Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Creates Machine Which Extinguishes Fires With Sound

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

61 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Who knew that naming a rocket... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...would be so difficult?

    1. Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... by Samantha+Wright · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Trogre · · 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
  2. DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by Shandon · · 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 · · 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 Joce640k · · 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...
    3. Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? by BronsCon · · 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.
  3. Rockets? by GodGell · · 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
  4. CO2? by sonamchauhan · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 sumdumass · · 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.

    5. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:CO2? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Or next time a wildfire approaches my house, I'll just stick speakers out the window and start playing loud music.

    7. Re:CO2? by DarwinSurvivor · · 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.

    8. Re:CO2? by icebrain · · 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.
    9. Re:CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re:CO2? by PPalmgren · · 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?

    11. Re:CO2? by DerekLyons · · 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.)

    12. Re:CO2? by treeves · · 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.
    13. Re:CO2? by schlachter · · 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.
    14. Re:CO2? by magsk · · 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.

    15. Re:CO2? by Unkyjar · · 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."

    16. Re:CO2? by Unkyjar · · 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."

    17. Re:CO2? by DerekLyons · · 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.

  5. Now invent a machine that puts out politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seriously DARPA, get on to something we REALLY need.

  6. Sonic Screwdrivers by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    Just around the corner.

    1. Re:Sonic Screwdrivers by skine · · Score: 2

      Except that this works on wood.

  7. high altitude by fonitrus · · 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.

  8. Oh... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · 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.
  9. OOG ALREADY EXPERIMENT WITH THIS by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Unfortunately... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    It also kills everyone within 100 meters of the fire.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by jamesh · · 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 · · 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 · · 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

  11. My Fire Extinguisher goes to... by FlyingGuy · · 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 · · 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 · · 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!
  12. Prior art exists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pfffft! Prior art exists! Sound extinguishes fire..i know it already.. dear wife yells and all my fire gets extinguished.

  13. Re:Late night music by azalin · · 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".

  14. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · · Score: 1

    But how do you distinguish them if there are several versions?

  15. Extinguishing fires... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    there's an app for that.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  16. dammit by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  17. Somewhere around 1969, Woodstock by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    MC: Somebody call the medics, the crowd is on fire!
    Hendrix: Hang on, I got this . . .
    Cue Purple Haze

  18. Somewhere deep inside DARPA ... by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
  19. Like oil fires by Ukab+the+Great · · 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.

  20. Insect drones are fake. by Lumpy · · 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 jaymemaurice · · 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
  21. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by rbrausse · · Score: 1

    unnamed, not unnumbered

  22. Another DARPA invention by hessian · · 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
  23. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · · 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...")

  24. Re:Anonymous Rockets! by azalin · · 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.

  25. Re:didnet the mythbusters do this?? by GameboyRMH · · 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
  26. Moar boost? by GameboyRMH · · 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
  27. Re:new retardant by Tastecicles · · 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.
  28. It's called a Weirding Module... by DarthVain · · 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.

  29. good news for mac users by faargenwelsh · · Score: 1

    Looks like there will be a new iPhone application in app store soon...

  30. Now for the killer app: mosquitoes by Randym · · 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.