It's kind of funny that everyone's crapping on this comment when the poor value proposition of sprinklers in residential settings is exactly what enabled the investment to develop this system.
I use to worry about this but the industry claims about 1 per 20 million accidental discharge per year, which over the lifespan of a home works out to be 10-1000x less than other common hazards (including fire).
I doubt this would be as effective as a sprinkler because sprinklers cool surfaces as well as extinguishing. But I could see it being a useful complement to a sprinkler, as a first-line defense in the early moments of a fire starting. Sprinklers only kick in once the fire is already well-established and do enormous water damage.
It could be useful in places that can't use sprinklers like clean rooms and maybe data centres, as a first defence before they activate the super expensive & human-killing gas suppression systems.
Glad Ars isn't just 100% regurgitating a startup's press release:
> The company told Ars that it has been evaluated by James Andy Lynch (who was present at the demonstration) and his team at Fire Solutions Group, a Pennsylvania-based consultancy, to establish Sonic Fire Tech’s bona fides. Sonic Fire Tech declined to provide Ars with a full copy of Lynch’s report, citing “confidential and patent-pending information,” but it did send Ars the two-page executive summary.
> But the summary lacks any kind of detailed explanation of which tests were run and under what conditions. It also concludes that “additional testing and optimization are recommended to further expand the range of validated applications,” adding that Sonic Fire Tech’s products have the “potential to complement or, in certain applications, serve as an alternative to traditional suppression systems.”
> “Equivalency [to the 13D standard] can only be approved by the appropriate authority having jurisdiction and requires technical documentation be submitted demonstrating the equivalency,” Jonathan Hart, NFPA Technical Lead, Fire Protection Technical Resources, emailed Ars.
> To date, Sonic Fire Tech has not publicly provided this information.
Doesn't this need line of sight? If a fire starts outside of the line of sight, that's the time the fire needs to get out of control and you would have to test this system in that scenario. Sprinklers will soak everything and make it harder for the fire to spread.
Imagine the calamity in your kitchen as you rush to take care of the fire right when the mega subwoofer machine starts on top of your smoke alarm. Do they sell an infrasound heart attack machine too?
17 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] thread> The company told Ars that it has been evaluated by James Andy Lynch (who was present at the demonstration) and his team at Fire Solutions Group, a Pennsylvania-based consultancy, to establish Sonic Fire Tech’s bona fides. Sonic Fire Tech declined to provide Ars with a full copy of Lynch’s report, citing “confidential and patent-pending information,” but it did send Ars the two-page executive summary.
> But the summary lacks any kind of detailed explanation of which tests were run and under what conditions. It also concludes that “additional testing and optimization are recommended to further expand the range of validated applications,” adding that Sonic Fire Tech’s products have the “potential to complement or, in certain applications, serve as an alternative to traditional suppression systems.”
> “Equivalency [to the 13D standard] can only be approved by the appropriate authority having jurisdiction and requires technical documentation be submitted demonstrating the equivalency,” Jonathan Hart, NFPA Technical Lead, Fire Protection Technical Resources, emailed Ars.
> To date, Sonic Fire Tech has not publicly provided this information.
https://cec.gmu.edu/news/2015-02/pump-bass-douse-blaze-mason...
https://youtu.be/hkUv5gCA-1w
What, exactly, is the role of AI in this context?