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.
-- twitch, Dec 05 2006

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]

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.
-- jhomrighaus, Dec 06 2006


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.+
-- pydor, Dec 06 2006


I thought this idea sounded somewhat familiar...
-- Canuck, Dec 06 2006


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.
-- twitch, Dec 06 2006


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.
-- jhomrighaus, Dec 06 2006


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.
-- twitch, Dec 06 2006


The energy problem is still the same - the water has to rise to the same height from the ground.
-- BunsenHoneydew, Dec 06 2006


//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.
-- twitch, Dec 06 2006


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.
-- Custardguts, Dec 07 2006


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).
-- Canuck, Dec 07 2006


//This setup need not be some gigantic turret.//

Yes it does. Think with your Tim Allen brain, not your logical brain.
-- shapu, Dec 08 2006


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.
-- Jscotty, Dec 08 2006


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.
-- twitch, Dec 09 2006



random, halfbakery