Open Blog where you Submit, Vote and Read

Submit
Our content is based entirely on readers' submissions
Recent

read and Vote on recent items
Hot
Read the front page or the best rated articles

Collapsible Emergency Escape Elevator

Webman's picture

Categories:    -Companies and deals-   -Design-   -How to-   -Technology-

Pursuant to Sept 11, new developments has emerged in the field of skyscrapers emergency rescue. One of the companies specializing in this area is Escape Rescue Systems. The company developed an external elevator with multiple collapsible chambers. The advantage of the system is the ability to rescue people from several floors at a time. The higher the building, the more essential it is to rescue people from more floors at the same time.

Watch the video to see the system in operation.

Information from the company website:

The building-wide system is composed of (at least) two devices; each is an array of five collapsible cabins. The system is permanently stored on the roof in a folded position.
Upon deployment, each array is lowered to the ground. It then unfolds, enabling emergency responders to board the cabins. It travels upwards until it stops opposite five elevated floors simultaneously; enabling 300 occupants to enter through specially configured exit windows (150 people from 5 floors into each array). Each array is then lowered to the ground and tenants exit as it refolds. The system repeats this cycle, transporting responders up and into the building and evacuating tenants as required.
The system, based on a unique, patent-pending technology, enjoys substantial advantages over competing concepts and other new products:
• Very high throughput capacity;
• Effective to all building heights;
• Serves both evacuation (“down”) and rescue personnel transport (“up”);
• Requires no skill or unfamiliar actions by evacuees; and is
• Suitable for all ages and physical conditions of evacuees, including disabled people.



Links:
url: http://www.youtube.com/watch_fullscreen?video_id=es8CK0-DsHc&
l=142&s=0D42788F97E26FCB:8A51374783A7BCE6&fs=1&title=building%20eva

url1: http://www.escaperescue.com/work/movie_window_wma.htm

Recommended Best Deal    
   Message to readers: The content of this CoMagazine is written by readers like you. You are invited to register or login to submit your article, news item, link recommendation or write a column.   
   Please vote. Your vote determines the front page articles

   Navigation   
Front Page
New items
Hot items
Other items by this writer

   Save:   RSS   Search Digg   digg   bookmark   reddit   spurl   wists   simpy   blinklist   furl   fark   blogmarks   My Web 2.0   cosmos   
   printer friendly version   send this link   Permalink

thats great..buuut...

thats great that someone thought about this to help save lives...But dont get it twisted...the twin towers didnt collapse because of a fire...they collapsed because it was a controlled demolition...but still thats good someone made these...it would work great for fires in skyscrapers..but im pretty sure they wont be good when our own government is blowing up buildings...

how dumb could you possibly

how dumb could you possibly be... but then again how could Charlie Sheen be wrong

dumb?

there is enough evidence to say it was controlled demolition, even though the evidence was quickly carted away and sold. It's ok to have questions, you know.

yes its okay to have

yes its okay to have questions but after looking at the information it should be fairly obvious that it was not a controlled demolition.  Now lets get this straight I'm not a fan of Gerorge Bush, but it seems to me that most of the people that beleive this crap are also, to put it lightly, very harsh critics of the president.  Lets also not pretend that this Loose Change film is in anyway unbiased.  Ill put it this way, if you have done kust a little bit of fair research and you still think that those building were taken down in a controlled demolition then you are either stupid or as in most cases just biased to the point where you are filtering all the information down to support only what you want to hear.  Maybe people just feel better if they think that the government orchestrated 911 instead of failing us horriblt by not preventing it.

Have YOU looked at the information?

yes its okay to have questions

Good, we can agree on something.

but after looking at the information it should be fairly obvious that it was not a controlled demolition.

Many demolition experts have looked at the information and have concluded just the opposite.

it seems to me that most of the people that beleive this crap are also, to put it lightly, very harsh critics of the president

Fallacy: poisoning the well. Whether or not someone likes/dislikes Pres. Bush does not mean what they have to say is invalid. Answer the points that have been raised, on their own merit.

 if you have done kust a little bit of fair research and you still think that those building were taken down in a controlled demolition then you are either stupid or as in most cases just biased to the point where you are filtering all the information down to support only what you want to hear

Hmm, I thought you said it was good to question, the whole spirit of inguiry and all. I guess it's only good when you conclude that all observations and data are answered by an airplane+fire takes down 3 buildings theory. Sounds like you're just as biased, only in the other direction, against anything that smacks of conspiracy. You're a hypocrite.

Have you read/looked at the information? The NIST Report Summary, the FEMA Report, or the 9/11 Commission Report? Or any of the reports that conflict with those, written by physicists, demolition experts, and metallurgical experts?

we can agree on something.

it seems to me that most of the people that beleive this crap are also, to put it lightly, very harsh critics of the president.

Homin Valve Co., Ltd. specializing in the production of ball valve and butterfly valves.

wow gold

wow gold

wow gold

wow gold

wow gold

check your fact books

go ahead and look it up... no other skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire alone. Some skyscrapers burned for 17+ hours and still didn't collapse. But the WTC falls under it's own weight from a fire at the TOP OF THE BUILDING??? Yeah, right.

Check your facts again

I seriously doubt that any fire in any skyscraper was nearly as hot at that of the WTC. I assure you that thousands of pounds of Jet fuel will burn much hotter than any fire that an office building could ever produce. The flames from the jet fuel would have been hot enough to melt metal. Conspiracy theorys suck. It's plain physics and thermodynamics

Jet Fuel. OK

Then what was responsible for WTC7 coming down? No jet fuel there.

People standing at opening!!

Then how were people standing at the edge of the hole in the side, waving for help???!  Under your theory, they would have been vaporized.

wow gold

wow gold

What A Complete Moron!!!

A controlled demolition??? LMFAO I guess the planes slamming into the towers were just for effect and the pentagon was hit by a missile... You are a worthless human!!!

rolo tamasi

can you prove otherwise?  There has been no certifiable evidence that the WTC fell because of the planes alone.  Seriously dude, look it up.  No other skyscraper has fallen from fire.  But WTC falls in just a few hours?  C'Mon...

seriously dude, no other

seriously dude, no other skyscraper was hit by a jetliner loaded with jet fuel.  most of the structural integrity of the wtc towers was from the outer skin of the building, when that plane hit it took alot of that a way, then you have an extremely intense fire fueled by jet fuel burning in that same spot, now people will argue that it could not have possibly burned hot enough to melt steel.  well it didnt have to melt to the point where its a liquid it just had to get hot enough to soften the allready damaged structure.  factor in the weight of some 20 stories worth of building on top of this weak spot and you have yourself a broken building.

OK so explain...

...what took down WTC7. No airplane. No jet fuel. Making it the only steel structered high rise in all of history to collapse from a fire.

large parts of the two big

large parts of the two big towers that fell down right next to it hit it... pretty simple explanation...

Stay with the program

Even the official reports of the WTC7 collapse put the cause as fire+debris, not just large chunks falling from WTC1 & WTC2.

Yes, debris from WTC1 (350' away) did fall on WTC7, but the damage was clearly non-symmetrical, and evidently, none of the 24 core columns was severed by falling debris.

Why did WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building?

The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely.  If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing.

Interestingly, there are several examples of buildings that have collapsed from random events (earthquakes) where only parts of the building were damaged.  For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.

Why was molten metal (>1000 oC) pulled from the debris pile early on? In other words, it was not caused by the subsequent subterranean fires.

'The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.' (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

Read the official reports. Then read what demolition experts, metallurgical experts, and physicists have to say.

wow gold

WTC was a controlled

WTC was a controlled demolition? NO WAY!

QUICK!! CALL CNN!!

Oh, wait a second, the news agencies, the government, and thousands of other people are in on the 'conspiracy' and noone has leaked anything let.

seriously, at least be open to the possibility

have you ever taken a look at how completely complacent modern media outlets really are?  When was the last time you saw someone ask a tough question to anyone important?  It's not that they're in on it.  It's that our culture is built on looking past all the tiny glitches in percieved reality.  It's how we get through our day.  Apparently you get through your day by flaming people for simply raising a little doubt.

hahaha

Be open to the possibility that... planes crashed into the WTC, but those thousand-degree flames didn't affect whatever explosives you're claming was planted there by (let me guess) the Bush administration, hoping to ignite the flames of war so America can take over the world's oil?

 I DO have an open mind.  If you took off your tin foil hat you might, too.

 
 

wow gold

wow gold

wow gold

Confused?

Av gas burns at an extremely high temperature when exposed to air (oxidize). This temperature is hot enough to melt steel girders which made up the supporting structure of the towers. When a structure folds in the middle all the weight above it acts like a hammer pounding it two the ground. So there you go Add two full tanks of Av gas, oxygen and 2 big buildings for Fireman pancake.

a discrepency

yeah, but explain how the girders in the basement (where the poster below would argue the "explosives" were planted) were exponentially hotter than the ones from where the planes hit, even weeks after the buildings collapsed. 

Sounds reasonable but....

...what took down WTC7 which was not hit by any airplane?

wow gold

You are stupid.

If you don't think it was a controlled demo, then go watch "Loose Change 2nd Editon" on google video, that will sure change your mind, it did for me.

Loose Change didn't do it for me...

...but this did.

Read it

wow gold

wow gold

Questioning the capacity

I'm looking at that demo and I don't see where you could fit 60 people in each of those compartments... or is it 30... (150 or 300 total, the article id a little fuzzy) Either way, the unit shown doesn't look like it could hold even that many. Good idea, but I'm hoping a live version would be a little larger.

wow gold

Gravity is not a conspiracy!

Gravity still works at the top of a sky scraper... Yes, it is good to question but you should listen when credible answers are presented. As for facts, sky scrapers have collapsed from fires, check your history books, just none in the last forty years. Also how many of the sky scrapers that have burned but not fallen wear built exactly like the TTs? None! so how can you compare apples to oranges? Stop taking uneducated "experts" word that they have done all the research. Are they educated in proper research methodologies, just because you googled it does not make it research. What was the weight of the floors above the burning sections? What is the temperature at which steel becomes unable to suport its rated load, not melting temp but load temp? What is the acceleration of the total weight of the floors above the burning section if the supports do not resist the rated load placed on them? Is this acceleration force greater than the structural load capabilities of the floor below? Until you can answer these questions for yourself, stop making stuff up or listening and repeating what you have heard from persons who do not know how to answer these questions. Boy, were they right or what when they said american schools are failing to educate!

no... it's a theory

Well don't you sound smart.  Listen, I would appreciate your argument if it were supported by facts and not just more questions.  You don't have any of the information needed to make an informed decision, and neither do the people who made the posts below, so why does everyone claim that the other is wrong?  What's wrong with asking questions?  That's where American schools failed.

wow gold

History books won't help on this one

The NIST did heat and load tests on steel beams comparable to the ones used in WTC1 & WTC2. They were not able to reproduce results consistent with the fuel+impact+fire theory.

The point is, knowing the weight and falling momentum of the floors above the fracture zone is irrelevant if you do not know the mechanism whereby the fracture happens in the first place :)

wow gold

stupid conspiracy theories

there is no conspiracy, get over it.

loose change is the dumbest video ever... those 'jets' they say are bombs as its falling are actaully ejectorate from the midsection of the building collapsing and forcing all the material out the centre through the windows.

To the guy that says watch "Loose Change 2nd Edition"

I did watch and it is sh*t. I'll tell that you are right because there is a conspiracy only it involves conspiring to make these sh*t documentaries and selling them to people to uneducated to know better.

If Loose Change doesn't make you question

Post new comment


*

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <embed><object><param><a> <em> <strong> <cite><blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br><p><img>
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, works in this website are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 2.5 License.
israeli news  Cheapest Xbox Playstation Wii in Israel  wedding in Israel