Fire-quenching electric forcefield backpack invented
Boffins in America say they're on the track of a backpack electro-beam forcefield device capable of snuffing out raging fires without any need for water, hoses or other traditional firefighting apparatus. Apart from portable applications, they raise the possibility that the new technology might replace building sprinkler systems …
This topic is closed for new posts.
bombardier
Great, I look forward to reading about an entire office block of people being electrocuted when one of these things goes off by mistake.
the good news...
is that the fire is out.
the bad news is that all the disks were wiped by the e-field and everything else was cooked by back emf!
Star Trek already did it
The Enterprise-D would project a forcefield around a fire and let it burn out as the oxygen inside was consumed. Sounds like this is a similar idea.
Any thoughts on what it would do to a person's oxygen consumption? I can imagine this has potential applications as a future 'crowd-control' device.
It is not a similar idea
The electrical field is not snuffing out the oxygen nor is it starving the flame - actually, nobody knows how it does work. I suspect house elves myself, but I have no proof.
On the other hand, I must admit that, as a crowd-control device, a vast electrical field seems to fit the bill perfectly. Much like an omni-directional taser, one zap and a hundred people hit the ground writhing. Yep, sounds realistic. Much more than a magical flame-snuffing wand.
I'd be curious to see a video of that effect. The flame-snuffing, I mean. The crowd-control video will show up soon enough on YouTube, I wager.
forcefield
"Sounds like this is a similar idea"
Did we read the same article? My assumption was that a strong electrical field somehow supresses one of the many chemical interactions taking place in the fire. Your assumption was that the electrical field somehow completely re-writes the laws of physics, allowing pseudo-science from a completely fictional television show to become real.
Actually, I prefer your theory...
I'm Wondering About Prior Art
I recall a 1970s article in Popular Science showing an electrical flame suppressor. It was small, and the flame it was suppressing was even smaller, but the concept was there.
Obviously, it could have been using an entirely different process. But it would be interesting to compare and contrast.
Earliest ref. I can find (quickly) is from1985 ...
Physics and Astronomy
Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves
Volume 21, Number 4, 401-403, DOI: 10.1007/BF01463407
Effect of a constant electrical field on combustion of a propane-butane mixture with air
G. A. Gulyaev, G. A. Popkov and Yu. N. Shebeko
Some of the refs. are a lot older
Can I be the first to say
What ever you do, don't cross the beams.
Ghostbusters
So now when you have a fire you have a choice between the men with hoses and the men with electric backpacks. 'who ya gonna call?'
In that case, definitely don't cross the streams.
Somehow a high-volume water discharge meeting a high-voltage electric field doesn't strike me as the safest plan for all involved.
Don't cross the beams
Don't cross or sweep the BUILDINGS either... might pass some badddd current up and down...
600 W and a wand you say...
This sounds like something the BOFH would like to "customize"....
Paging Simon... Pagining Simon
Indeed... This device BEGS for a BOFH tale.
Glowing Bean Counters.
Halon + Electrical Field + Accountants.
@Adrian Challinor, lol
Love the Ghostbusters reference. :)
So muggle scientists (re-)discover the Put-Outer?
I would like to see a video of this.
Is it a cone-shaped projection from the wand? a spherical area? a beam? - in fact can you change the shape of the 'forcefield' at all? that could make a cool 'fire door' possible, only this one would move the curtain of fire to let people through.
Most of all - how come, after centuries of familiarity with fire, we are hearing about this now? As Chemist says above there are much older references to this sort of work, but has no-one been bothered by this before now.
Maybe it's because it's only fairly recently that electricity is available to use fairly readily.
Where does the fire go? is some alternate reality or dimension wondering where all these fires are coming from?
Why not have a playmobil rendition - it's time to un-dust those figures people!
ttfn
You've seen one - you've seen all of them
You just wave the wand and shout "Ignis exstinguo!"
Just like any other spell in Harry Potter movies...
Sprinkler system
I always thought that the sign of a good safety device was one that worked in the absence of something telling it not to. i.e, dead man's handles or engine governers.
Sprinkler systems work through water pressure, but this new device will require electricity. I may be wrong, but their version (while very cool) sounds like it has the most potential to fail in its duty.
Perhaps..............
......... They could combine the new tecnologies, have the water sprinklers as a backup.
Imagine the fine of getting both to go off at the same time..... Simon?
Real dead man's handles ...
... require so much force to operate that only a dead man with severe rigor mortis can hold one down for a full working day. Fortunately the railway companies provide a satchel full of weighty tomes that describe who gets the blame for every conceivable type of accident. The satchel has a handy strap that loops over a dead man's handle, and allows a driver to work a full shift.
Needs electricity?
Oh come on, who in their right mind would design a major safety system that *required* electricity to function?
I mean, hell, can you imagine someone proposing that for, say, a nuclear power station?
Oh.
Re: Real dead man's handles ...
I think you'll find that most modern "Dead man" devices work on the principle of repeatedly pressing and releasing a small switch, usually mounted on the throttle / speed controller. Precisely to stop people from weighting down the switch, and defeating the whole point of the thing.
Or they did last time I drove a train. Circa 1992.
STOP. That's what it is supposed to do.
REAL Dead man's handles
Then, in that case, the dead man has to be animated (or, electrically REanimated) to keep jabbing that button...
Correction to AC @13:26
"Oh come on, who in their right mind would design a major safety system that *required* electricity to function?
I mean, hell, can you imagine someone proposing that for, say, a nuclear power station?"
Jumping the nuclear fearmongering isn't good taste. So, here's a correction for you: the nuclear power station that you're referring to had its "safety system" work flawlessly: the control rods were slammed into place and stopped the nuclear reaction. Now, as for the COOLING system, that has the obvious power requirement to keep the liquids moving. Now, if you can come up with a way to keep liquid, in a closed system, circulating with no outside power requirements, I'm sure there's a long list of people who would like to talk to you.
Back to the real world, the cooling system has 4 tiers or power requirements: grid power, generator power, battery power, and plug-in generator power. Only the battery power worked. Generators that could plug into the system could not be sourced in the 8hr battery-operating window. Now, they could dump sea-water into the system, as they did, as a "safety system" backup for the cooling. It is unclear whether this is generator-powered pumped, or more of a water-pressure-based system.
So no, you're attempt at a joke is both in bad taste and wrong. Sorry.
Bad taste
Of course it was in bad taste, didn't you see the icon?
The rest of the discussion belongs in other threads, where I've made very similar comments to yours,although I disagree on the ability to make passive cooling systems. They exist. Isn't anonymity fun.
Gravity & density differences
"if you can come up with a way to keep liquid, in a closed system, circulating with no outside power requirements..." - see back-boilers, which work by convection. Not only for liquids: domestic radiators give off most of their heat by convection, not, as the name would suggest, by radiation.
Erm...
" Now, if you can come up with a way to keep liquid, in a closed system, circulating with no outside power requirements, I'm sure there's a long list of people who would like to talk to you."
Steam turbines or steam pistons.
Reminds me of school
I remember a physics experiment at school where you had to map the electric field around a sphere by measuring the deflection of a small flame. The reason that it stick in my memory is that the sphere used was a plastic ball covered in a metallic paint, and despite the strong exhortations to not measure too closely, at least one person would destroy the ball each time the experiment was run...
That's got to be a few years ago now, though
So if you can use an electric field to put out a fire...
...then I can use a magnetic field to start a fire! Mwha ha, Mwha ha ha, Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Witness the power of Magnet Boy!
I can do that
Method is to use a magnetic field to create charge separation and when the potential difference is large enough to overcome the dielectric, you send it to a pointy thing, and Bob's your uncle.
What about the heat energy?
Assuming these "unknown" forces can extinguish a flame, the actual flame in a burning building is only half the problem. Hot gasses are what ignites other flammable objects. How would this pulse of electricity remove all that heat energy?
E.g. if you pointed this device at a Bunsen burner, it might knock out the flame. Gas would still be released. If you knocked out the flame on a red hot burning timber, the flame would almost instantly reignite becasue the temperature of the wood itself and surroundings.
Best guess
My best guess is that it operates on the electrons - oxygen is rather electronegative, so by electron saturating the fuel you make it harder for the oxygen to react with it. It'll be a temporary effect, however if you can drop the heat for even a fraction of a second it's often enough as you need energy to keep the combustion going. As an example, stick a Bunsen burner on, then quickly kill and restart the gas supply.
Of course that causes a secondary problem (a room full of combustable gas) but in general fire fighters know that it's better to leave something like that to burn whilst you turn it off, rather than blow it out and wait for the explosion.
Summat like this?
Extinction of Flames in a Nonuniform Electric Field http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777865619
That's a bit wordy. Personally, I prefer 'KZZZZRRRTTT!'
De Forest?
Isn't that much the same physics that applies within a thermionic valve?
Space
The real benefit will be for spacecraft, fires are major problem for ships and aircraft.
In space the problem goes up another level.
Not having to carry lots of extinguishing material or refill the material will be of major benefit for space missions, especially deep space missions where a resupply is not possible.
I can see major space companies watching this with great interest.
Surely though...
In space missions, it would just be easier to seal bulkheads and pump out the atmosphere?
What if....
The fire is in the bulkhead and there is only one exit? As in most spacecraft.
The other issue is time, the faster the fire is extinguished the better, sealing the bulkheads may take time you may not have.
I get your point, but venting should be a last resort.
Just shut off the ventilators
My recollection is that, since hot air doesn't rise in zero-g, simply shutting off the ventilators allows a fire to build a sphere of CO/CO2 around itself, snuffing itself out pretty quickly.
...Which is not to say that I wouldn't want a backup system, in case the fire was keeping me from getting to the fan's "off" switch, but I'm just saying, in general...
Hmmm
Possibly, although if it only works on burning carbon, that's a limitation. Space ships fire would often involve more exotic fuels hydrogen or metals.
The theory is still valid for any x0/x02
The first problem is when the fire is in your 02 source, which given the nature of current spacecraft design, is highly likely. The second problem is that even if you put the fire out, if the fire consumes too much of your 02 source, you're still dead before you can land again. You need some minimum amount of braking thrust, and that 02 is critical for that.
Speaking of DeForest, and spacecraft
McCoy: Dear Lord... what if... this thing were use where live already exISTED?
Spock: If would preCLUDE such life in favor of its new MATRIX.
McCoy: Its "new MATRIX"? Do you realize what you're saying?
Spoc: I was not attempting to ascertain the MORAL implications... Really Doctor..
McCoy: You GREEN BLOODED, INHUMAN...
Savvik: Admiral!
It's all in the charge.
Flames are in effect plasma and these streams of ions can be controlled by a EMF field.
Think of those negative ion devices some IT engineers put near their servers to direct dust away from intake fans?
Be nice to see a video of this theory in practise.
Can I Be The First To Say
Don't Snuff me, bro!
Actually I can see the device using the acronym SNUFF
large electric fields...
For all the electric sheep?
I must be dreaming again.
Android icon obviously...
Forest fires
Wonder if this would scale to large mobile units that could be used to control forest fires
A flash-bang generator
As others have noted, though it might quell flames this device wouldn't cool burning timbers etc.. In such situations combustible gas will presumably continue to be released until some of other fortuitous circumstance leads to its ignition; a process which is likely to be, er, swift and sudden.
This topic is closed for new posts.
