h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
we'd put these things in the forests.
They'd be made of a fire-proof
exterior with some sort of fire-
extinguishing core. Activated by
extreme heat from the blaze, it
would spew the extinguisher over a
large area. Would work best when
many are "planted" in some sort of
line across a large
area.
[link]
|
| |
Let's see... You'd definately need at least one per tree. Let's call them $1000 each. Now, multiply by the number of trees in a forest... |
|
| |
The idea calls for the strategic placement of the devices in firebreak lines rather than one for every tree. I think that having something that could be deployed at key "firebreak" points isn't an altogether bad idea. |
|
| |
I don't know that you'd need one
for every tree. A telephone-pole
sized extinguisher can hold a lot
of compressed retardant. Maybe
they're only placed as a fire-break
before residential areas. |
|
| |
I see your point. But still, if only triggered by extreme heat isn't it too late for a fire break? Change this to have solar powered heat sensors and... well, I still think it's too expensive to have a few hundred mile long line of these things, but will wait for further discussion. |
|
| |
Maybe they're triggered remotely
by the forest service, or rangers,
or by satallite. |
|
| |
*whew* Glad to see "pants" aren't involved. |
|
| |
Only deploying them about homesteads and buildings would probably be best, given that forests apparently rely on fires to maintain their health. Full blown forest fires are fearsome things, but keeping a roof doused in water or alternatively baby diaper gel is apparently enough to keep the house from burning down. |
|
| |
If a fire extinguisher pole goes off in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound? |
|
| |
A similar idea: have fire sensors ( radio conected to detector ) in the forests. If a fire breaks out, the fire fighters will know about it sooner, making it easier to put out. ( if they want to, they don't have to of course ) You would not need 10000000 chanels, just have one and use telemetry to determine location. If it's dry out, douse it, otherwise, don't. |
|
| |
[my-nep] that's a great idea. |
|
| |
Sounds interesting, [bct]. Only some obvious engineering costs and maintenance caveats would be an issue. When I posted the fire-extinguishing bomb I was a beginner, but now I have come up with a similar idea, only underground. I believe there is no need for a one-item per tree expense, of course.
There should be safety bands of those devices, close enough to isolate, in the worst case, possible sources of fire from each other, so extinguishing one of them would r.e.a.ll.y knock that area out.
If you want to know, IMHO, satellite detection should be ok in order to trigger the extinguishing device. |
|
| |
The 'undertaken bomb' I mentioned, by the way, goes more or less like this: say you dig a hole three or four feet deep under a tree, set a powerful (vacuum?) bomb into it, then re-fill the whole. Repeat once every other tree, or once every 5 trees, or whaterver, then pay the rangers a little bit more for maintenance operations. |
|
| |
Upon detection of a hotspot (a possible source of fire), the nearest group of bombs gets triggered (alarms for a 60-second warning period in case someone is near), then explodes. As a result, trees are uprooted and tons of soil are spread all over the place.
The disadvantage here is that there is no 100% extinguishing probability, even if the correct spots are triggered, it may take some more to spread enough sand/soil particles all over the area.
The advantage being the cheaper (bomb) device. |
|
| |
I will bun this simply because its half-bakeable. Technically you will never be able to put enough fire surpression equipment into a forest to where it would actually be effective. You would have an easier time making an attempt at draining the ocean. |
|
| |