h a l f b a k e r yResults not typical.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In highrise fires, sometimes ladder trucks
can't get high enough to extinguish
flames, but the building next to it might
be. Tall buildings that are built close
together can collaborate on installing a
fire hose every so many floors so that if a
fire breaks out in a tall building, the
adjacent
building(s) can be there to help.
Training will be given to make sure that
there is always somebody who can operate
it until the firemen arrive. The fire alarm
in one building will also notify the other
buildings of the fire.
The advantages of this would be that there
can be an immediate response and the
water can be shot from a better vantage
point. The disadvantages would be that
they can only fight the fire and would not
be able to rescue people, also a lack of
training might cause them to make poor
decisions on how to use the fire hoses.
Ian Tindale's earlier idea
Urban_20Water_20Trebuchet
Two approaches to the same problem. [Canuck, Dec 06 2006]
Chef's Tree Be Gone
Tree_20Be_20Gone
Holidays and highly flammable materials. [Canuck, Dec 07 2006]
[link]
|
| |
Uh.... [Twitch] they have fire hoses in just about every building made these days(and for many many years), as well as connections for the fire department to hook up hoses to a dedicated fire standpipe, these are normally located in the stairwells or near the elevator shafts. I think this is really baked. |
|
| |
I don't think that's quite what [twitch] means. You would have equipment in adjacent buildings for the sole purpose of fighting a fire next door. I envision turret style hoses on balconies strategically placed for maximum coverage. If The hoses were mounted the pressure could be high enough to reach the other buildings. Maintenance crews could be trained to operate them.+ |
|
| |
I thought this idea sounded somewhat familiar... |
|
| |
I admit many times other ideas here
provide me with inspiration, but what is
HB if ideas that solve similar problems
are not allowed to evolve? Thanks
pydor for noting another advantage:
mounting the fire hose will allow for
higher pressures out of the nozzle.
jhomrighaus, did you read the whole
thing? |
|
| |
The water trebuchet has certain
advantages such as being able to
withstand the winds that wildfires, or
forest fires cause. It would more
effectively reach into the heart of fires
that are out of control better than
conventional fire hoses. In urban
settings however, it might jeopardize
rescue efforts by blocking entries or
exits. It might cause a blast of steam
that cooks people and that causes wild
pressure changes. |
|
| |
I did, I think you are only proposing a slightly different use which frankly really wouldn't work all that well if at all, you would either have to have so many fire fighting positions as to be stupid in order to cover all the possible areas of a building, also you would only be able to fight fires on the very edge of a building, you would not be able to adjust angle of attack(fire on left of window and your position means only putting water to right of window means no benefit) Most modern buildings do not have opening windows which would mean that many fires may not be able to be attacked from the exterior. This is also useless for any building that is taller than even one of it neighbors. This also provides no benefit after hours and in general I suspect that by the time a fire is bad enough that it could be fought by a hose from across the street that that type of fire fighting will be ineffective and the professionals will need to be on the scene. |
|
| |
Any amount of minutes of getting water
onto a fire is useful time spent. If there
are people in the building, you can
create a soggy room for them to stay in
until they can get rescued. |
|
| |
This setup need not be some gigantic
turret. The regular hose that is used for
internal fires can be used, dragged out
to the window which will pop open for
this purpose and attached to a small
but sturdy turret. That's it. It's not only
water on the fire, but a set of eyes that
might be very useful for firemen saving
lives. |
|
| |
The energy problem is still the same - the water has to rise to the same height from the ground. |
|
| |
//The energy problem is still the same
- the water has to rise to the same
height from the ground.// |
|
| |
The energy problem is not the same.
You forget the factor that the earlier
you get to the fire, the less water you
have to use. This idea was designed to
be the earliest and first responder,
severely reducing the work that firemen
have to do, so that they can more
concentrate on saving lives if any are in
danger. |
|
| |
I like this idea, in fact i like most ideas that allow people and designers to take a proactive stance on things like fire control, etc. Kind of like making sure people/companies have 1st aid kits and defibulators (sp?), and know how to use them. |
|
| |
However I really don't see why we have such an issue in modern office/residential highrise buildings. Steel/Aluminium/concrete frame buildings, with fire resistant insulation, wiring, fixtures, panneling, etc. The only real fuel for a fire would be the contents ie furniture, files, flooring, etc.. A decent deluge sprinkler system should be able to extinguish any fire in the contents of a room. Why/how do we get fires in buildings of this type. |
|
| |
I really think that a building should be set up to be completely independent for fire fighting. Automated sprinkler systems for residential/office. Industrial buildings should have automated inergen/CO2/nitrogen based extinguishing systems. This is not to make fire departments obsolete (hell knows they have enough to worry about), but it would be good if their job was to rescue people and assist the automated fire systems, instead of having to actually put the fire out manually, putting themselves at risk needlessly. |
|
| |
-maybe that's just the way I think. |
|
| |
One thing that should definitely be banned from any building is Chefboyrbored's steel wool Christmas tree powered by a 9-volt battery (if you are confused, see link). |
|
| |
//This setup need not be some gigantic turret.// |
|
| |
Yes it does. Think with your Tim Allen brain, not your logical brain. |
|
| |
Steel wool and a 9V battery has been my preference over matches for years! I didn't realize that people still use that combination. |
|
| |
Anyhow I am not so sure that I would feel comfortable trusting my life with the night watchman at the neighboring building. Maybe water on a fire early on is better than letting it burn, but lets say that I have an electrical fire in my office and I have my own Halon extinguisher and I am about to put it out. And then all of a sudden, here comes the over zealous night watchman from next door shooting a stream of city grade H20 through the window that I opened for ventilation. He is honestly trying to help me when he is causing me more harm. |
|
| |
Also the problem that I have with the fire alarms being connected is that it provides an unnecessary nuissance to the neighbors in the event that there is a false alarm. You can take a "better safe than sorry" stance when the fire alarm malfunctions in your own building but it would be terrible to evacuate 2 or 3 surrounding building over something that does not affect them directly. |
|
| |
The connected alarms doesn't mean that
both buildings have to evacuate, it only
means that the other building's personnel
is alerted of the situation and can act
appropriately. I'm sure rules can be
provided in training as to how big a fire
has to be for the next building to attempt
to extinguish it. Maybe we can shoot
vortex rings of halon instead.. naaaah. |
|
| |