Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Almost as great as sliced bread.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                         

fire extinguisher pole

 Giant fire-extinguishers "planted" in high-risk fire areas
  (+5, -1)
(+5, -1) 		  [vote for,
against]

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.
—bct, Jul 23 2003

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       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...
—Worldgineer, Jul 23 2003
   

       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.
—bristolz, Jul 23 2003
   

       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.
—bct, Jul 23 2003
   

       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.
—Worldgineer, Jul 23 2003
   

       Maybe they're triggered remotely by the forest service, or rangers, or by satallite.
—bct, Jul 23 2003
   

       *whew* Glad to see "pants" aren't involved.
—thumbwax, Jul 23 2003
   

       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.
—DrCurry, Jul 23 2003
   

       If a fire extinguisher pole goes off in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?
—DeathNinja, Jul 23 2003
   

       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, Oct 31 2003
   

       [my-nep] that's a great idea.
—neilp, Dec 20 2004
   

       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.
—mayihave, Oct 19 2007
   

       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.
—Jscotty, Oct 19 2007
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle