Warning Receiver Sensor Feedback for Hazard Assessment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current warning systems lack the ability to assess the timeliness, effectiveness, and accuracy of warnings received by affected sites, as they often rely on qualitative data and subjective evaluations, and may fail to account for local conditions, leading to incomplete or inaccurate hazard assessments and potential protection gaps during communication disruptions.

Innovation Solution

An automated warning receiver equipped with sensors that measure the impacts of hazards and build models to adjust forecasted parameters, allowing for site-specific assessments and independent operation when communication with the warning system is unavailable, providing quantitative data for system performance evaluation and improvement.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If warning messages are sent from a centralized warning system to affected sites, then hazard information can be communicated to multiple locations, but the system cannot verify whether messages were received in time or assess local effectiveness without additional sensors and feedback mechanisms

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvewarning delivery reliabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements feedback by equipping warning receivers with sensors that detect hazard onset locally and send data back to the warning system. This allows verification of whether warnings were timely and effective, resolving the contradiction between improving reliability and managing complexity through automated quantitative assessment

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The warning receiver performs self-verification by using its own sensors to detect hazard onset and assess whether the warning was timely. This self-service capability eliminates the need for external verification systems, improving reliability without proportionally increasing overall system complexity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Adaptability or versatility

If the warning system evaluates hazard regionally, then it can provide broad coverage warnings, but it cannot account for local conditions that affect hazard severity and timing

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelocal condition adaptationVSAvoidhazard assessment accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by deploying sensors at each warning receiver location to measure local hazard conditions. Each site independently assesses its own hazard exposure based on local sensor data, allowing the system to adapt to local conditions while maintaining broad coverage through multiple distributed measurement points

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Loss of information

If after action reports and surveys are used to evaluate system performance, then user feedback can be collected, but the data is qualitative, subjective, and covers only a small subset of affected locations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveperformance data completenessVSAvoidevaluation automation level
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSExtent of automation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual surveys and after-action reports with automated sensor-based performance assessment. Sensors automatically collect quantitative data about hazard onset and warning effectiveness, eliminating the need for subjective human reporting and providing complete data from all sensor-equipped locations rather than just a subset

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Reliability

If communication systems are used to deliver warnings, then hazard information can be transmitted to receivers, but communication interruptions or outages can prevent warnings from arriving when needed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvewarning reception reliabilityVSAvoidcommunication disruption impact
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements preliminary action by having sensors at each receiver location continuously monitor for hazard onset before a warning message is needed. If communication fails, the local sensor data can trigger independent local warnings, providing backup protection that doesn't depend on successful communication transmission

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS11615689B2System and method for a warning device with validation and independent operation
Publication Date: 2023.03.28 PRO-TEQ SYST INC
  • US11615689B2 patent drawing
  • US11615689B2 patent drawing
  • US11615689B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A device and method for receiving real-time warning messages about a hazardous situation, for which an alert or a mitigating control action may be warranted, with the means to measure the effects forecasted by the parameters contained in the warning messages, adjust the parameters to more accurately reflect local conditions, and provide feedback about the performance and accuracy of the system sending the warning messages.