DARPA Creates Machine Which Extinguishes Fires With Sound

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."

Comments

DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now?

[Shandon]

The Mythbusters did that already, in Episode 76 (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode76). So we know that works already...

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now?

[Joce640k]

it's been a topic of research since 1900

Mythbusters don't do research, they only do experiments.

Obligatory XKCD

Rockets?

[GodGell]

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

CO2?

[sonamchauhan]

"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.

Re:CO2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quenching a fire in a submarine would probably be far less problematic if you could use sound instead of gases.

Re:CO2?

[Unkyjar]

"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

Re:CO2?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:CO2?

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:CO2?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:CO2?

[DarwinSurvivor]

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.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket...

[Samantha Wright]

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.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket...

[million_monkeys]

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.

Re:My Fire Extinguisher goes to...

[azalin]

Wait for it....

11

Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!

Well, this time the .sig and the post align perfectly.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket...

[Samantha Wright]

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!