DARPA Creates Machine Which Extinguishes Fires With Sound

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Creates Machine Which Extinguishes Fires With Sound

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 15, 2012 @03:04PM from the wall-of-sound dept.

SchrodingerZ writes "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is known for making odd scientific advances ranging from hypersonic unnamed rockets to bionic prosthetic limbs to insect-sized reconnaissance drones. But recently DARPA has made a interesting advancement in the field of fire suppression. Using two speakers arranged on either side of an open liquid fuel flame, an acoustic field was emitted and engulfed the fire. 'The sound increases air velocity, which then thins the area of the flame where combustion occurs, known as the flame boundary.' This make the flame weak and much easier to douse. Another wonderful thing about this: it's not even that loud! DARPA began its testing in 2008, stating that despite extensive research in this area, there have been no new methods for extinguishing and/or manipulating fire in almost 50 years. The agency plans to expand on this experiment and try to make it successful on a practical scale."

121 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Who knew that naming a rocket... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:09 · Score: 2, Funny

...would be so difficult?
1. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Samantha+Wright · 2012-07-15 15:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, that's the thing—it's actually quite easy to make a hypersonic rocket with a name, but unnaming such a rocket would require more energy than the sun's entire output for a year, as you'd have to eradicate to eliminate all evidence, thought, and mention of the rocket's name from history. It took DARPA contractors decades to come up with a novel method of paperwork shuffling so dense that they could create unnamed rockets that would be completely impenetrable to espionage. Unfortunately, they aren't perfect; it's still possible to give individual rockets names once they're loaded into a vehicle or turret for firing, as at that point they enter the realm of conscious human perception. Despite the potential dire consequences for captured vehicles and compromised air bases, all contractors were paid upfront for the usual budget overruns.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by million_monkeys · 2012-07-15 16:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Coming up with a name is easy. The hard part is making that name into an acronym for something. That's a new rule: all names have to be an acronym as well. For example, the unnamed rocket linked to in the summary is called Falcon and it stands for Force Application and Launch from CONtinental United States. I'm sure they spent a lot of time trying to get that right.
3. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Samantha+Wright · 2012-07-15 18:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Such a shame, too, when Fiery And Large Crewless Orbital Nuisance is available. It's like they're not even trying to do their jobs!
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
4. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 22:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's surpisingly hard not to name a thing. That is why most programming languages only have named functions, not unnamed ones. Lambda rockets are a huge accomplishment, paving the way to more functional rocket strikes.
5. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that's the thing—it's actually quite easy to make a hypersonic rocket with a name, but unnaming such a rocket would require more energy than the sun's entire output for a year, as you'd have to eradicate to eliminate all evidence...
  No they are far more advanced: pick a rocket, try for example to name it, and X&/(")£## [CARRIER LOST]
6. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds very "Gravity's Rainbow" to me.
7. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Trogre · 2012-07-17 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but who's gonna fly it kid, you?
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
didnet the mythbusters do this?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:09 · Score: 0, Interesting

didn't the mythbusters do this??
1. Re:didnet the mythbusters do this?? by Joce640k · 2012-07-15 18:14 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Yep. ...and on the subject of myths, the 'insect-size-drone' thing is pure psych-ops, ie. it doesn't exist. They've been denying the existence of insect drones since the 1970s.
  PS: The thing in the insect article's photo is CGI created for a competition.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:didnet the mythbusters do this?? by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-16 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  O RLY?
  http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/02/09/1812252/the-cias-amazing-rc-animals-from-the-70s
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Shandon · 2012-07-15 15:10 · Score: 4, Informative

The Mythbusters did that already, in Episode 76 (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode76). So we know that works already...
1. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you read TFA, you'd note that it's been a topic of research since 1900
2. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  and its been proven already, packaged edited and broadcast as entertainment, your tax dollars at work, figuring out shit WE ALREADY KNOW
3. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Mythbusters is funded by my taxes?
4. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Joce640k · 2012-07-15 20:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  it's been a topic of research since 1900
  Mythbusters don't do research, they only do experiments.
  Obligatory XKCD
  
  --
  No sig today...
5. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by BronsCon · 2012-07-16 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, Mythbusters is why we already know it, DARPA is funded by your tax dollars.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Rockets? by GodGell · 2012-07-15 15:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Hypersonic unnamed rockets? Wait until Anonymous hears about that...

--
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
1. Re:Rockets? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hur
2. Re:Rockets? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Finally, there's a rocket out there with your name on it, buddy! You'll get your comeuppance!
CO2? by sonamchauhan · 2012-07-15 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

"The team arranged two speakers either side of a liquid fuel flame to demonstrate how fire can be controlled by amping up an acoustic field. The sound increases air velocity, which then thins the area of the flame where combustion occurs, known as the flame boundary. Once the boundary area is thinned, the flame is easier to extinguish. "
Pardon my scepticism, but if you can position speakers at the base of a flame, you can also position CO2 nozzles there too.
BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.
Or they could the two techniques in combination -- using an accoustic field to shape a CO2 extinguishant stream that manipulates the "flow of cold plasma" feeding the flame.
1. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Quenching a fire in a submarine would probably be far less problematic if you could use sound instead of gases.
2. Re:CO2? by Unkyjar · 2012-07-15 15:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "The Instant Fire Suppression project was specifically launched to devise new ways of tackling fires in enclosed spaces, such as aircraft cockpits and ship holds, where fires are obviously devastating and incredibly difficult to control." - TFA
3. Re:CO2? by drinkypoo · 2012-07-15 16:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.
  Robot carrying speakers has to run back and forth dropping speakers. Speakers which are robots, much better.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  "...devise new ways of tackling fires in enclosed spaces, such as aircraft cockpits ..."
  The speakers are 5 times as big as the fire, I'm afraid if such a system is installed in an airplane cockpit, it won't be able to fly anymore.
5. Re:CO2? by sumdumass · 2012-07-15 16:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Also, think about utility corridors in large building where an electrical fire or something of the sorts are a danger. Using gasses or toxic chemicals might present a danger to humans still inside the building. Mount a few rails with speakers connected and send them to the hot spot as needed.
  Or use something like this and line evacuation routes people would take in case of fire helping ensure an open escape path for longer periods of time.
6. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  AKA: Submarines. Navy just had a very expensive submarine fire. If they could simply install speakers, they could avoid a very expensive fire suppression retrofit. Risk of crew suffocation and equipment damage are always present with chemical or gas based systems.
7. Re:CO2? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-07-15 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Or next time a wildfire approaches my house, I'll just stick speakers out the window and start playing loud music.
8. Re:CO2? by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-07-15 20:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Acoustic fire suppression also leaves a LOT less mess behind. Think server rooms, restaurants and print shops where the fire suppression system typically causes about as much damage (in that area) as the fire itself.
9. Re:CO2? by icebrain · 2012-07-15 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  This system may put out open flames, but it's not going to do anything about heated gases or smoldering combustion, and I don't think it'll do much to prevent reignition, flashover, backdraft, etc.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
10. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the research part... I'm trying to remember how many devices didn't start big and eventually become small. Sure there are plenty of things that got bigger over time, but generally we have craved smaller, more compact devices.
11. Re:CO2? by PPalmgren · 2012-07-16 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  That brings up an interesting question, I wonder the effects on sensitive equipment such as in a server room from such high energy harmonic devices?
12. Re:CO2? by DerekLyons · 2012-07-16 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  And that fire was problematical because the ship was in the shipyard and normal services and access was disrupted. I.E. it's very unlikely the speakers (which only weaken the flame) would have been very useful. Not that there's room for the speakers anyhow.
  And the dangers of chemical or gas based systems is why the main firefighting system is water.
  (Disclaimer: Former submarine crewman.)
13. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.
  Robot carrying speakers has to run back and forth dropping speakers. Speakers which are robots, much better.
  DARPA: Dubstep Advanced Remix Projects Agency
14. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly, speakers and sound systems are relatively cheap. You could put a pair of speakers on opposing walls in every room in a hotel and spaced periodically down the halls for instance. A single distribution system could power them all. I wish the article gave details on what actual sound frequency/pattern they used. It might be possible to seriously reduce costs and increase effectiveness by producing speakers tuned to the appropriate frequency response. You can get a pair of powered in-wall speakers for about $30 on amazon right now that will work with any 2+ zone audio system. One possible downfall is the need for electricity, this might complicate many fire suppression situations. A local battery powered amplification source would solve this but would probably drive costs to unrealistic levels.
  In some cases it might be possible to use massive truck mounted speakers on opposing sides of a building to create a field of suppression.
15. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Ventilation that will take care of heated gases is not solved by this but such ventilation already exists in most spaces. Smoldering is easily resolved and there is plenty of time to do it if re-ignition is prevented. The rest of those concerns seem like they WOULD be addressed by this system as long you didn't turn it off before the system is cooled.
16. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry about the fire. The flooding will put it out.
  Ancient Navy Proverb, actually heard on an actual submarine. Cheers!
17. Re:CO2? by treeves · 2012-07-16 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Gases are not used to put out fires on submarines. Water is used.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
18. Re:CO2? by schlachter · 2012-07-16 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  or speakers carrying robots...that get out of the speaker and try to trample on a fire when it breaks out.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
19. Re:CO2? by magsk · 2012-07-16 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Difference between gases and sound waves is that gas can get around obstacles and into small crevices, sound waves cannot. Unless the fire is direct line of site and close to the fame in the video demonstration then it will not work. Put a simple piece of plywood or sheet metal in front of the speaker and fire and watch nothing happen.
20. Re:CO2? by Unkyjar · 2012-07-16 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you continue to read the article further you'll see that these are part of continuing research into manipulating cold plasma. It is not just using sound waves but also electromagnetic waves which they can manipulate to bend flames in the direction they want. Also, try keep in mind that a laboratory experiment is going to very different from the methods and devices that will eventually be developed from the flame behavior modeling this research produces.
  I really do recommend reading the article, it's obvious this is years away from practical application. The point is that while this science has been known at the basic level for a long time, no additional research and modelling has been done in years and they are proud of the fact that they get to advance this research significantly.
  A nice snippet from the article regarding the second parallel electromagnetic research:
  
  "The electric field it emits achieved this by creating an âoeionic windâ that âoedisplaces the combustion zone from the fuel source.â
  Being able to bend flames might seem like a very cool but ultimately useless method of firefighting, however the system will come in handy when fires rage out of control in enclosed spaces â" the flames can be redirected to provide safe passage, if they cannot be extinguished completely. The method also prevents the fire spreading, and thus renders it localised and easier to control."
21. Re:CO2? by Unkyjar · 2012-07-16 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about bending and confining flames using electromagnetic waves and then weakening them? Would that help?
  FTA:
  "The electric field it emits achieved this by creating an ionic wind that displaces the combustion zone from the fuel source.
  Being able to bend flames might seem like a very cool but ultimately useless method of firefighting, however the system will come in handy when fires rage out of control in enclosed spaces "the flames can be redirected to provide safe passage, if they cannot be extinguished completely. The method also prevents the fire spreading, and thus renders it localized and easier to control."
22. Re:CO2? by DerekLyons · 2012-07-16 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  How about bending and confining flames using electromagnetic waves and then weakening them? Would that help?
  Not really. If you can get access to setup an electronic gadget, you can get access to get water on the flames or the seat of the fire. (Ultimately, onboard a submarine, access is the key issue in firefighting. ) If we need to redirect flames to allow safe passage (an unusual and unlikely event), we use a fog nozzle - which is not only very effective, but can with the twist of a valve switch to a stream of water for a direct attack.
  
  Big fires, like the recent one onboard the USS Miami are very, very rare events. 99%+ percent of submarine fires are knocked down before they're of any size at all.
23. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  I hope they tried having two bagpipers playing on either side of the fire. Or, maybe they did, and it was the ensuing conflagration of the fire trying to put out the bagpipers that ended that line of inquiry...
24. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  I see, well then perhaps in applications where water isn't readily available such as ships and submarines. Airplanes, mines, or places where equipment is sensitive to water or fire retardent chemicals as in equipment rooms, certain factories and warehouses, server rooms, etc.
25. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Also, think about utility corridors in large building where an electrical fire or something of the sorts are a danger. Using gasses or toxic chemicals might present a danger to humans still inside the building. Mount a few rails with speakers connected and send them to the hot spot as needed.
  Or use something like this and line evacuation routes people would take in case of fire helping ensure an open escape path for longer periods of time.
  Then they would be known as boom bots.
26. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.
  Robot carrying speakers has to run back and forth dropping speakers. Speakers which are robots, much better.
  DARPA: Dubstep Advanced Remix Projects Agency
  Doubletime Acoustic Research Projects Agency.
  SRSLY How about piping the sound through the water stream?
27. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  I hope they tried having two bagpipers playing on either side of the fire. Or, maybe they did, and it was the ensuing conflagration of the fire trying to put out the bagpipers that ended that line of inquiry...
  Nothing puts out bagpipers; however, some are put out by bagpipers.
Now invent a machine that puts out politicians by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:21 · Score: 1, Funny

Seriously DARPA, get on to something we REALLY need.
Sonic Screwdrivers by Arancaytar · 2012-07-15 15:26 · Score: 2

Just around the corner.
1. Re:Sonic Screwdrivers by skine · 2012-07-15 18:13 · Score: 2
  
  Except that this works on wood.
Late night music by hundredrabh · 2012-07-15 15:28 · Score: 0

Cool, next time my neighbor complains about me playing music late at night.
Can I say I was trying to put out a fire?

--
--whacky
1. Re:Late night music by azalin · 2012-07-15 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Would it also work the other way around? Like in "sure we'll turn down the music as soon as the campfire/BBQ is going properly".
2. Re:Late night music by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 21:23 · Score: 0
  
  In other news the US air force has worked out how to extinguish sound, with fire!!
3. Re:Late night music by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Would it also work the other way around? Like in "sure we'll turn down the music as soon as the campfire/BBQ is going properly".
  Now we know why the fire took so long to get going properly.
high altitude by fonitrus · 2012-07-15 15:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

thin air on demand could be nice for high altitude training without going to the mountains and just make these simulated high altitude training centres in local urban areas. lowering the training costs for athletes both in travel and being away from family.
1. Re:high altitude by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  It would also be nice for the psychologists, hearing doctors, and soundproofers.
Anonymous Rockets! by TheBashar · 2012-07-15 15:40 · Score: 0

I freakin love unnamed rockets!
1. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · 2012-07-15 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  But how do you distinguish them if there are several versions?
2. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 19:26 · Score: 0
  
  Splashing soon into a Bank of America building near you.
3. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by rbrausse · 2012-07-16 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  unnamed, not unnumbered
4. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · 2012-07-16 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  But if you number it, isn't the number effectively the name? I mean "459134" doesn't have the same ring as "Hellfire" but it still is a unique alphanumeric identifier. Only harder to remember and more error prone. ("Fire two 445s is said! The training missiles! And you fired a 2445 TacNuke! We are all doomed...")
5. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · 2012-07-16 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  On a more amusing note, strapping four ICBMs under an Apache (or is it strapping an Apache on the ICBM?) might require the use of more than a few rolls of duct tape. That's a mental image to cherish.
Oh... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2012-07-15 15:46 · Score: 1

I guess that's why they never called me back. I just set fire to the speakers. OK, the sound extinguishes the *fire*, got it.

--
Mostly random stuff.
OOG ALREADY EXPERIMENT WITH THIS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 15:49 · Score: 1, Funny

OOG USE LOUDEST CAVEMAN NOISE - CAVEMAN FART - IN EXPERIMENT. OOG NOW KNOW FART NOISE COME FROM FIRE GAS. MANY DIED. EXPERIMENT A DISASTER.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:33 · Score: 0

Hence the expression
"come of baby light my fire"
Re:It also... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:43 · Score: 0

Does it remove incorrect apostrophes?
Re:It also... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:44 · Score: 0

Nope'
Sounds really.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:18 · Score: 0

(wait for it..) COOL
new retardant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:19 · Score: 0

... no new methods for extinguishing and/or manipulating fire in almost 50 years ...

I have heard of these devices in the last 30 years:
Someone invented a fire extinguisher that released glass dust. The dust melted in extreme heat and suffocated the fire.
Someone invented a high-volume atomizer with a wind fan attached. Its purpose was the same as a fire hose and the atomized water also cooled the flames.
More importantly, someone attached a hole-saw to a fire hose. So the hose could drill through metal walls (eg airplanes) and attack the fire inside.
Have any of these been commercially produced?
1. Re:new retardant by Tastecicles · 2012-07-16 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  problems:
  Aerosolised glass would lacerate the lung tissue of any who inhaled it. Commercial fail.
  Fire departments worldwide already use misters in situations where there's lots of hot smoke in a confined space (perfect conditions for a backdraft) - the idea being to cool the hot smoke, not kill the flames. Once you remove the heat source, the fire extinguishes itself. Aside from that, the last thing you need to introduce to a fire is a forced injection of oxygen which is what you'd be doing if you used an airfan to force the mist. Nozzle configuration is the important thing here.
  A hole saw to punch through an airplane skin? Overkill. Most aircraft skins can be penetrated using nothing more than a screwdriver - typically an airliner skin is 0.040" thick. Heck, you could punch through that with your fist.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Unfortunately... by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-15 17:27 · Score: 2

It also kills everyone within 100 meters of the fire.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:Unfortunately... by jamesh · 2012-07-15 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  It also kills everyone within 100 meters of the fire.
  But the fire does get extinguished, right? Don't bother us with the minor details.
2. Re:Unfortunately... by ldobehardcore · 2012-07-15 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  Dr. Zoidberg: I'll simply put you into a high-velocity centrifuge and centrifugal force will separate the denser king of Trisol out of your body.
  Fry: Won't that crush my bones!?
  Dr. Zoidberg: Ahhh, yes the bones... I always forget about the bones!
  Also:
  What was going to be a pleasant afternoon of drugs and surgery has not gone as planned. Well we still have three or four healthy co-workers with PLENTY of spare parts.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
3. Re:Unfortunately... by FhnuZoag · 2012-07-15 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  You joke, but I can't help but think of the military applications of being able to redirect or extinguish flames at will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0RvNVfT1Y
Re:It also... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:42 · Score: 0

I 'see.
My Fire Extinguisher goes to... by FlyingGuy · 2012-07-15 17:45 · Score: 1

Wait for it....
11

--
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
1. Re:My Fire Extinguisher goes to... by azalin · 2012-07-15 18:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Wait for it....
  11
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  Well, this time the .sig and the post align perfectly.
2. Re:My Fire Extinguisher goes to... by FlyingGuy · 2012-07-16 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  it is one of those rare occasions. I play guitar and my Fender Hot Rod Deville goes to 12 though.
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
MODERATORS MAKE OOG ANGRY by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:49 · Score: 0, Funny

OOG WONDER IF SOUND OF ME BREAKING HEAD OF MODERATORS WITH OPEN SOURCE CD WORK TO STOP FIRE. OOG DISCLOSURE OF EXPERIMENT RESULTS MANY THINGS BUT NOT OVERRATED.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered.
Prior art exists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 18:10 · Score: 1

Pfffft! Prior art exists! Sound extinguishes fire..i know it already.. dear wife yells and all my fire gets extinguished.
Extinguishing fires... by Gravis+Zero · 2012-07-15 18:30 · Score: 2

there's an app for that.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Now I see... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 18:35 · Score: 0

So that's what for fire brigade bands were all along!
dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 18:46 · Score: 1

...Navy just had a very expensive submarine fire...
I knew that. Now I feel bad. I suspect everyone that is here to read this has already at least heard about it seeing as it was here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1547241/fire-may-leave-us-nuclear-sub-damaged-beyond-repair
It is a sad day when an AC three quarters of the way down the page got it before anyone else. He should be modded insightful so everyone can smack themselves on the forehead for not noticing and feel bad as me about it.
With sound? by aglider · 2012-07-15 19:02 · Score: 0

It's actually with air! Or, better, with pressure waves in the air.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:With sound? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  Are you implying fire doesn't hear things as well?
  Dude, the guy already has a bad rep. as it is, don't do this to the poor fellow.
2. Re:With sound? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  You should probably look up the definition of sound.
Would you call it.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 19:04 · Score: 0

A sonic hammer, perhaps? Giggity.
Crowd control? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 19:42 · Score: 0

Taken this is developed by Darpa, I cannot stand thinking this is just a by product of some non-lethal weaponry research.
Vajk
50 years = a little over1 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 21:07 · Score: 0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/29/how-fight-fire-with-electricity circa 29th March 2011
It's not even that loud... by Sqr(twg) · 2012-07-15 21:11 · Score: 0

...says TFS while linking to a video of two speakers, each about four times the size of the flame. Given the low frequencies that such large speakers can produce, it's more about wind than sound. So DARPA figured out that you can put out a fire by blowing on it. That's tax money well spent.
1. Re:It's not even that loud... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  You're so dumb, you failed to understand the fucking summary. I've lost my faith in public education and the slashtards, simultaneously.
Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 21:58 · Score: 0

Ironically, the speakers are bumping songs from the band 'Air Supply'
Somewhere around 1969, Woodstock by pinkushun · 2012-07-15 23:05 · Score: 1

MC: Somebody call the medics, the crowd is on fire!
Hendrix: Hang on, I got this . . .
Cue Purple Haze
Somewhere deep inside DARPA ... by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-15 23:24 · Score: 1

Is a ST:TNG tech manual, carefully annotated and checkmarked.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Like oil fires by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-07-15 23:29 · Score: 1

Where they put them out by detonating sticks of dynamite above the burning well head. But on a much smaller and more manageable (albeit less fun) level.
Insect drones are fake. by Lumpy · 2012-07-15 23:48 · Score: 1

None of them have a power supply capable of running more than a few seconds if they even have a battery in them at all. the one in that photo is just an artist fapping his mind on a concept.
They cant break physics, and current batteries, even the high end NASA ones cant store enough power and be light and small enough to even make the wings on that thing move slightly.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:Insect drones are fake. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  You are perfectly correct, Sir or Madam. As a matter of fact Science has proven, long ago, that insect flight is merely an illusion - as heavier than air flight is _mathematically_ impossible! I'm glad a proper-thinking gentleperson such as yourself has risen to the fore to dispel such dismally benighted provocations from this excessively liesure-endowed encirclement of dilletantes. Well done, Sir or Madam!
2. Re:Insect drones are fake. by jaymemaurice · 2012-07-16 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think it won't be long until we have nanotech that will enable aerogel style chambers to contain lighter then air gas. Such a neutral boyant structure of a semi-conductor latice could also perform as a capacitor and maybe even have a photovoltaic exterrior and intigrated circuit inside. It's wings could also be used as a as a directional microphone diaphram
  
  --
  120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Atreides by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:47 · Score: 0

Anyone else envision future firetrucks to look like the sonic tanks in the game Dune II?
WHAT I COULDN'T HEAR YOU! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:50 · Score: 0

SPEAK UP! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Waht happens if by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:52 · Score: 0

There's feedback? Or, tone and synch wander a bit, under field conditions? And, you're adding vibrating (ory, yeah)energy to structures already weakened by heat and firedraft? Could the structure, at some point, mysteriously crumble? :)
I wouldn't use it on aircraft accident fires, probably. Forest fires might be ok. Just get a few megashow rigs placed around it. And a small pack of beowulfs to calculate wavefronts, check sensors, etc. Or just some Wii and m$oft audio sensing? Hmmm. I'd watch out for avalanches, though. And tons of fiery debris suddenly mexican-bean jumping hundreds of feet away. Or maybe that's just too poetic.
So, naaah! Nuthin to worry about!
Useful derivative by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:03 · Score: 0

Would be be a machine that could silence congress with sound. Forever.
Asspeaker syndrome by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:09 · Score: 0

I was told that I had "Asspeaker Syndrome" so I figured that I should make the most of it and put out fires using my Asspeaker.
Didn't end well I'm afraid, now my woofer is more of a tweeter and the fire went out of control.
Another DARPA invention by hessian · 2012-07-16 02:03 · Score: 1
The Internet. We should probably mention this, as well as a refresher:
- its - an irregular possessive. "The serial killer wants its victim now."
- it's - a contraction of it is. "It's time for the victim to step forward."
--
Futurist Traditionalism
Moar boost? by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-16 03:32 · Score: 1

I wonder if something like this could be used inside an engine's combustion chamber to prevent preignition. That could allow for more compression/boost.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's called a Weirding Module... by DarthVain · 2012-07-16 04:07 · Score: 1

Muaaaaaaaaaaaaad'Dib!
"Some thoughts have a certain sound, that being equivalent to a form. Through sound and motion, you will be able to paralyze nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs."
It seems logical if one word can set fires, another could put them out.
unnamed rockets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 19:57 · Score: 0

"unnamed rockets"?
Good job editing there.
Wave Mechanics are Tricksy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 23:14 · Score: 0

In the laboratory, a precise fire-quenching result has been achieved. But perhaps -- 0.0143 Hertz deviant from either chosen resonant frequency -- with the SAME apparatus there is an adjacent harmonic which not only increases air velocity, it channels and excites air flow between a zone of combustible material and a zone of oxygen supply (window, door, air vent) such that the application of sound raises the flame to white-hot godlike brilliance in a few milliseconds... melting the observer and thus sanctifying the experiment.
Firefighters of the future will deploy this apparatus and set the resonance pattern using an oily thumb resting against the scrollbar on a tiny window on a 4 inch screen of an Android phone.
And aside from the Operator who will be concentrating on keeping the oily thumb from slipping..., all other personnel will wisely evacuate the area.
1. Re:Wave Mechanics are Tricksy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  [same coward adds] consider the Texans' cherished method of extinguishing oil well fires with dynamite. The theoretical purist will recognize this as the injection of DC bias of sufficient magnitude into a complex multidimensional wave process.... the crude practician will note that given sufficient amplitude, a long fart will triumph over a Symphony.
good news for mac users by faargenwelsh · 2012-07-17 06:19 · Score: 1

Looks like there will be a new iPhone application in app store soon...
Now for the killer app: mosquitoes by Randym · 2012-07-17 23:26 · Score: 1

to insect-sized reconnaissance drones.
'The sound increases air velocity
Use four insect drones to 3D triangulate the position of mosquitoes, which have a unique visual signature in flight. Use a synchronized sound burst from three to push a mosquito directly into the path of a synchronized infrared laser pulse from the fourth, which heats and kills it. Repeat. Good-bye malaria.

--
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.