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.'"

23 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. "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 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.
    2. 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."

    3. Re:"beams of electricity"? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Protons are ions. :p

  2. 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: 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.

  3. 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 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.
    2. 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: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.
  5. 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).

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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!

  9. 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!
  10. 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 ... :)

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.
    3. 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."
  13. 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