h a l f b a k e r yWhere life imitates science.
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,
|
|
|
Emergency sprinklers in buildings are
pretty basic. when the room gets hot
enough, the low-melt plug in the
sprinklers melt, and water comes out
spraying everything without prejudice.
Robotics has come far enough that one
can be designed to be fixed from the
ceiling and used to single
out fires. If
only
one cubicle is on fire, why ruin all the
others right by it.
the robot would have an thermal camera
that constantly scans the room. When an
alarm is sounded, or when the robot
detects a fire, it aims a robotic arm with
a
hose on it, and directs the water towards
the fire. just as security cameras can
also
be human-controlled, a human
controller,
maybe the security guard trained for this,
can take over this now remote-controlled
fire extinguishing robot.
With having the water directed only
where
you want it to go, the fire will be
impeded
or handled faster and from a better
vantage point than hand held fire
extinguishers.
it should also be able to release fire
extinguishing gas.
not a robot on wheels. able to be
deployed immediately.
[link]
|
| |
how about: the water stream would be
spread across with an adjustable diameter,
averaging with a 6 foot diameter water
spray stream. |
|
| |
it would be more useful to direct 20
gallons per minute into the fire itself (and
a surrounding area) than spray 5 gallons
per minute, everywhere. |
|
| |
Twich, I enjoy the fact that you have made an attempt to post an idea that has some good possibility to it. If you keep posting ideas that follow this nature you might start to see some +'s going your way. |
|
| |
I think of the HB as such: This is not my house, I am a mere guest. I should treat the HB how I would like my own home treated, with respect. Some of the bakers on this site have been here for a long time and have gone past the status of being just a guest, they have become family. |
|
| |
People like you and I or other noobs need to respect the fact that we are allowed to "stay" in the HB home. Yes it is fun to get a rise out of people, but not at the cost of ruining something others have worked hard to build. |
|
| |
Nobody is perfect, you WILL have good ideas as well as bad ones. |
|
| |
thx Chefboy. i'm also just happy to see
more buns than bones on this one. i've
had this one in my head for months. |
|
| |
good one, the tech is available but most buildings only want to scrape by the fire safety standards to save money. The only problems i see with this are
1)What if there is a large or multiple fires?
2) if the above, how sophisticated are you willing to get with the software for identifying hazards, etc.
I think this is a good idea but there are little flaws. |
|
| |
software to be as rudimentary as
possible to be robust in an emergency
situation. will identify fires, guage their
intensity and distance, put the closest
fire out first, |
|
| |
sprinkler lines have to be installed
throughout the whole building so
multiple robotic sprinklers can be put at
calculated vantage points. |
|
| |
cost? compare the cost of an outfit like
this, to the cost of lost information on
computers and paper when the regular
sprinklers soggy up everything. this
could be even more catastrophic for a
company. depending on the company,
thousands of dollars more per day
could be saved, considering for a
smaller fire, water damage could have
actually done more damage than the
fire itself. |
|
| |
How about fitting it with multiple extinglishants? They could all come up the hose (yes, hose, since it moves) the water comes up, so no extra tanks or hoses. Extinglishants may include: |
|
| |
(Someone told me about the downsides for these. Accuracy not guaranteed.) |
|
| |
* Dry Chemical Powder - For Small to medium fires. The stuff in most extinglishers today. Use where there are people and lots of non waterproof things are located. Downside: it's corrosive, so blow out insides of electronics after use. |
|
| |
* Halon Gas - For small fires. Downside: Bad for environment. I would actually leave this out. |
|
| |
* CO2 Gas - For small fires. And it isn't bad for humans... |
|
| |
* Water - For big fires. We know what the downsides are here... |
|
| |
The advantage here is, depending on the scenario and size of fire, a suitable extinglishant can be used. For instance, in an office building. If the fire is in one cubicle, a dry chemical or CO2 could be used, depending on the size of the fire. That way, non-incinerated paper and electronics aren't destroyed. Usually, though, the Dry Chem makes a mess that is a pain to completely clean up. BIG fires still need water... |
|
| |
<pictures it patrolling non-smoking areas> |
|
| |
this would be useful for places unattended
at night but where electronics/other still
represent a fire hazard. Also, where
chemicals are involved that prevent a
bystander with a fire extinguisher from
attempting, because of fumes. |
|
| |
How about a grid of sprinkler outputs on the ceiling, each with a controllable nozzle? Then, the output from each sprinkler is set to be proportional to the heat of the floor underneath it, as measured on an IR image of the whole floor. Be careful to shield that boiling hot cup of tea on your desk... |
|
| |
To a certain extent sprinkler systems already do this. Only the sprinkler heads that are exposed to heat/fire actually sprinkle. |
|
| |
With regards to the extinguishants: |
|
| |
Halon is now a banned substance. In replacement, FM-200 is now used. All humans who have any sort of will to live must be clear of the area before these gasses are triggered. |
|
| |
CO2 is still pretty bad for humans (suffocation) but exposure to small amounts will not do lasting damage. |
|
| |
Dry powder makes a BIG messs and it would be questionable if you would actually be able to clean some stuff adequately. |
|
| |
With regards to water, the fire brigade and many extinguishers now use AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Of course, plain water is still used but AFFF is more effective for many types of fires. |
|
| |
Looks like my Fire Warden training for work came to some use ;-) |
|
| |
Some more modern sprinkler systems use finer droplets for a greater cooling and smothering effect for less water delivered. The domestic installations that you can now get tend to follow this method. |
|
| |
Foam can be almost as destructive and some forms are very bad for the environment if they run off into local watercourses, aquifers and the drainage system. |
|
| |
I vote for: I just want to see the chaos that ensues when the system starts playing up and randomly dousing people in foam, water and various chemical substances |
|
| |
A small office building was engulfed in flames today when the thermal camera attached to the robotic fire suppression system shorted out, igniting the blaze. |
|
| |
There were no injuries, but the building was a total loss. Film at 11:00 |
|
| |
If water and carbon dioxide are both bad
for fires, |
|
| |
what about extinguishing fires with club
soda... |
|
| |