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.
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.
Additionally, even if they cannot replace sprinklers, not all buildings even have sprinklers. This technology could still be useful for cheap retrofits to add some fire protection at low cost rather than either demolishing or performing an expensive sprinkler.
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.
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.
Yeah, that was my thought too.
Additionally, even if they cannot replace sprinklers, not all buildings even have sprinklers. This technology could still be useful for cheap retrofits to add some fire protection at low cost rather than either demolishing or performing an expensive sprinkler.
Anyone with experience of standing in front of a bass bin at a drum n bass rave will instantly understand why this could work.
I wonder what the frequency is and what it's resonant with. There could be some interesting and dangerous side effects.
I'd want to see more about the failure modes. Production systems need graceful degradation more than optimal performance.