Report Title:

The BurrowBlaster Developers Report and findings resulting from Research and Development of a Wireless Remote alternative to the current ‘Inline’ Remote Control method of causing ignition to gasses in a tunnel system.

Summary:

Although the BurrowBlaster is already the safest and lowest cost device on the market, the developers are always looking for ways to improve the technology and operating environment that surrounds the use of such a device.

You will see from the results of our research and development of the BurrowBlaster that the introduction of a wireless remote introduces more negatives than positives. It is our policy to always remind ourselves that we are dealing with an explosive device and anything that introduces more risk for the Operator is to be avoided.

Operator Safety is dependent on the Operator being fully in control of the Gas Flow and the Ignition System at all times. We believe and recommend that the Operator must keep a distance of at least 25 feet from the blast at all times. Ducking behind trees as recommended by some of the less safety conscious companies is very dangerous as many of the burrows run past and under the tree root base.

More importantly though, using a wireless remote introduces a less structured approach to operator safety which may in the end result in Operator Injuries and property damage similar or worse than those sustained by Operators who have used the handheld devices.

So, if the operator must be in control and must be at least 25 feet away, what is the point of separating the Operator from the Gas Flow, Gas tanks and Trigger mechanism. Wireless Remote clearly introduces more risks for the Operator than the ‘inline’ remote control.

In summary, it is clear to us that there in no gain with the use of a wireless remote device. Instead, the wireless remote operation introduces new untested and unknown Operator dangers. You will see from this report that the wireless remote introduces new dangers for the Operator which we consider an unacceptable risk.

Our Research results into Wireless Devices

The BurrowBlaster manufacturers conducted research and development into the use of a wireless device to trigger the spark that ignites the gases nearly 2 years ago.

BurrowBlaster developers comments on Wireless Remote Technology:

“We put together a few wireless proto types, but they were expensive to make  and many things could go wrong. The main point is that with all these types of devices the gas line is always attached to the device that goes into the tunnel so it makes no since to separate the Operator from the device using a wireless remote. That’s why we have kept with a hard ‘inline’ remote that runs along the gas line.”

“The main goal of BurrowBlaster is to keep it simple and get the technology to our users without charging them thousands of pounds for unnecessary features, and in the case of the wireless remote, delivering increased risk to the Operator. The BurrowBlaster has always been a remote control device, it has always been safer to use than any other product on the market and it has always cost less than the hand-held, hand-line and wireless remote devices.”

Our research and development highlighted the fact that use of a wireless remote places the Operator at increased risk and consequently the project was terminated for the following reasons and conclusions:

The first and most important is that the wireless remote introduced a whole new area of risk that we could not test. For example, the Operator could not know whether a mechanical or electrical failure had occurred at the wand end. This fact alone with the related Operator Safety implications resulted in the wireless technology being discounted by BurrowBlaster developers.

The second is that care would have to be taken in the design to make sure that each device had a unique wireless key that could not be duplicated or triggered by any other wireless device.  This is of paramount importance to the safety of the Operator. Although technology does exist which would enable the issue of  unique keys for each device, there is and was no way of guaranteeing that any other wireless device could not interfere with the operation. Once again, this single item left the Operator open to safety issues which made the technology to  risky for development with the BurrowBlaster.

The requirement to issue unique keys raised its own problems.  The small fob is easily lost in the field and once lost would cause additional replacement and cost issues for both the Operator and the Manufacturer. This goes against our philosophy of providing the lowest possible cost for the device and also has implications for the support of the product in the field.

From an operational point of view, a technical failure of a wireless only device would result in the device becoming inoperable as there would be no way of ignition without the wireless fob.

We also felt that using a hands-off approach that the wireless fob would bring, placed the Operator to far away from the control over the handling of the ignition. This we felt would undermine the safety standards that an operator should follow when addressing him/herself to the Operator Safety procedures. 

The conclusion was that although the thought of a key fob sounds like a good idea, the application of this method of detonation delivered to many unanaswered safety questions.  In fact, as you can see from the summary below, we could not find a single benefit for the Operator (or the Manufacturer) from the introduction of wireless remote technology.

The result is that we did not introduce the wireless devices for use with the BurrowBlaster for the following reasons:

It would make the BurrowBlaster less safe for Operator use than the single inline, single ignition, very safe, remote operation we have always had.

It would introduce new elements of risk to Operator safety that we are not possible to test fully in the field.

It would introduce a whole new layer of cost to the device without providing any significant gains.

It would result in our having to produce a new wand that would be heavier and more cumbersome to use.

It would introduce maintainenace issues surrounding the key fob that made the product more complex and therefore needed more management which in turn would have meant that we would have to pass the cost on to our customers.

The fact is that these devices have a very simple operation.

“why we decided that a wireless remote is not safe enough for our customers to  use with an explosive device?”

We have some very good reasons for not implementing a wireless trigger mechanism with the BurrowBlaster. Some of the reasons have to do with what the BurrowBlaster already delivers for its Operators. Here is a short list of reasons why the BurrowBlaster has been the best device on the market for the past 5 years and why it is still the safest device on the market today for tunnel busting:

• Because it is an ‘inline’ remote control device, it has been safely and effectively collapsing tunnels systems on thousands of farms in the UK and US for over 5 years without any reported injuries.
• Unlike handheld, handline and wireless devices, the BurrowBlaster is tried and tested on tens of thousands of tunnels systems proving that it is easy to use and safe for Operators and it has the track record to support this.
• Operator Safety is paramount to the BurrowBlaster design and our remote control design has proven to be fool proof over the years delivering safe operating for the Operators.
• there is no chance that a wrong button can be pushed placing the Operator at risk as we only have 1 button
• there is no chance of gas supply failing to cutoff during ignition without the Operator knowing as the ignition button won’t work whilst the gas is still flowing and for further safety, because the Operator is operating from within a few feet of the gas tanks, but 25 feet or more away from the blast, the Operator can actually hear the gas flow.
• The BurrowBlaster does not use any mechanical movements with wireless triggers so  there is no chance of a mechanical failure at the wand end occurring without the Operator knowing.  

Our Research indicated that a wireless operation was not safe enough to use with an explosive device. This report details why Wireless Remote Operations for this type of device is not safe enough for Operators.

More Important Points About the benefits of the ‘inline’ BurrowBlaster over all the other methods available.

* Gas mixture? All the companies out there that sell these devices will tell you that their gas mix is better than their competition. That is of course complete  hog wash. The fact is, all the devices do exactly the same thing, they deliver a mix of gases to the tunnel which is then ignited. If the gases are not mixed exactly none of them work. There is a 4% variation within which they all work. If the mix is 2% high or 2% low from the correct calibrated mix the gases will either not ignite or the blast will not be optimum.

* Proximity to the Wand? It makes good safety sense to ensure that the Operator stands a good distance away from the blast. Hand Held devices are dangerous as the operator has to stand right on top of the tunnel entrance when igniting the gas.

Hand Line devices that provide a few extra feet between the Operator and the blast are also dangerous for the same reason as the handheld device. Thay cannot get far enough away from the blast to be safe.

Wireless devices require that the Operator always remembers to move far enough away from the blast. This is not ideal and has safety implications as many operators may not be able to easily judge a safe distance once operations get underway.

Our research and experience in the field shows that the Operator is safe at a distance of 25 feet or more from the blast. The BurrowBlaster comes with a 25ft hose as standard.

* Getting the most out of the blast? Hand-held and hand-Line units cause operators to back off, resulting in an ineffective application. They often substitute safe distance operating by apply insufficient gas which in turn leaves more margin for error and less opportunity for the complete collapse of the tunnel system. Operators of these devices become fatigued by the constant concussion from the blasts and the heavy weight of the wand. The BurrowBlaster on the other hand provides safe distance operating enabling maximum application of gases and a safe blast zone for the Operator.

* Lighter wands maximize Operator efficiency?  Typical operating days require the wand end of the device to be moved between 20 and 100 times on a single operating day. Heavy wands like the hand-held devices and the hand-line devices are very heavy and therefore very fatiguing on the operator. The wireless remote devices are also heavy as they carry the controls for the wireless operation in the wand handle. The wireless remotes have several components to the wand making it difficult to carry and requiring contstant changing of the attachments to suit the different size and type of tunnel. This also is exacting on the Operator creating Operator fatigue due to both weight and attachment changes. The BurrowBlaster on the other hand has a single lightweight wand that is about 50% lighter than the wireless remote and because it fits all the sizes and types of tunnels it is much easier to move, carry and use.  

* Will the rodents return? Best efforts must be made to completely destroy the tunnel system. When a tunnel is left intact after trapping or poisoning another rodent WILL move in.

All the Research shows that the BurrowBlaster is the best device for the maximum delivery of gases sufficient to destroy the tunnel system. This means that there is no easy ‘relocation’ habitat for another rodent to move in.