Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Hose manipulation with multiple jets of liquid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hose manipulation with multiple jets of liquid

    I recently patented a device for the computer aided remote manipulation of the flexible hose.

    Article with the description of the invention is published on the link:
    http://www.fireproductsearch.com/new...ets-of-liquid/

    YouTube video of first tests with a prototype of one unit:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=xlVOkGOAVi4

    I'm looking forward to receive the opinions (good or bad) from the people that have actual experience with firefighting.
    I'm also kindly asking you to try to be open-minded and avoid judging the idea based only on the existing firefighting equipment and tactics.

    Thanks in advance :-)

    Independent Innovator Davor Eberl
    Last edited by DavorE; 10-23-2015, 01:42 AM.

  • #2
    Sorry, I see absolutely no use for this in interior structural firefighting. Nothing is more efficient than a well trained, experienced hose team that gets copius amounts of water onto the seat of the fire in an efficient, orderly military manner.

    This seems like some expensive gimmick that will create more water damage to the interior of a building than anything else. I'm sure that some Volunteer Department with more money than brains will order 10 of them however. Good luck to you.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

    Comment


    • #3
      How does the hose advance into the fire area? Can the water jets do that or are they just there to make it hover?

      How do you get it to go around corners, up stairs, etc?

      How will the water jets be affected when the firefighting water is applied? Or is it the same water used for both with hose hovering at ceiling level? Fire suppression is most effective when small drops of water are introduced at upper levels of compartment.

      How many of these devices would be necessary to support the full length of a hose stretch? In urban environment that could be hundreds of feet.

      How quickly can hose be deployed? Time factor is critical in firefighting.

      In short, you've found a way to make a hose hover. There's a lot more that needs to happen in order to fight fires.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FWDbuff View Post
        Sorry, I see absolutely no use for this in interior structural firefighting. Nothing is more efficient than a well trained, experienced hose team that gets copius amounts of water onto the seat of the fire in an efficient, orderly military manner.

        This seems like some expensive gimmick that will create more water damage to the interior of a building than anything else. I'm sure that some Volunteer Department with more money than brains will order 10 of them however. Good luck to you.
        No doubt about the efficiency of a well trained, experienced hose team. I'm sure that no gadget can replace those brave men. But aren't they sometimes faced with the situation, when it is too dangerous or even imposible to enter the room where the source of fire is located? Aren't they sometimes forced to fight the fire from outside? Since the water jet cannot go around the corners, I'm wondering how efficiently the water is used in such situations and what is the water damage?

        Comment


        • #5
          Miss read the title and thought it said HORSE Manipulation with multiple jets of liquid. Thought some of the facebook horse porn guys were on here too.
          ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by fire5555
            not sure if could be used for firefighting. There are to many variables at a fire scene.

            Maybe some other industrial application? But, it seems like similar technology is already out there?
            Please let me know if you were able to find something similar. Me and my patent attorney couldn't and neither did the International Search Authority of WIPO. The essence and the main difference from the existing similar devices is the fact that jets are distributed along the whole length of the hose and not only at its end. This is what makes the difference and considerably extends the access range.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by captnjak View Post
              How does the hose advance into the fire area? Can the water jets do that or are they just there to make it hover?

              How do you get it to go around corners, up stairs, etc?

              How will the water jets be affected when the firefighting water is applied? Or is it the same water used for both with hose hovering at ceiling level? Fire suppression is most effective when small drops of water are introduced at upper levels of compartment.

              How many of these devices would be necessary to support the full length of a hose stretch? In urban environment that could be hundreds of feet.

              How quickly can hose be deployed? Time factor is critical in firefighting.

              In short, you've found a way to make a hose hover. There's a lot more that needs to happen in order to fight fires.
              The hose can advance into the fire area by rotating the nozzles slightly backwards. In this way, a longitudinal component of the thrust force drives the hose forward, while the vertical component needed for hovering is kept unchanged.
              The outer sleeve can rotate around the inner sleeve. In this way the jets and corresponding thrust forces can be directed in arbitrary direction. This allows us to move the hose forward/backward, sideways or up and down. The hose can go around the corner by rotating some of the jets and their thrust forces accordingly so that the hose bends.

              I have no answer (yet) to some of your questions because we are still in the prototype / R & D phase. I'm aware that making the hose hover is not all that has to be done but the Rome wasn't built in a day. Seing only too many problems and never trying to resolve them would never bring us where we are today. Would you agree?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DavorE View Post
                The hose can advance into the fire area by rotating the nozzles slightly backwards. In this way, a longitudinal component of the thrust force drives the hose forward, while the vertical component needed for hovering is kept unchanged.
                The outer sleeve can rotate around the inner sleeve. In this way the jets and corresponding thrust forces can be directed in arbitrary direction. This allows us to move the hose forward/backward, sideways or up and down. The hose can go around the corner by rotating some of the jets and their thrust forces accordingly so that the hose bends.

                I have no answer (yet) to some of your questions because we are still in the prototype / R & D phase. I'm aware that making the hose hover is not all that has to be done but the Rome wasn't built in a day. Seing only too many problems and never trying to resolve them would never bring us where we are today. Would you agree?
                Yes I would agree.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by fire5555
                  do you know what the weight of a gallon of water is?

                  do you know the weight of a few sections of hose with water in it??

                  seems like you would need big jets, to keep the hose off the ground, and to even try to move it forward.


                  Like I said your idea may have some other application, but firefighting is not one of them.

                  How are you going to get all the components to withstand the heat?
                  I found on the Internet that 1 US gallon weights 3.78 kg.
                  The weight of a few sections of hose with water probably mostly depends on the variable that you call "few". Otherwise, this is something that can probably be calculated or measured. I can't see your point here.
                  In the article published on the www.fireproductsearch.com, you can find the relevant physical background that was used for the feasibility calculations. It is explained there, that required size of jets also depends a lot on the pressure of the water in the hose and not only on the weight of the device.
                  Probably you already saw the videos with cars and people being lifted in the air by the thrust forces of multiple jets from firefighting hoses. If the hose itself is the only thing that has to be lifted, wouldn't you agree that this should be a lot easier to achieve.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DavorE View Post
                    I found on the Internet that 1 US gallon weights 3.78 kg.
                    The weight of a few sections of hose with water probably mostly depends on the variable that you call "few". Otherwise, this is something that can probably be calculated or measured. I can't see your point here.
                    In the article published on the www.fireproductsearch.com, you can find the relevant physical background that was used for the feasibility calculations. It is explained there, that required size of jets also depends a lot on the pressure of the water in the hose and not only on the weight of the device.
                    Probably you already saw the videos with cars and people being lifted in the air by the thrust forces of multiple jets from firefighting hoses. If the hose itself is the only thing that has to be lifted, wouldn't you agree that this should be a lot easier to achieve.
                    Those videos of cars being lifted are all being done so with 4 or 5 lines, all being pumped at pressures well beyond usable interior tactical firefighting pressures.

                    Your earlier reply to me asked about "what if one room was deemed dangerous and an unmanned line would be needed?" It doesn't work like that. We enter buildings and push fire from the un-burned side into the burned side. And if conditions dictate an evacuation, it's generally an "all or nothing" kind of deal- you pull out of the whole building. Structural collapse isn't selective or centralized- if the burned portion collapses, the whole building goes with it. Therefore an exterior attack (Defensive operation) is used. Additionally you failed to address the ensuing water damage coming from all of the jets. We like to limit the application of our water to the seat of the fire as best as we can- (there always is a little leakage from our couplings but not the hundreds of gallons from all of these propulsion jets....)

                    As stated, there is no comprehensible use for this in structural firefighintg. Why don't you market this to the agricultural industry- looks like it may work great for crop irrigation.
                    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FWDbuff View Post
                      Those videos of cars being lifted are all being done so with 4 or 5 lines, all being pumped at pressures well beyond usable interior tactical firefighting pressures.

                      Your earlier reply to me asked about "what if one room was deemed dangerous and an unmanned line would be needed?" It doesn't work like that. We enter buildings and push fire from the un-burned side into the burned side. And if conditions dictate an evacuation, it's generally an "all or nothing" kind of deal- you pull out of the whole building. Structural collapse isn't selective or centralized- if the burned portion collapses, the whole building goes with it. Therefore an exterior attack (Defensive operation) is used. Additionally you failed to address the ensuing water damage coming from all of the jets. We like to limit the application of our water to the seat of the fire as best as we can- (there always is a little leakage from our couplings but not the hundreds of gallons from all of these propulsion jets....)

                      As stated, there is no comprehensible use for this in structural firefighintg. Why don't you market this to the agricultural industry- looks like it may work great for crop irrigation.
                      Regarding the car being lifted with 4 or 5 lines: This means that every single line is able to lift a large fraction of the car weight besides lifting its own weight. I'm just saying this in order to illustrate and convince the skeptics that the hose itself could easily be lifted much higher and further (without a car).

                      When you mention the "usable interior tactical firefighting pressures", does this mean that the same tactics and the same pressures were already used 50 years ago and that the same tactics and pressures will have to be used for the next 50 years?

                      Thank you for explaining me the tactics of pushing the fire from the un-burned side into the burned side and the defensive operation tactics. I'm not a firefighter and I really don't know much about firefighting tactics, but to me it seems that the device could be efficiently used for the defensive operations.

                      I owe you the response regarding the water damage: Calculations are showing that by increasing the water pressure, considerably lower volumetric flow rates of jets are needed for achieving the same thrust forces. By choosing and using the appropriately high presure (not too high), only a tolerable amount of water is wasted for lifting the hose. I believe this wasted water volume could be small enough to do less damage in comparison to the defensive operations from outside of the building.

                      If you are really sure that there is no comprehensible use for this principle in structural firefighintg, could I at least ask you about your opinion of its usage for wildfire fighting?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DavorE View Post
                        I'm not a firefighter and I really don't know much about firefighting tactics, but to me it seems that the device could be efficiently used for the defensive operations.

                        If you are really sure that there is no comprehensible use for this principle in structural firefighintg, could I at least ask you about your opinion of its usage for wildfire fighting?
                        Why don't you contact your local Fire Department, and ask to spend some time discussing offensive and defensive firefighting with some of the troops? Maybe ask to have dinner at a firehouse (don't forget to bring desert- we love ice cream and pies/cakes....) and discuss your idea with them, and also pick their brains about how we do what we do.....

                        As far as wildland firefighting I have zero experience, and defer to others who do.
                        "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fire5555
                          Plus pick up a hose and get the acutual feel.
                          Why are you (or any of us) assuming they would use existing types of fire hose? Wouldn't it make more sense to design a hose to work with these things instead of it working with existing hose? Smaller diameter, higher pressure, less weight hose? Think further out of the box than using our existing stuff differently.
                          "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by FWDbuff View Post
                            Sorry, I see absolutely no use for this in interior structural firefighting. Nothing is more efficient than a well trained, experienced hose team that gets copius amounts of water onto the seat of the fire in an efficient, orderly military manner.

                            This seems like some expensive gimmick that will create more water damage to the interior of a building than anything else. I'm sure that some Volunteer Department with more money than brains will order 10 of them however. Good luck to you.
                            The kicker is many volunteer fire departments, and even some career departments are very short-staffed. Getting enough people to the fire, much less having people that are trained enough to do something about it, is becoming an issue. If they can get a well-trained hose team in place, how long does it take them to get there? Don't know that this product is the answer, but remote structural firefighting technology of the some kind will be the answer a lot of departments have to seriously consider when the technology arrives.

                            The military is already increasingly turning to drones and robots to handle a variety of tasks. They put the machines at risk, and if something goes south, they lose the machine and not the operator. Again, not saying this technology is the answer, but we wouldn't be losing the same number of firefighters at structure fires if we weren't having to actually put firefighters in the fire.

                            Dave, assuming things on this worked they way you wanted them to work, my first thought is it might be something that could be used on an industrial fire. We see quite a few tank battery fires each year, and foam will extinguish them. We just have to get close enough to them to put foam on them. If there the hose could take itself to the tank, and be maneuvered to apply foam where needed, that would keep firefighters and trucks at a safer distance.

                            For wildland, the issue we always face is water. It isn't always easy to find, and sometimes there just isn't any nearby. It becomes a battle to keep enough water hauled in to keep the brush trucks in the fight. Anything that would use additional water would probably be frowned upon. Speed would also be another issue. We've had some headfires in cleared ranches that were mostly grassland reach speeds of nearly 15 miles per hour. Some speeds are faster than the apparatus can keep pace with. If the apparatus stops to deploy something, the headfire is out of range by the time the driver lets off the brakes. Most apparatus is pump and roll. I don't really see this doing anything a remote turret nozzle doesn't already do, and without using additional water.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by WVFD705 View Post
                              For wildland, the issue we always face is water. It isn't always easy to find, and sometimes there just isn't any nearby. It becomes a battle to keep enough water hauled in to keep the brush trucks in the fight. Anything that would use additional water would probably be frowned upon. Speed would also be another issue. We've had some headfires in cleared ranches that were mostly grassland reach speeds of nearly 15 miles per hour. Some speeds are faster than the apparatus can keep pace with. If the apparatus stops to deploy something, the headfire is out of range by the time the driver lets off the brakes. Most apparatus is pump and roll. I don't really see this doing anything a remote turret nozzle doesn't already do, and without using additional water.
                              I agree with you that almost endless amounts of water would constantly be needed to use the same principle for wildfire fighting, where the device would typically be much larger (above the trees) in comparison to the one used for structural firefighting. I'm aware that this need for constant supply of enormous amounts of water is a limiting factor for the wildfire usage. As mentioned in the published article, vessels on the water with a powerful pump seem to be well suited for such firefighting at least in coastal areas.

                              Comment

                              300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                              Collapse

                              Upper 300x250

                              Collapse

                              Taboola

                              Collapse

                              Leader

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X