The Height Of Folly? (skyscraper Rescue Ideas)

[pagetheoracle]

There is a use for vacuum tube technology that hasn't been explored - namely as fire evacuation from tall buildings. At the moment vacuum tube technology is only being used in the UK to send money / messages within old departments stores but why not have it for dropping people from the top floor downwards, on the outside of the building? Zip wires could also be used to get people across to lower buildings as could helipads as obligatory rescue devices. Also retractable abseil wires with a harness, on an automatic pulley that when released is sent back up for the next person to use, could be tried. Using parachutes as someone has suggested shouldn't be discounted either (SOS parachutes) but fire engines? Impractical as they can only reach up so far and cannot get above flames if in the centre of the building.

 

I think the parachute would cause chaos unless psychology was taken into account. By this I mean those that panic should be allowed to jump first and the frightened allowed to stay behind until the fire reaches them and they have to make up their own minds to jump or perish.

[Murga]

The regular method of substituting progressively larger wires for running a zip line, etc probably takes considerable time.  Fires and other issues usually are really quick things. 

 

With just about any wind, a cylinder of helium would do wonders in running a line a good distance away, when the small nylon rope leaves a strand towards the disabled building.  I am sure that almost any building incident has special characteristics and circumstances.  Take issue of World Trade Center.  AFAIK, a light wind in daylight with only at best a few hours window before total collapse.  No chance at a direct line fall, since the middle center was totally engulfed shortly afterwards.  Any use of down wind has to seriously risk passing though the burning fumes rising, if the top floor model is followed.

 

However, should a line of thickness be connected with the ground, a surprising possibility awaits for those near a body of water, like the World Trade Center.  The long and short of it is that in warmer times, the water provides a cushion for falls of considerable speeds, especially if lateral (recall the spills people take with waterskiing).  A small drogue parachute might only be necessary, to take some of the load strain off. 

 

An SOS parachute takes a trained person to fly, which is good for running a thread for a zip line but seems to me hardly acceptable for hundreds of untrained, often hefty adults or light weight children. Still, inventive thought is much encouraged.  There should be a solution beyond the insufficent contingency plans now existing.  There is a documentary film of the security guy of the World Trade Center who tried to get thought going on the poor evacuation ideas existing and end up dying in the implosion as recalled.

[Murga]

The reason of my avoidance of vacuum tube technology first mentioned is that you need a way to put it on the outside.  Inside it takes up too much valuable space and could easily or probably be corrupted by the incident on hand.  Also, it takes some amount of thin wall, even though the vacuum is slight in lateral directions -- and vertical is the critical issue here in a burning or otherwise damaged building here.  I am aware that with support of the building it could be done with really thin fabric, yet find it difficult to believe vaccum technology would come to play much and it would be prone to letting in fumes or become damaged to heat from the fire or decay over lengthy storage time. 

 

Expense is a guiding issue as well.

[pagetheoracle]

The regular method of substituting progressively larger wires for running a zip line, etc probably takes considerable time.  Fires and other issues usually are really quick things. 

 

With just about any wind, a cylinder of helium would do wonders in running a line a good distance away, when the small nylon rope leaves a strand towards the disabled building.  I am sure that almost any building incident has special characteristics and circumstances.  Take issue of World Trade Center.  AFAIK, a light wind in daylight with only at best a few hours window before total collapse.  No chance at a direct line fall, since the middle center was totally engulfed shortly afterwards.  Any use of down wind has to seriously risk passing though the burning fumes rising, if the top floor model is followed.

 

However, should a line of thickness be connected with the ground, a surprising possibility awaits for those near a body of water, like the World Trade Center.  The long and short of it is that in warmer times, the water provides a cushion for falls of considerable speeds, especially if lateral (recall the spills people take with waterskiing).  A small drogue parachute might only be necessary, to take some of the load strain off. 

 

An SOS parachute takes a trained person to fly, which is good for running a thread for a zip line but seems to me hardly acceptable for hundreds of untrained, often hefty adults or light weight children. Still, inventive thought is much encouraged.  There should be a solution beyond the insufficent contingency plans now existing.  There is a documentary film of the security guy of the World Trade Center who tried to get thought going on the poor evacuation ideas existing and end up dying in the implosion as recalled.

With regards to the wire - they were meant to be in place already (sorry I didn't make this clear).

 

I hadn't taken into consideration wind or heat from the fire (point two)

 

Point three - yes, like these old circus performers that dived from a high tower into a bucket!

 

Yes, an English guy if I remember correctly, who would have been drilled on what to do in an emergency in The UK but in America you seem to believe in individual freedom i.e. panic, ignorance and every man for himself!

[pagetheoracle]

You might be right about the vacuum tube;  I'm no expert so can't say.  It would have been on the outside as I proposed.  Perhaps you could have some kind or drop / return mechanism on a pulley that slows on descent and rises automatically on finish when the braking mechanism is released?

 

Good points though!

[CraigD]

You don’t need the complicated, failure-prone parts of a pneumatic tube transport system - the motorized air compressors, airtight seals and transport capsules - to escape from the upper floors of high buildings, just systems to keep people from falling too fast – because, of course, people don’t want to go up, only down, when evacuating a burning building.

 

Tube-like fire escapes have been around since the 1800s. The old ones were usually permanently installed metal slides resembling playground equipment. Newer systems are usually made of lightweight fire and smoke-proof fabric, and stowed and deployed in emergencies. Some present day systems, such as the Axel Thoms Personal Escape Chute and the Ingstom Escape Chute are, IMHO, practically perfect – easy to deploy and use, safe and not frightening, able to evacuate about 8 people per minute per chute from heights of up to 80 m.

 

These are niche products, however, because despite the horrific nature of uncontrolled tall building fires, such fires are rare, and interior emergency stairs, which are legally required in nearly everywhere, are almost always very effective in evacuations. Were terrible building fires like the 9/11/2001 WTC Towers more common occurrences, I expect popular opinion would drive regulators and building owners to have escape chuts like the Axel Thoms or Ingstrom ones, but as is, I get the impression they’re used mostly in places where they are less expensive than fixes stairs, such as large industrial machines and plants. I also get the impression that only European and Indonesia countries have used them much.