Great, I look forward to reading about an entire office block of people being electrocuted when one of these things goes off by mistake.
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 …
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
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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!
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.
... 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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022