beyond the article. They use oscillating fields which separate the flame from the fuel and used no more than 40 kV (that's makes for a rather small current at 600 W): http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/28/6362578-fight-fire-with-a-magic-wand

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    11. Re:Some idea by sjames · · Score: 1

      Since a static charge will do, it's not as hard as you might think, at least indoors.

  35. After a few hours, all the jokes are taken! by cvtan · · Score: 1

    No wait! DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!!!!! Give me a break. "Beams of electricity"? Could have been described in a more Slashdot-friendly way. Maybe "Bolts of Karma".

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  36. If this were a 1930s pulp magazine story by hey! · · Score: 1

    the next thing is that the brilliant doctor would be kidnapped by the evil Fu-Ling, who would use the invention to down airplanes by inhibiting their internal combustion engines. Fortunately the hero's plane is atomic powered.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:If this were a 1930s pulp magazine story by shmert · · Score: 1

      How about a 1980's Subgenius Pulp Story?

      From "Bob and The Oxygen Wars"

      view-source:http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classictales/OxygenWars1.html

      I couldn't quite believe he was aiming us right into the fire. He sure
        didn't look suicidal, but whatever he had in mind was beyond me.
        At last he grabbed the mutated gearshift. I managed to keep one eye
        on his hands as the wildfire bore down on us. Now we'd see something.
        The conical hood omament suddenly pronged forward, stretching out
        through a widening hole until it looked like a robot anteater snout.
        Then it shot out a brilliant sky-blue stream of some glowing, crackling
        liquid unlike anything I'd ever seen, all over the onrushing flames.

        "Great Zot! What is that stuff?"

        "Condensed space-juice. Supercooled fresh-squeezed electron fluid.
        Trees can't bum under a high negative charge."

        There was a lot more of it firing out from under us through that
        nozzle than we could possibly have room for in any concealed tanks.
        "Where's it all coming from?"

        "We draw it in as needed, and crush-cool it on the spot. No one misses
        it; there's at least ten to the ninety-fourth watt-seconds per cubic
      centimeter, everywhere in space, including space full of matter. The primary
        carrier wave of the physical universe is around sixty octaves
        higher than an electron's diameter." He switched hands, kept blasting
        away and pointed at a spot on the spectrum chart in the upper zone
        unknown to me. "The higher the frequency, the greater the energy
        density. Establish resonance with space-juice itself and you can obtain
        virtually unlimited power."

        The sizzling, metallic turquoise liquid was spreading out incredibly
        fast wherever it hit, engulfing the flames in big round patches. It
        sounded like a cross between distant artillery and huge sails flapping in
        a gale as it rolled out over the blaze. The stuff went from shiny to
        blurry, and expanded into thick mats of blue-white fog, as if to cool and
        soothe whatever might survive of the forest.

        We tilted around the western rim of the burned area, mopping up
        several hot spots missed by the main volley. The pulses of juice didn't
        follow exactly smooth trajectories but seemed to crackle slightly as if
        along lightning discharge paths.

        The otter didn't appear to be even remotely scared by all this. He just
        stood resting a paw against my seat, watching and making chortling
        noises.

        I found my voice again, "Is this another one of those suppressed
        inventions?"

        "Not exactly; this one really was a bit ahead of its time. Liquid
      electricity doesn't have many useful applications until you make available
        a virtually unlimited electron supply. The basic idea was developed by
        a guy named Richard Diggs back in the late seventies, though he didn't
        foresee this embodiment at the time."

      --
      You drank my drink, you drunk!
  37. What the hey? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    in enclosed quarters, such as armored trucks

    This must occur more often than I realize.

    1. Re:What the hey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first reaction as well. Seriously, are armored truck fires that common? Do money and gold spontaneously combust that often?

    2. Re:What the hey? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This must occur more often than I realize.

      Think armoured personnel carriers, armoured fighting vehicles, tanks, etc. Right now they generally use halon which, while fairly effective at putting out fires, also has a tendency to suffocate and/or poison anyone who survived the initial hit.

    3. Re:What the hey? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, electrocuting everybody won't be any better. Just remember, several kV/cm is way stronger than a normal lightining.

    4. Re:What the hey? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I think amperage is kinda important, too. High voltage low amps just means you'll end up tazing everyone in the vehicle. Sucks, but better than death.

      I'm not saying this system would actually work in that role - they haven't provided nearly enough data for me to make any serious comments on it. I'm just pointing out that they're probably talking about combat vehicles rather than a Brinks truck.

    5. Re:What the hey? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, the current you'll apply on a conductor is a function of the electrical field, you can't simply choose it. What you can do is restrict the time you apply that current, reducing the charge, but the device needs to transfer some charge to work.

      I maintain that a powder based extinguisher is simpler, cheaper and safer.

  38. no, it *is* Charlie Sheen by mekkab · · Score: 1

    but it's called WINNING.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  39. Re:"It's certainly an established fact that electr by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I think it's an oscillating field, so reversing the polarity already happens.

    Now, if they'd only re-routed power through the deflector dish...

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  40. Ghost Busters? by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    Surely such powers cannot be trusted in the hands of muggles, esp. war mongering ones who will turn anything and everything into military research.

  41. icon by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    While you used Einstein as the 'icon' for this article, Tesla would have been more on target here.

  42. Er... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    On the face of it, I can't imagine that firemen would be really pleased at this.

    Let's see we have fire, smoke, water, (and in the examples they gave) all-metal vehicles. Let's toss in some high-voltage electricity?

    --
    -Styopa
  43. Best use of this physics ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firebirds is an impressive artwork by Paul DeMarinis exploiting the effect of an electric field on fire recreating speech and bird songs. Check it out and mod this up!

    http://www.directions.jp/airartlog/flv/AAL003/003-03.html
    http://www.ljudmila.org/~luka/demarinis/demarinis-firebirds.ogg

  44. far freakin' out! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    We really do live in the frickin' future .

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:far freakin' out! by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      well we did

  45. Re:"It's certainly an established fact that electr by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    new setting for a phaser kill,stun,extinguish. Dont cross the streams.

  46. Electric and magnetic field confused by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sir,

        You have electric and magnetic fields confused with each other. If you have a MAGNETIC FIELD, when charged particles move across (NOT along) it, there is a force on them perpendicular to their motion (and to the field, incidentally).

        In an electric field, the force on the charged particle depends on the orientation of the electric field, not on the orientation of the charged particle's momentum.

        I refer you to the Lorentz equation, which goes like this:
    F = q (E + V cross B)
    where capital letters denote vector quantities and "cross" is the cross-product operator. As you can see, the force from the electric field (q times E) is parallel to E. The force from the magnetic field (q V cross B) is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the particle's velocity.

        I'm not sure whether the rest of your explanation holds water--when you have a rapidly changing electric field it is accompanied by a magnetic field, which WILL curve particles like you say. In fact, when you have both, you have what is called an "E cross B" drift, in which charged particles have a motion perpendicular to both the E and the B field. (Is that what you meant?)

    And yes, IAAP.

    --PeterM

  47. Maybe a legitimate patent, for a change? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    It strikes me that this could be one of the FEW inventions that are actually worthy of a patent.

    Also, I wonder how scalable this technology is. The explicitly say in the article that this wouldn't work well for a forest fire: why not?

    Another thing I wonder is this: if you put out a fire with water, you cool down the stuff that's burning as well as removing oxygen. If your new flame suppressor is applied to a hot pile of, say, burning wood, the flame may go away as long as it's pointed at it, but wouldn't it burst into flames again immediately upon removing the suppressor beam, or even explode due to a build-up of combustible vapors?

    Best,

    --PeterM

    1. Re:Maybe a legitimate patent, for a change? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Get you a good hot fire going on your grill, and then cover it with the lid for a minute. You will see that it depends on how long you keep the fire down. Pop the lid off as soon as you see the flame go down, and it will flash back up. Hold the lid down for a few more seconds, and you will notice that the flame comes back, but rather slowly. Hold it down a little longer, and you may have to get your lighter out to start it back up.

      Fire is a feedback process. A flame heats material till it outgasses. The gasses then heat till they chemically react with the oxygen in the air, an exothermic process that feeds energy back to help outgas more from the parent material. If you can interrupt the addition of heat for only a few seconds, you can severly slow the runaway feedback process.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  48. Awesome by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

    It's just like an evil Italian scientist to bring a Tesla coil to a firefight.

    --


    Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
  49. Popular Mechanics? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a Popular Mechanics article from the 1930's. "Fighting Fires With Beams Of Electricity -- From Zeppelins!"

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  50. maybe a tad pessemistic by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    Such a device could be used, for instance, to make a path for...

    oh, police wanting to mow down a group of peaceful (or not so peaceful) protestors? I'm sure if this isn't vaporware that the Defense Dept. and several police departments would love to get their grimy hands on it.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  51. flame speaker by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    Think of a flame speaker, but playing something really really boring.

  52. EM Pulse by mcleland · · Score: 1

    Apparently, EM pulses have also been studied by the Pentagon for fighting fires http://www.stormingmedia.us/97/9736/A973683.html

  53. I was actually at the session... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The guy was showing some very neat videos of applying AC (not DC) to what was usually a methane flame in air, but they've also tried heptane as well (different soot characteristics). The gist of it was that the oscillation of the AC voltage was essential, and the whole thing is complicated by how some of the charged stuff accumulates on the electrode as well. If you feed in a noisy voltage (with the same RMS as a given AC), then it doesn't work. I can't remember much about the modelling he was doing, but it was at an early stage and captured most, but not all of the characteristics.

    He also said he was going to try using a sootless flame (H2 probably), and then deliberately add in solids to see what happened - soot is just too damn complex to analyse in a system like that.

  54. Pictures by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Or it didn't happen.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  55. Ever hear of "sweat"? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Except if firefighters use electricity instead of water to extinguish the flames, they won't be wet.

    It's not all from the fire suppression sprays. Some of it is called "sweat". Lots of salt in it so it's very conductive. Drops the skin resistance by several orders of magnitude.

    People tend to emit a lot of it, coating their bodies, when covered with protective gear, toting lots of heavy fire suppression gear or rescued victims, jogging up and down stairs, or hacking their way through doors or walls, all in an environment where the ambient temperature is above that of the human body's homeostasis setpoint.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. Not so good for electrical equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article talks of how this might be a whole lot better for electrical gear than water. Well, it might, or the electrical field might do the equivalent of an EMP, and destroy the very equipment you are trying to save. Still, it might ONLY destroy the electrical gear, and not the other stuff that gets damaged when a large amount of water is dumped on a fire.

    Perhaps we can find a more authoritative description of this device?

  57. Re:hydrogen/oxygen mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can put out a magnesium fire with this device then I will be impressed. I would also like to see it tested in a room full of hydrogen/oxygen mix.

    That's not a fire. That's an explosion...

  58. Wild Fires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A series of airplanes can shoot this beam of light at a wild fire on earth and douse the fire with this beam.

  59. just like star trek tng by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember the episode when they picked up a bunch of people that got stranded on a planet like 200 years earlier. The other half of their group went to another planet and took the technology with them. They acted really irish/scottish. They decided to load them up in a cargo bay. They started a fire to cook. The enterprise put out the fire with a fire suppression system that was described as looking like lightning. really disappointed in slashdot on this one. I'm just a lurker but I'd expect the star trek reference to be near the top. what have we become?