Time for a new generation of fire hydrant?

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

It seems to me that we have the technology to have feedback monitors on fire hydrants.  it seems to me we could know the conditions around those hydrants instantaneously at a central command.  If so it seems we could fight fires remotely, at least until the Departments could arrive on scene, if hydrants were equiped with remotely activated and targeted nozzles (what the fire fighters call monitors). 

Imagine a fire breaks out in the Hollywood Hills somewhere.  Remote sensors detect it.  Central dispatch sends all of the fire fighting assets to the scene.  While they are in route Dispatch determines there are three fire hydrants within 400 feet of the fire.  One can put water directly on the blaze through the remote controlled monitor and the other two can wet down the area into which the fire might move.  Activating those hydrants could keep the fire suppressed until boots on the ground could arrive to assess the situation and take further appropriate action.  Get on this Elon, or some other entrepreneur with some innovative spirit.

It is a 100 million dollar idea and the tech is already invented, it just needs to be combined into one system and hydrants retrofitted and supplied power.

 

[The Real timschochet 6,751]

I’m for this, let’s do it 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

A bit of recombination of already available tech could go a long ways here.  Combine that with the lowest tech remediation there is, allowing goats to graze freely with no regard to property lines, with no fences, thereby clearing out substantial amounts of undergrowth and fires like this current outbreak could be a thing of the past, well if we did this and demanded reasonable building codes.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Akron StreamMaster II 2000 GPM Electric Monitor

 

Combine these withhydrants and put them on a remote control turret to target them.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Apparently this tech is already for sale.  Makes one wonder why it was not invested in for thenhigh density and frankly risch area which just went up in smoke.

01_MO_15_HD.pdf

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Amazing range on some of these monitors.  

[jbycho 754]

22 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Akron StreamMaster II 2000 GPM Electric Monitor

 

Combine these withhydrants and put them on a remote control turret to target them.

If Californians want to pay for the planning, the designing,  the training, the testing, the deploying, the post go live support, the  infrastructure, and the maintenance of all that, let em have at it. I don't want a penny of that project work or the ongoing maintenance to come from federal taxes. 

Given the lack of consistent housing layouts (including their land layouts)  all over, the returns on that investment may not be good in the least. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

6 minutes ago, jbycho said:

If Californians want to pay for the planning, the designing,  the training, the testing, the deploying, the post go live support, the  infrastructure, and the maintenance of all that, let em have at it. I don't want a penny of that project work or the ongoing maintenance to come from federal taxes. 

Given the lack of consistent housing layouts (including their land layouts)  all over, the returns on that investment may not be good in the least. 

I am not advocating for federal dollars to go into this.  If rich folks want to live in dangerous places they can opay for their own pleasure as far as i am concerned.

I also am not advocating for advanced hydrants everywhere.  Just in remote, hilly, brushy areas.  In many areas the expense would not be justified by the risk being mitigated.  For instance in a falt, concrete jungle with tall buildings which would block the spray directions this would make no sense.  in hilly, brushy areas far from fire stations and with three story or less homes over which the monitors could easily spray to teh far side and up to 500 and 600 feet down hill it would make a ton of sense, seemingly.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,088]

This all sounds like a good idea, but shouldn't we focus our efforts and money on why we don't have women and/or LGBTQ+ in government positions?  And reparations?

Seems like all of those are more important than, y'know, fire safety, preparation and useless sh#t like that.

[jbycho 754]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I am not advocating for federal dollars to go into this.  If rich folks want to live in dangerous places they can opay for their own pleasure as far as i am concerned.

I also am not advocating for advanced hydrants everywhere.  Just in remote, hilly, brushy areas.  In many areas the expense would not be justified by the risk being mitigated.  For instance in a falt, concrete jungle with tall buildings which would block the spray directions this would make no sense.  in hilly, brushy areas far from fire stations and with three story or less homes over which the monitors could easily spray to teh far side and up to 500 and 600 feet down hill it would make a ton of sense, seemingly.

This would have to fall upon the fire stations, whatever state commission who would definitely want to be the state overseers who would make the rules and enforce them. Let the fire stations perfect the technology, build the system support within each station, andarket the shiit out of it, then sell it as a service to individuals who can afford and want it. It could sold through realtors, construction companies and the stations as a primary source. 

I would imagine this would have to include the fire stations as this isn't like Ring Door Bell where someone works as operator for Ring, and then just call police if needed. This is even bigger than solar panel sales because those only involves meter swaps and billing IT work. Someone else can install the panels. 

 But I never worked in any fire fighting aspect. 

[weepaws 3,191]

Who has the time to do something like that OP, it seems like a great ideal, but surgeries for minors to change their sex seems more important to the people, sadly.  

Lamentations 5:21.  Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned, renew our days as of old.   Indeed Amen Thanks 

[jbycho 754]

12 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

This all sounds like a good idea, but shouldn't we focus our efforts and money on why we don't have women and/or LGBTQ+ in government positions?  And reparations?

Seems like all of those are more important than, y'know, fire safety, preparation and useless sh#t like that.

Well, this is a "just cut the shiit out" approach. Hopefully Trump just keeps pointing out the truth. Maybe it will sink in for some people.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Man, we could really F with doggos. 

[DonS 3,292]

22 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Man, we could really F with doggos. 

Like RoboCop.  "Back away from the hydrant.  You have 20 seconds to comply" 

 

 

[Strike 5,532]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

It seems to me that we have the technology to have feedback monitors on fire hydrants.  it seems to me we could know the conditions around those hydrants instantaneously at a central command.  If so it seems we could fight fires remotely, at least until the Departments could arrive on scene, if hydrants were equiped with remotely activated and targeted nozzles (what the fire fighters call monitors). 

Imagine a fire breaks out in the Hollywood Hills somewhere.  Remote sensors detect it.  Central dispatch sends all of the fire fighting assets to the scene.  While they are in route Dispatch determines there are three fire hydrants within 400 feet of the fire.  One can put water directly on the blaze through the remote controlled monitor and the other two can wet down the area into which the fire might move.  Activating those hydrants could keep the fire suppressed until boots on the ground could arrive to assess the situation and take further appropriate action.  Get on this Elon, or some other entrepreneur with some innovative spirit.

It is a 100 million dollar idea and the tech is already invented, it just needs to be combined into one system and hydrants retrofitted and supplied power.

 

To the extent that this is feasible, you're going to have to go in to more detail on your "targeted nozzles" concept.  Most fire hydrants have a little stub sticking out of them that the fire dept. attaches a hose to so they can direct the water on the fire.  Just opening those up may release a lot of water but it will just be flowing down the street, especially in the hilly areas most of these fires are burning in.  That's just gonna be a waste of water.  Fire hydrants aren't every 5 feet such that you can have movable nozzles sticking out of the fire hydrant to point directly at the fire.  There's a reason those hoses are 50 feet and longer. 

And, of course, the expense of retrofitting a city like Los Angeles would probably be in the 100's of BILLIONS.  This is a city that couldn't even replace the cover on top of a reservoir within a few months and left it empty during that time.  How efficiently and in what time frame would you expect them to retrofit 56 thousand fire hydrants, including adding the infrastructure to power them and make them intelligent?

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

To the extent that this is feasible, you're going to have to go in to more detail on your "targeted nozzles" concept.  Most fire hydrants have a little stub sticking out of them that the fire dept. attaches a hose to so they can direct the water on the fire.  Just opening those up may release a lot of water but it will just be flowing down the street, especially in the hilly areas most of these fires are burning in.  That's just gonna be a waste of water.  Fire hydrants aren't every 5 feet such that you can have movable nozzles sticking out of the fire hydrant to point directly at the fire.  There's a reason those hoses are 50 feet and longer. 

And, of course, the expense of retrofitting a city like Los Angeles would probably be in the 100's of BILLIONS.  This is a city that couldn't even replace the cover on top of a reservoir within a few months and left it empty during that time.  How efficiently and in what time frame would you expect them to retrofit 56 thousand fire hydrants, including adding the infrastructure to power them and make them intelligent?

You might have noticed the link I posted to remote control monitors capable of being airmed and targeted, and adjusted, remotely.  Also, as I have said such systems do not make sense in concrete jungles with high buildings being barriers to the nozzles being effectively pointed 3, 4, and 500 feet away, but they make great sense in hilly areas with dense undergrowth, difficult access for fire trucks, and low buildings which will not impede the pray patterns from extending out to 5 or 600 feet.  I amnot saying it would be a panacea, but along with goats to clear the underbrush, and with building standards which prevent wooden decks and fences it would have gone a long way.

 

01_MO_15_HD.pdf

 

The link, again, for those who missed it.

 

Brush Goats: 8 Best Tips - Brush Control & Land Clearing

[BunnysBastatrds 2,436]

 We have digital water meters on a majority of houses and businesses. I think this idea is good. 
 

Don’t know if some understand how fire fighters know where the hydrants are, but most cities put a blue marker that indicates shows where the fire hydrants are horizontal to the property they are getting to in an emergency. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

To the extent that this is feasible, you're going to have to go in to more detail on your "targeted nozzles" concept.  Most fire hydrants have a little stub sticking out of them that the fire dept. attaches a hose to so they can direct the water on the fire.  Just opening those up may release a lot of water but it will just be flowing down the street, especially in the hilly areas most of these fires are burning in.  That's just gonna be a waste of water.  Fire hydrants aren't every 5 feet such that you can have movable nozzles sticking out of the fire hydrant to point directly at the fire.  There's a reason those hoses are 50 feet and longer. 

And, of course, the expense of retrofitting a city like Los Angeles would probably be in the 100's of BILLIONS.  This is a city that couldn't even replace the cover on top of a reservoir within a few months and left it empty during that time.  How efficiently and in what time frame would you expect them to retrofit 56 thousand fire hydrants, including adding the infrastructure to power them and make them intelligent?

See the previous link where monitors, essentially nozzles, can be remotely rotated and targeted.  Not that expensive either for the monitors, though obviously there would be expense to have power for them at each hydrant.  Power lines would have to be trenched in.

[Strike 5,532]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You might have noticed the link I posted to remote control monitors capable of being airmed and targeted, and adjusted, remotely.  Also, as I have said such systems do not make sense in concrete jungles with high buildings being barriers to the nozzles being effectively pointed 3, 4, and 500 feet away, but they make great sense in hilly areas with dense undergrowth, difficult access for fire trucks, and low buildings which will not impede the pray patterns from extending out to 5 or 600 feet.  I amnot saying it would be a panacea, but along with goats to clear the underbrush, and with building standards which prevent wooden decks and fences it would have gone a long way.

I just looked at your link.  I am not convinced this is even being marketed as a replacement for traditional fire hydrants.  Beyond that, I don't think it would have helped here anyways.  While Pacific Palisades is a hilly, brushy area, it's still a traditional city suburb with streets and what not.  The fire hydrants aren't installed on the mountains in the middle of the brush.  They're installed on streets just like anywhere else in the suburbs.  So not sure what distinction you're trying to make compared to the fire hydrant a block from my house.   In totality, I think we disagree on how this type of system could be implement and the effectiveness of it even if it were.

[Strike 5,532]

8 minutes ago, BunnysBastatrds said:

 We have digital water meters on a majority of houses and businesses. I think this idea is good. 

 

Yeah, this is JUST like a digital water meter. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

I just looked at your link.  I am not convinced this is even being marketed as a replacement for traditional fire hydrants.  Beyond that, I don't think it would have helped here anyways.  While Pacific Palisades is a hilly, brushy area, it's still a traditional city suburb with streets and what not.  The fire hydrants aren't installed on the mountains in the middle of the brush.  They're installed on streets just like anywhere else in the suburbs.  So not sure what distinction you're trying to make compared to the fire hydrant a block from my house.   In totality, I think we disagree on how this type of system could be implement and the effectiveness of it even if it were.

In my neighborhood there is a hydrant on every block.  Blocks are 600 feet by 600 feet.  That is fairly tyopical.  If the hydrants did not sit idlily by waiting for firefighters to respond when there is a fire, a response time in my neighborhood of 3 to 6 minutes, but instead could be remotely accessed and a nozzle could be turned on and aimed at a fire until such time as the firefighters could arrive to assess the situation that would go a long way to keep wildfire in brushy areas from getting out of control. We (I) am not talking about opening the hydrant to set water flow down the street like in the famous scene from do the right thing.  I am talking about remotely aimable nozzles just like the kind firefighters use when they get to the scene.  Without increasing the frequency of installation of hydrants you could get coverage exceeding 90%.  I don't think it would be a panacea, but I do think it would be very effective in hilly, brushy country, especially in country where the access is limited, where only brush trucks and specialty all wheel drive fire trucks can go.  I am talking about some response within seconds, even if not the most effective response, rather than letting something burn for several minutes, unchecked in the least. You should read the link I supplied.  You probably believe in in-building sprinklers, why would this outside-building suppression system be less valuable, particualrly it you look at the costs.

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

I am out to rejoin the game, already in progress.

[MLCKAA 573]

Exterior structural fire suppression systems exist already, but there are complications that keep them from being widely used— complications such as water supply and CA’s regulatory foolishness.