Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DARPA Creates Machine Which Extinguishes Fires With Sound

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the wall-of-sound dept.

Science 121

SchrodingerZ writes "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is known for making odd scientific advances ranging from hypersonic unnamed rockets to bionic prosthetic limbs to insect-sized reconnaissance drones. But recently DARPA has made a interesting advancement in the field of fire suppression. Using two speakers arranged on either side of an open liquid fuel flame, an acoustic field was emitted and engulfed the fire. 'The sound increases air velocity, which then thins the area of the flame where combustion occurs, known as the flame boundary.' This make the flame weak and much easier to douse. Another wonderful thing about this: it's not even that loud! DARPA began its testing in 2008, stating that despite extensive research in this area, there have been no new methods for extinguishing and/or manipulating fire in almost 50 years. The agency plans to expand on this experiment and try to make it successful on a practical scale."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660067)

oh.

Re:Oh (-1, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661055)

fuckin sweet ass! next time there's a bushfire i'm gunna crank up my fooly sick subwoofer with mah fiddy cent mp3s and drive towards it at a hundred miles and hour and open up a can o whoop ass on that flamage... n shit!

Who knew that naming a rocket... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660069)

...would be so difficult?

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (5, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660135)

Well, that's the thing—it's actually quite easy to make a hypersonic rocket with a name, but unnaming such a rocket would require more energy than the sun's entire output for a year, as you'd have to eradicate to eliminate all evidence, thought, and mention of the rocket's name from history. It took DARPA contractors decades to come up with a novel method of paperwork shuffling so dense that they could create unnamed rockets that would be completely impenetrable to espionage. Unfortunately, they aren't perfect; it's still possible to give individual rockets names once they're loaded into a vehicle or turret for firing, as at that point they enter the realm of conscious human perception. Despite the potential dire consequences for captured vehicles and compromised air bases, all contractors were paid upfront for the usual budget overruns.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40662179)

Well, that's the thing—it's actually quite easy to make a hypersonic rocket with a name, but unnaming such a rocket would require more energy than the sun's entire output for a year, as you'd have to eradicate to eliminate all evidence...

No they are far more advanced: pick a rocket, try for example to name it, and X&/(")£## [CARRIER LOST]

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40662549)

Sounds very "Gravity's Rainbow" to me.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (4, Funny)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660301)

Coming up with a name is easy. The hard part is making that name into an acronym for something. That's a new rule: all names have to be an acronym as well. For example, the unnamed rocket linked to in the summary is called Falcon and it stands for Force Application and Launch from CONtinental United States [wikipedia.org] . I'm sure they spent a lot of time trying to get that right.

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (3, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660803)

Such a shame, too, when Fiery And Large Crewless Orbital Nuisance is available. It's like they're not even trying to do their jobs!

Re:Who knew that naming a rocket... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661347)

It's surpisingly hard not to name a thing. That is why most programming languages only have named functions, not unnamed ones. Lambda rockets are a huge accomplishment, paving the way to more functional rocket strikes.

didnet the mythbusters do this?? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660075)

didn't the mythbusters do this??

Re:didnet the mythbusters do this?? (0, Offtopic)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660685)

Yep. ...and on the subject of myths, the 'insect-size-drone' thing is pure psych-ops, ie. it doesn't exist. They've been denying the existence of insect drones since the 1970s.

PS: The thing in the insect article's photo is CGI created for a competition.

Microsoft and NBC officially call it quits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660077)

Software giant will reportedly receive $300 million for its stake in MSNBC.com, which will mirror content on the new NBCNews.com for a while.

DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (4, Informative)

Shandon (53512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660079)

The Mythbusters did that already, in Episode 76 (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode76). So we know that works already...

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660095)

If you read TFA, you'd note that it's been a topic of research since 1900

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660323)

and its been proven already, packaged edited and broadcast as entertainment, your tax dollars at work, figuring out shit WE ALREADY KNOW

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661087)

Mythbusters is funded by my taxes?

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40663047)

No, Mythbusters is why we already know it, DARPA is funded by your tax dollars.

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661119)

it's been a topic of research since 1900

Mythbusters don't do research, they only do experiments.

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Re:DARPA is doing Mythbusters reruns, now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661167)

Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

Rockets? (4, Funny)

GodGell (897123) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660081)

Hypersonic unnamed rockets? Wait until Anonymous hears about that...

Re:Rockets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660823)

Hur

Re:Rockets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661791)

Finally, there's a rocket out there with your name on it, buddy! You'll get your comeuppance!

CO2? (3, Interesting)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660105)


"The team arranged two speakers either side of a liquid fuel flame to demonstrate how fire can be controlled by amping up an acoustic field. The sound increases air velocity, which then thins the area of the flame where combustion occurs, known as the flame boundary. Once the boundary area is thinned, the flame is easier to extinguish. "

Pardon my scepticism, but if you can position speakers at the base of a flame, you can also position CO2 nozzles there too.

BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.

Or they could the two techniques in combination -- using an accoustic field to shape a CO2 extinguishant stream that manipulates the "flow of cold plasma" feeding the flame.

Re:CO2? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660169)

Quenching a fire in a submarine would probably be far less problematic if you could use sound instead of gases.

Re:CO2? (3, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660415)

Also, think about utility corridors in large building where an electrical fire or something of the sorts are a danger. Using gasses or toxic chemicals might present a danger to humans still inside the building. Mount a few rails with speakers connected and send them to the hot spot as needed.

Or use something like this [ehow.com] and line evacuation routes people would take in case of fire helping ensure an open escape path for longer periods of time.

Re:CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40663345)

Exactly, speakers and sound systems are relatively cheap. You could put a pair of speakers on opposing walls in every room in a hotel and spaced periodically down the halls for instance. A single distribution system could power them all. I wish the article gave details on what actual sound frequency/pattern they used. It might be possible to seriously reduce costs and increase effectiveness by producing speakers tuned to the appropriate frequency response. You can get a pair of powered in-wall speakers for about $30 on amazon right now that will work with any 2+ zone audio system. One possible downfall is the need for electricity, this might complicate many fire suppression situations. A local battery powered amplification source would solve this but would probably drive costs to unrealistic levels.

In some cases it might be possible to use massive truck mounted speakers on opposing sides of a building to create a field of suppression.

Re:CO2? (4, Informative)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660271)

"The Instant Fire Suppression project was specifically launched to devise new ways of tackling fires in enclosed spaces, such as aircraft cockpits and ship holds, where fires are obviously devastating and incredibly difficult to control." - TFA

Re:CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660405)

"...devise new ways of tackling fires in enclosed spaces, such as aircraft cockpits ..."

The speakers are 5 times as big as the fire, I'm afraid if such a system is installed in an airplane cockpit, it won't be able to fly anymore.

Re:CO2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661703)

Hence the research part... I'm trying to remember how many devices didn't start big and eventually become small. Sure there are plenty of things that got bigger over time, but generally we have craved smaller, more compact devices.

Re:CO2? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660425)

AKA: Submarines. Navy just had a very expensive submarine fire. If they could simply install speakers, they could avoid a very expensive fire suppression retrofit. Risk of crew suffocation and equipment damage are always present with chemical or gas based systems.

dammit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660793)

...Navy just had a very expensive submarine fire...

I knew that. Now I feel bad. I suspect everyone that is here to read this has already at least heard about it seeing as it was here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1547241/fire-may-leave-us-nuclear-sub-damaged-beyond-repair

It is a sad day when an AC three quarters of the way down the page got it before anyone else. He should be modded insightful so everyone can smack themselves on the forehead for not noticing and feel bad as me about it.

Re:CO2? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40662529)

And that fire was problematical because the ship was in the shipyard and normal services and access was disrupted. I.E. it's very unlikely the speakers (which only weaken the flame) would have been very useful. Not that there's room for the speakers anyhow.

And the dangers of chemical or gas based systems is why the main firefighting system is water.

(Disclaimer: Former submarine crewman.)

Re:CO2? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660401)

BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.

Robot carrying speakers has to run back and forth dropping speakers. Speakers which are robots, much better.

Re:CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40662615)

BUT - this could be significant - a robot carrying speakers does not need to carry a CO2 gas supply.

Robot carrying speakers has to run back and forth dropping speakers. Speakers which are robots, much better.

DARPA: Dubstep Advanced Remix Projects Agency

Re:CO2? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660971)

Or next time a wildfire approaches my house, I'll just stick speakers out the window and start playing loud music.

Re:CO2? (4, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661027)

Acoustic fire suppression also leaves a LOT less mess behind. Think server rooms, restaurants and print shops where the fire suppression system typically causes about as much damage (in that area) as the fire itself.

Re:CO2? (2)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661629)

This system may put out open flames, but it's not going to do anything about heated gases or smoldering combustion, and I don't think it'll do much to prevent reignition, flashover, backdraft, etc.

Re:CO2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40663449)

Ventilation that will take care of heated gases is not solved by this but such ventilation already exists in most spaces. Smoldering is easily resolved and there is plenty of time to do it if re-ignition is prevented. The rest of those concerns seem like they WOULD be addressed by this system as long you didn't turn it off before the system is cooled.

Re:CO2? (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40662329)

That brings up an interesting question, I wonder the effects on sensitive equipment such as in a server room from such high energy harmonic devices?

Now invent a machine that puts out politicians (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660119)

Seriously DARPA, get on to something we REALLY need.

Re:Now invent a machine that puts out politicians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660347)

Done [slashdot.org] . It will eat politicians, corpses, children, etc. It is just a matter of programming its preferences.

Sonic Screwdrivers (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660141)

Just around the corner.

Re:Sonic Screwdrivers (2)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660677)

Except that this works on wood.

Would you call it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660857)

A sonic hammer, perhaps? Giggity.

Late night music (0)

hundredrabh (1531761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660149)

Cool, next time my neighbor complains about me playing music late at night.
Can I say I was trying to put out a fire?

Re:Late night music (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660705)

Would it also work the other way around? Like in "sure we'll turn down the music as soon as the campfire/BBQ is going properly".

Re:Late night music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661203)

In other news the US air force has worked out how to extinguish sound, with fire!!

Interesting. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660151)

Everybody knows that fire can't stand of the riff of an electric guitar!

Re:Interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660379)

Hence the expression

"come of baby light my fire"

high altitude (2, Interesting)

fonitrus (1763632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660167)

thin air on demand could be nice for high altitude training without going to the mountains and just make these simulated high altitude training centres in local urban areas. lowering the training costs for athletes both in travel and being away from family.

Re:high altitude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660255)

It would also be nice for the psychologists, hearing doctors, and soundproofers.

Anonymous Rockets! (0)

TheBashar (13543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660197)

I freakin love unnamed rockets!

Re:Anonymous Rockets! (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660709)

But how do you distinguish them if there are several versions?

Re:Anonymous Rockets! (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40662301)

unnamed, not unnumbered

Re:Anonymous Rockets! (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40663059)

But if you number it, isn't the number effectively the name? I mean "459134" doesn't have the same ring as "Hellfire" but it still is a unique alphanumeric identifier. Only harder to remember and more error prone. ("Fire two 445s is said! The training missiles! And you fired a 2445 TacNuke! We are all doomed...")

Re:Anonymous Rockets! (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40663103)

On a more amusing note, strapping four ICBMs under an Apache (or is it strapping an Apache on the ICBM?) might require the use of more than a few rolls of duct tape. That's a mental image to cherish.

Re:Anonymous Rockets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660923)

Splashing soon into a Bank of America building near you.

Oh... (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660219)

I guess that's why they never called me back. I just set fire to the speakers. OK, the sound extinguishes the *fire*, got it.

OOG ALREADY EXPERIMENT WITH THIS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660245)

OOG USE LOUDEST CAVEMAN NOISE - CAVEMAN FART - IN EXPERIMENT. OOG NOW KNOW FART NOISE COME FROM FIRE GAS. MANY DIED. EXPERIMENT A DISASTER.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.

MODERATORS MAKE OOG ANGRY (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660625)

OOG WONDER IF SOUND OF ME BREAKING HEAD OF MODERATORS WITH OPEN SOURCE CD WORK TO STOP FIRE. OOG DISCLOSURE OF EXPERIMENT RESULTS MANY THINGS BUT NOT OVERRATED.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered. Filter error: Don't use so many caps.Lameness filter encountered.

It also... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660289)

liquefies any organic matter in it's path.

Re:It also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660409)

Does it remove incorrect apostrophes?

Re:It also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660417)

Nope'

Re:It also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660599)

I 'see.

Sounds really.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660501)

(wait for it..) COOL

Kama Sutra of twig friction (-1)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660505)

... there have been no new methods for extinguishing and/or manipulating fire in almost 50 years ...

I'm guessing this has been true for the vast majority of 100,000 non-overlapping intervals. Once a society begins to make progress on Vulcan hand gestures, you're expected to be a little beyond Roasted Chestnuts 101. I do concede some innovation to Peter Jackson in the category of six-minute kerosene mile. As Gandalf put it: "Fire really is an amazing creation. You can learn all there is to know about rubbing twigs in a month, and yet after a hundred thousand years the licking flames can still surprise you. " Truth be told, he felt this way about a lot of things.

new retardant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660511)

... no new methods for extinguishing and/or manipulating fire in almost 50 years ...

I have heard of these devices in the last 30 years:

Someone invented a fire extinguisher that released glass dust. The dust melted in extreme heat and suffocated the fire.

Someone invented a high-volume atomizer with a wind fan attached. Its purpose was the same as a fire hose and the atomized water also cooled the flames.

More importantly, someone attached a hole-saw to a fire hose. So the hose could drill through metal walls (eg airplanes) and attack the fire inside.

Have any of these been commercially produced?

Re:new retardant (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40663505)

problems:

Aerosolised glass would lacerate the lung tissue of any who inhaled it. Commercial fail.

Fire departments worldwide already use misters in situations where there's lots of hot smoke in a confined space (perfect conditions for a backdraft) - the idea being to cool the hot smoke, not kill the flames. Once you remove the heat source, the fire extinguishes itself. Aside from that, the last thing you need to introduce to a fire is a forced injection of oxygen which is what you'd be doing if you used an airfan to force the mist. Nozzle configuration is the important thing here.

A hole saw to punch through an airplane skin? Overkill. Most aircraft skins can be penetrated using nothing more than a screwdriver - typically an airliner skin is 0.040" thick. Heck, you could punch through that with your fist.

Unfortunately... (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660535)

It also kills everyone within 100 meters of the fire.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660655)

It also kills everyone within 100 meters of the fire.

But the fire does get extinguished, right? Don't bother us with the minor details.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660773)

Dr. Zoidberg: I'll simply put you into a high-velocity centrifuge and centrifugal force will separate the denser king of Trisol out of your body.
Fry: Won't that crush my bones!?
Dr. Zoidberg: Ahhh, yes the bones... I always forget about the bones!

Also:
What was going to be a pleasant afternoon of drugs and surgery has not gone as planned. Well we still have three or four healthy co-workers with PLENTY of spare parts.

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661341)

You joke, but I can't help but think of the military applications of being able to redirect or extinguish flames at will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0RvNVfT1Y [youtube.com]

My Fire Extinguisher goes to... (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660615)

Wait for it....

11

Re:My Fire Extinguisher goes to... (3, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660729)

Wait for it....

11

Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!

Well, this time the .sig and the post align perfectly.

Re:My Fire Extinguisher goes to... (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40662743)

it is one of those rare occasions. I play guitar and my Fender Hot Rod Deville goes to 12 though.

Prior art exists! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660675)

Pfffft! Prior art exists! Sound extinguishes fire..i know it already.. dear wife yells and all my fire gets extinguished.

Extinguishing fires... (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660747)

there's an app for that.

Now I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660765)

So that's what for fire brigade bands were all along!

With sound? (0)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#40660847)

It's actually with air! Or, better, with pressure waves in the air.

Re:With sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661003)

Are you implying fire doesn't hear things as well?

Dude, the guy already has a bad rep. as it is, don't do this to the poor fellow.

Re:With sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661865)

You should probably look up the definition of sound.

Crowd control? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40660975)

Taken this is developed by Darpa, I cannot stand thinking this is just a by product of some non-lethal weaponry research.

Vajk

50 years = a little over1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661179)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/29/how-fight-fire-with-electricity circa 29th March 2011

It's not even that loud... (0)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661189)

...says TFS while linking to a video of two speakers, each about four times the size of the flame. Given the low frequencies that such large speakers can produce, it's more about wind than sound. So DARPA figured out that you can put out a fire by blowing on it. That's tax money well spent.

Re:It's not even that loud... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661515)

You're so dumb, you failed to understand the fucking summary. I've lost my faith in public education and the slashtards, simultaneously.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661303)

Ironically, the speakers are bumping songs from the band 'Air Supply'

DICK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661475)

disgust, oR b3en [goat.cx]

Somewhere around 1969, Woodstock (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661481)

MC: Somebody call the medics, the crowd is on fire!
Hendrix: Hang on, I got this . . .
Cue Purple Haze

Somewhere deep inside DARPA ... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661547)

Is a ST:TNG tech manual, carefully annotated and checkmarked.

Like oil fires (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661563)

Where they put them out by detonating sticks of dynamite above the burning well head. But on a much smaller and more manageable (albeit less fun) level.

Insect drones are fake. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40661631)

None of them have a power supply capable of running more than a few seconds if they even have a battery in them at all. the one in that photo is just an artist fapping his mind on a concept.

They cant break physics, and current batteries, even the high end NASA ones cant store enough power and be light and small enough to even make the wings on that thing move slightly.

Re:Insect drones are fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661991)

You are perfectly correct, Sir or Madam. As a matter of fact Science has proven, long ago, that insect flight is merely an illusion - as heavier than air flight is _mathematically_ impossible! I'm glad a proper-thinking gentleperson such as yourself has risen to the fore to dispel such dismally benighted provocations from this excessively liesure-endowed encirclement of dilletantes. Well done, Sir or Madam!

Atreides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661901)

Anyone else envision future firetrucks to look like the sonic tanks in the game Dune II?

WHAT I COULDN'T HEAR YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661929)

SPEAK UP! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Waht happens if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40661937)

There's feedback? Or, tone and synch wander a bit, under field conditions? And, you're adding vibrating (ory, yeah)energy to structures already weakened by heat and firedraft? Could the structure, at some point, mysteriously crumble? :)

I wouldn't use it on aircraft accident fires, probably. Forest fires might be ok. Just get a few megashow rigs placed around it. And a small pack of beowulfs to calculate wavefronts, check sensors, etc. Or just some Wii and m$oft audio sensing? Hmmm. I'd watch out for avalanches, though. And tons of fiery debris suddenly mexican-bean jumping hundreds of feet away. Or maybe that's just too poetic.

So, naaah! Nuthin to worry about!

Useful derivative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40662013)

Would be be a machine that could silence congress with sound. Forever.

Asspeaker syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40662055)

I was told that I had "Asspeaker Syndrome" so I figured that I should make the most of it and put out fires using my Asspeaker.
Didn't end well I'm afraid, now my woofer is more of a tweeter and the fire went out of control.

Another DARPA invention (1)

hessian (467078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40662409)

The Internet. We should probably mention this, as well as a refresher:

  • its - an irregular possessive. "The serial killer wants its victim now."
  • it's - a contraction of it is. "It's time for the victim to step forward."

Moar boost? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40663217)

I wonder if something like this could be used inside an engine's combustion chamber to prevent preignition. That could allow for more compression/boost.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>