h a l f b a k e r yIf you need to ask, you can't afford it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Looks like a conventional fire alarm call point - "Break Glass, Push Button".
The head of the pushbutton is a fingerprint reader cell. When the button is pressed, it scans for a fingerprint. If the button is being pressed with something that's not a finger (pen, stick, gloved hand) then the unit sends
a "Tamper" signal to the main panel.
If a fingerprint pattern is detected, then the alarm sounds, but the scan data is transmitted via the wiring back to the control panel and stored in a thermally-hardened flash drive, or transmitted externally via a WAN.
This will deter malicious false alarms.
Fire alarm
Fire_20alarm
Inspired by [spider]'s annotation. [8th of 7, Jun 06 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Lots of people, I suspect, are nervous about
breaking glass, and would tend to pull their cuffs
over their fingers to activate the alarm. |
|
| |
Simpler (and probably cheaper) to have a cheap
cell-phone style camera in each fire alarm. When
the alarm is pressed, the camera takes a photo. |
|
| |
If the building (and the cameras) burn down, then
it wasn't a false alarm and you don't really need to
know who triggered it. |
|
| |
I like both this and MaxwellBushanan's idea (the one with the camera) |
|
| |
Simpler (and probably cheaper) to rig the button to a large incendiary charge, so the building burns down anyway, thus eliminating false alarms. |
|
| |
Could also have a insulin style spring loaded needle. Taking a DNA sample, photo and finger print would make it easier to identify people. If it was a real fire, could also have a sound recorder to record their last words... Just in case of course... |
|
| |
I feel like this is actually a harmful idea. The whole point behind a fire alarm is that it's a quick way to alert everyone in a building of a fire. Take away the "quick" aspect with a fingerprint scan, and you're removing seconds of time that could mean someone's life. |
|
| |
I can think of a handful of situations where this could be dangerous: your hands are sooty/otherwise dirty, or covered in protective gear, you don't have time to stand for the scan because of the danger involved, a poor scan or perhaps someone without finger prints (super irony points awarded if it's because you're a burn victim), smoke or soot obscures scanner before the finger can be pressed... |
|
| |
It's a nice idea behind the invention, but I wouldn't want one where I work. |
|
| |