Fire Destroys Southampton Fibre-Optics Center 201
Sam Haine '95 writes "BBC News reports that a fire has burnt down a CS facility at the University of Southampton. It's notable because the facility was one of the best in the world." From the article: "Some of the most advanced research work in the country, and indeed the world was carried out in this facility ... We probably will have to start from scratch, and it will take a couple of years to rebuild the facility"
liquid nitrogen (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously not a chem grad student... nitrogen would have helped put out the fire. Still, the exploding canisters act like rockets and prevent fire-fighters from getting close.
Re:Grammar error (Score:3, Informative)
University student information (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK people (Score:3, Informative)
But the whole idea of machine rooms as dangerous fire sources dates back to valves, three-phase and lots of paper dust. Mine is in the middle of a mixed office/manufacturing complex, and it's far mkore likely that a fire would start outside the room and burn in than vice versa. Once the pressure boundary of the machine room is breached gaseous extinguishant is useless.
I've kept the CO2 system, but our safety people are close to arguing that our chances of killing people by accident are greater than the chances of improved fire safety. Far better to spend money and resource on fire prevention.
The Ardman example (and a few years ago the fire than hit that art warehouse) are also hard, because large, open storage areas are impossible to pressurise and water would be almost as destructive as fire.
In practice, IT operations are less likely to burn and more likely to be backed up than other parts of businesses. Look instead at paper financial records, at test fixtures in factories, at lab areas in development operations, at patch frames (you know where every patch in your 1000-employee building goes, right?)
ian
Formatting (Score:2, Informative)
You need to make sure that little drop down menu says "Plain Old Text"
That's the only way
Re:OK people (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like suddenly the oxygen in the room disappears and everyone asphyxiates. Halons are basically a super-powerful CFC. They destroy ozone (hence removing oxygen from the air, which sucks if you rely on oxygen, like humans).
There are alternatives to halons, as discussed here: http://www.harc.org/harcnews.html [harc.org].
CS dept fine, ES dept not (Score:3, Informative)
For those that aren't aware, Soton has a combined electronics and computer science facility. Electronics in Mountbatten, and CS in the attached Zepler building. Only Mountbatten was affected, and Zepler recieved only minor smoke and heat damage. This is remarkable as Mountbatten has been entirely gutted due to the explosions, whereas Zepler appears to be otherwise perfectly fine.
Mountbatten did have a modern sprinkler system, quite why it failed and why the fire escalated will be investigate in the next few days. There are also concerns over the lack of information about chemicals stored there, which prevented fire crews from stopping the fire earlier.
Re:Chip Fab (Score:2, Informative)
Re:liquid nitrogen (Score:3, Informative)
As a chem student, damaging/heating a canister of compressed nitrogen can cause a fairly violent explosion. It's not combustion; it's just rapid expansion.
Re:Halon doesn't work by displacing oxygen (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the reason why halon was discontinued is not related to people getting trapped and dying (if I understood correctly, halon should be efficient at very low concentrations). The problem was that it damages the ozone layer. (taken from the same page [sciam.com]: "By international agreement, however, production of all types of halons ceased in 1994 because the bromine and chlorine atoms in the chemical were found to migrate over time to the stratosphere, where they react to deplete ozone in a very efficient catalytic cycle.")