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.
-- 8th of 7, Jun 04 2011

Fire alarm Fire_20alarm
Inspired by [spider]'s annotation. [8th of 7, Jun 06 2011]

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.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 04 2011


I like both this and MaxwellBushanan's idea (the one with the camera)
-- Dickcheney6, Jun 05 2011


Simpler (and probably cheaper) to rig the button to a large incendiary charge, so the building burns down anyway, thus eliminating false alarms.
-- spidermother, Jun 05 2011


That we like.
-- 8th of 7, Jun 05 2011


[+] spidermother.
-- FlyingToaster, Jun 05 2011


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...
-- saedi, Jun 06 2011


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.
-- notmarkflynn, Jun 07 2011



random, halfbakery