The "QBX" or "QEPS"

Designed for surviving earthquakes, rolling with the punches, so to speak, yet staying in touch with rescue AND medical support (via bio-monitoring).
This presents essentially the original invention proposal and diagrams by Chris Pringer as presented to associates, 2010-2013.
Qbx Design Diagrams, Pg1a1 by Chris Pringer, 2010QBX-TopView Diagram by Chris Pringer, 2010QBX-TopView Diagram by Chris Pringer, 2010
Origins of the "QBX" or "QEPS" Invention Proposal

          The idea came to mind [6/9/2010] when ‘client M’ (long-time, trusted) told about his solid oak 1-pc table- so huge it wrecked walls when it was moved upstairs. I said that he could jump under it in case of earthquake. I asked ‘client M’ to be on lookout for someone with structural engineering expertise, knowledge of earthquake codes & high-rise building standards, how to conduct necessary research for meeting standards, who could raise necessary capital local, connections, pitfalls, but not a [greedy] type. EG: a well-communicating team is will be required for such an invention to become a reality, including knowledge of various insurance, building, and related government code related requirements.

* Intro Notes (2010)   …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Selling Point Summary  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* After-Fact-Notes (2016)  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Description(s), Project Questions  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Summary Description with Diagrams   …  …  …  …  …
* Diagrams (Details, building Placements)  …  …  …  …
* Med-Comm / EMS System Interface  …  …  …  …  …
* Tech Notes & Questions …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Research- City Plans & Scenario Damage / Questions
* Location of Qbx’s in Building  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* CBR Threat Considerations   …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Gov. Grants/Funding  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Research Index (current)   …  …  …  …  …  …  …  …
* Brochure Sales Pitch (to make a point)  …  …  …  …


  An invention, a device and system designed for providing earthquake protection in existing and future buildings and homes of all types, but especially for high-rise condos tenants, who don't have adequately quick or strong safety, during building collapse [and provide a safe place through & beyond aftershocks]. Most of the considerations below were conceived with *existing multi-family buildings* in mind. The device would need to withstand effects of both falling (impacts from a fall from whatever heights) & impacts by external objects (including other QBX units). It would include communications and signal devices, limited supplies, utilities, etc (elaboration below).

  Custom-made kits would have more amenities; others - especially for smaller housing units- may even double as, or fit under/inside of, tables or beds - unless design requires an upright position at initiation of building's structural failure.

[from page 2:]   ...[for] saving (many) lives under certain conditions. ...concept is surprisingly simple, ...technically complex for construction & installation.

  QUESTIONS - I have included some questions re Engineering/Feasibility,  determine/ eliminate tech/ legal possibilities or pitfalls.  The more I look into building codes, roll-cage design, the med-stats communications system, security aspects, and other elements of this design, the more expanded yet realistic it appears for producing optimal working systems. I say this without knowing specific materials/composition, therefore actual dimensions or weights of components, individually or overall.



    *     Existing Systems/Devices Mimicked [Elaborated on page 7; 2010]:
        <> Automobile (Crash & Suspension Systems); <> Space-Vehicle; Wide Ranging Life-Support Systems (including Bio-Monitoring, Energy Storage, & Respiration±, etc); <> Safe Room or “Panic Room”; <> Landing Pod (Communications System, Water & Elect.Shock Proofing, etc); <> Armored Car (Rescue/Recovery Systems); <> Rescue Aircraft (Arrest/ Suspension Cabling Systems); <> Camper (Survival Kit w/Tarp, First Aid, Backpack, etc)

    *        QEPS is very much in alignment with FEMA authorized publications by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: "Standing Together An Emergency Planning Guide for America’s Communities" and "Health Care at the Crossroads - Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Community-wide Emergency Preparedness Systems" . In that regard, the below points are ESPECIALLY enhanced by the Med-Stats Communications System in QEPS [elaboration on page 6]:

    *       Specifically address health and medical facility emergency planning. (Under "Develop the Integrated Plan")
    *        Review and build on existing communications planning initiatives. ¦  Obtain/prepare information for crisis communications  ¦  Define emergency communications protocols or procedures  ¦  Establish communications credibility with the public. (Under "Ensure Thorough Communication Planning")

      *      “Brochure” ideas for Hi-Rise Condo Advertising: Unit Cost $10,000, $20,000? (see page 12)

      *     Funding Note: After an effective presentation to certain government officials (especially in Japan, China, some other Asian nations on Pacific Rim fault lines and with relative economic stability), non-gov’t funding may not be needed. [This and all the other above notes (with exception of that in brackets) were in the presentation before getting the feedback noted in the second column ~cp, 2016] [Tag: earthquake preparation]

Feedback on the Presentation of QBX/QEPs Project, 2010 & 2013 [Reformatted & edited for clarity, 2016]:

The more technically-capable individuals, including a building construction manager (Tom B.1, July 2010): the only reservations were re: cost/benefit analysis for certain applications of the device; Tom B2’s reservations were also around finances, thinking government budgets won’t afford it. That I first need to do more research to define engineering parameters, so I/we can draw up a blueprint. A structural engineer (GV, 2013), found the idea seemed technically feasible aside from unknown materials costs and or where to go for funding such a project.

For consultation about cost/benefit analysis for large scale (city/state) projects, I presented Idea in August 2010 to friend (Tom B.2) [per his own career experience], as well as knowledge of people involved in city planning, and thereby related civil engineering.

He said that a) was definitely a feasible project, would be demand for it, reminding him of a “panic room”; b) there were no government funds available (in his opinion) for projects like this, and c) was generally not sufficiently informed for the questions concerning codes qualification, marketing & capital building, grants & patenting, or interfacing with government officials about inventions while maintaining confidentiality about unpatented inventions (noted under “General, Financial, & Managerial Questions” header on next page).

Except that, "The grants you are interested in are applied for, as you know, by local/state governments. Those governments would only do so in relation to your invention, IF SUCH AN INVENTION ALREADY EXISTED IN THE MARKETPLACE. ...the governments are the last place to adopt, not the first. To get to that point of having such an invention in the marketplace, you need the involvement of the private sector. To get the attention of the private sector, you need credentials (an education, with a degree at the end) and a team of like-minded individuals who can fill in skills you lack. These are also found in university settings."

QBXNavPicMap 3 2 I

After the fact (2016):
        Overall, those I checked the design with in 2010 DID believe it was feasible, EXCEPT for having doubts that anyone or organization (including in government) would find enough money for it. I realized later that I had not presented my arguments against that aspect well, and possibly to people with politically influenced motivations about the funding of such projects. The project presentation included suggestions - a growing number at the time - for smaller and simpler designs, and kits for which, some of which could be "homemade" designs- at least for mechanically capable individuals. I didn't think of it then, but the idea could also be extrapolated to provide for larger numbers of people. On the other hand, the smaller rounded units were designed to actually "roll with the punches" as much as they were to resist them - a dynamic more difficult to build into larger designs. Banks of smaller units would be more expensive than one larger one, of course. But when we are considering how to survive a quake of such a size, as to be unquantifiable in practical terms for assessment of damage and other effects on [whatever] in the Northwest's terrain and infrastructure... Well, the decisions about how much to budget for such a project can, I imagine, boggle the minds of the best informed of the more caring officials. In any case, I put this design proposal on the web in hopes that there may be those that have both the technical and other necessary know-how and connections to consider the idea, and, if finding it worthwhile, possibly implement the project in time for "the big one."

Some good news & design variations:

       Note that, a few years later in 2012, web searching led me to discover that many similar ideas/ inventions had since arisen, apparently mainly in response to the quake in Fukushima. Many of them were designs for surviving flood waters and radio-activity, and/or a time of floating out at sea, where they would be (ideally) be rescued before provisions or the pod's structural integrity or flood-resistance failed. From this, I can extrapolate for a a design that incorporates the best of the QBX/QEPs designs and temporary sea-worthiness - for "bounce-&-bobble-capacity."(!) No doubt, adding this capability could greatly increase the cost. On the other hand, there could be varying designs with some more based on their being used where there is more likely to be flooding, and others for where their is more likely to be longer falls and harder collisions. And so on.
       ~Chris Pringer, September 2016


Page 1 of 12   |   The “Qbx” by Chris Pringer   |  Edited for Print July 2010   |   at ChaliceBridge.Com   September 2016,
Added title block & pics February 2017
Go to Next Page    

Thumbnail EmBody-Mind-Chalice-Synthesis in (AChaliToruSphere) by Chris Pringer
"The Body-Mind & The Chalice"
      Click here to go to the "About Page" (Author/Artist/Site Info)  
  Or  to the "2nd About Page" Or *The Story* of "The Body-Mind & The Chalice"
                  Or   here for What's NEW at ChaliceBridge
                                  Or  the ChaliceBridge.Com Index Page

Where You Are Now smile :
Thumbnail of ChaliceBridge.Com Organization Chart
Site Map & Organization Chart

Sample Artwork by yours truly:

Animated gif of selection of my work at Fine Art America, as of Dec'12

Above is a selection from my gallery at
ArtistWebsites.Com of Fine Art America (or Pixels.Com) viewable at full resolution, and is available in framed or canvas prints, greeting cards, & more.
A slideshow presentation at this site is at the Chalice Art & Holiday Card Slideshow Pages.
'Karma-learning-Love Shield' - 'What is Sown is Reaped, What is stolen is paid for; Karma is Learning is Justice is Love; The Tree of Life Bears the Flower of Life Bears the Tree of Life...' Shared by Chris Pringer 2010
"Karma Learning Love Shield" Chris Pringer 2010



site search by freefind

VISITS to ChaliceBridge.Com

The "HITS" count would be many times this number according to Google Stats. Below is an older chart of summarized results - according to Webalizer Stats.

All writing and artwork at Chalicebridge.Com (unless otherwise noted) is by the author/editor, Christopher Pringer of Ballard, WA