How might be the time to design drone firefighting helicopters, which can be both remotely controlled and piloted if necessary.
The drones could work off highly detailed maps of the areas, know where water sources are located, could be programmed to dump water on the fires or sent commands to dump water from the ground.
Might need quite a few of them with a bleak future.
Tau.Neutrino said:
How might be the time to design drone firefighting helicopters, which can be both remotely controlled and piloted if necessary.The drones could work off highly detailed maps of the areas, know where water sources are located, could be programmed to dump water on the fires or sent commands to dump water from the ground.
Might need quite a few of them with a bleak future.
Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
How might be the time to design drone firefighting helicopters, which can be both remotely controlled and piloted if necessary.The drones could work off highly detailed maps of the areas, know where water sources are located, could be programmed to dump water on the fires or sent commands to dump water from the ground.
Might need quite a few of them with a bleak future.
Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
How might be the time to design drone firefighting helicopters, which can be both remotely controlled and piloted if necessary.The drones could work off highly detailed maps of the areas, know where water sources are located, could be programmed to dump water on the fires or sent commands to dump water from the ground.
Might need quite a few of them with a bleak future.
Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
Isolated lightning hits would be designed into the system as well.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
How might be the time to design drone firefighting helicopters, which can be both remotely controlled and piloted if necessary.The drones could work off highly detailed maps of the areas, know where water sources are located, could be programmed to dump water on the fires or sent commands to dump water from the ground.
Might need quite a few of them with a bleak future.
Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
OK. 40+ tonnes of water. Each.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Also we could look at the way weather fronts move across land and with lightning activity from satellites, how to best deploy drones to look for fire activated lighting hits and integrate that with an automated drone fire fighting system, lightning bands move at a certain speed so the drones would tend to follow that.
How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
that Quoted 40,000 litres figure is wrong
Elvis capacity for water Is 9,500 litres (2,500 US gal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(helicopter)
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
that Quoted 40,000 litres figure is wrong
Elvis capacity for water Is 9,500 litres (2,500 US gal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(helicopter)
Was waiting for the retraction.
I have a large drone I built myself, it’s larger than the majority of them out there. It’ll carry 2 kg.
You could certainly purpose-build a much larger one again that could carry a few hundred or maybe a thousand or so kilograms though, Use petrol engines for more power & endurance, etc as the battery-powered ones wouldn’t have anywhere near enough flight time.
Spiny Norman said:
I have a large drone I built myself, it’s larger than the majority of them out there. It’ll carry 2 kg.
You could certainly purpose-build a much larger one again that could carry a few hundred or maybe a thousand or so kilograms though, Use petrol engines for more power & endurance, etc as the battery-powered ones wouldn’t have anywhere near enough flight time.
There do exist drones that can target insurgents.
I’d be a bit worried about being able to control drones in a ‘wild’bushfire setting. We have seen how rain radar can be confused by smoke.
The top 5 heavy-lift helicopters in the world
MIL MI-26 capable of lifting 22 tons of water
MIL V-12 capable of lifting 27.5 of water
Tau.Neutrino said:
The top 5 heavy-lift helicopters in the worldMIL MI-26 capable of lifting 22 tons of water
MIL V-12 capable of lifting 27.5 of water
Even people in the pilot’s cabin find them difficult to drive let alone attempting to remote control them through a firestorm.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The top 5 heavy-lift helicopters in the worldMIL MI-26 capable of lifting 22 tons of water
MIL V-12 capable of lifting 27.5 of water
Even people in the pilot’s cabin find them difficult to drive let alone attempting to remote control them through a firestorm.
A few technical challenges but it should be possible.
How many more fires will there be in the future?
These will be designed to assist firefighters
We should also look at designing robots for fighting bushfires / forest fires / grass fires
Robots will melt.
roughbarked said:
Robots will melt.
Humans melt too
robots can get a bit closer than humans
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Robots will melt.
Humans melt too
robots can get a bit closer than humans
What are the robots going to do? Spray water at the fire? Wouldn’t any water they were carring simply boil off and evaporate?
Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Robots will melt.
Humans melt too
robots can get a bit closer than humans
What are the robots going to do? Spray water at the fire? Wouldn’t any water they were carring simply boil off and evaporate?
Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
robots could create access pathways, lift heavy branches out of the way
robots can help with back burning
ask experienced firefighters what sort of automated robots they would like
then test them
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Humans melt too
robots can get a bit closer than humans
What are the robots going to do? Spray water at the fire? Wouldn’t any water they were carring simply boil off and evaporate?
Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
robots could create access pathways, lift heavy branches out of the way
robots can help with back burning
ask experienced firefighters what sort of automated robots they would like
then test them
These are more sensible suggestions.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Humans melt too
robots can get a bit closer than humans
What are the robots going to do? Spray water at the fire? Wouldn’t any water they were carring simply boil off and evaporate?
Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
robots could create access pathways, lift heavy branches out of the way
robots can help with back burning
ask experienced firefighters what sort of automated robots they would like
then test them
>>>Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
Would a bulldozer that can operate remotely by firefighters be of use?
How close could a specially designed bulldozer get to a fire or how long could it operate next to a fire line?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:What are the robots going to do? Spray water at the fire? Wouldn’t any water they were carring simply boil off and evaporate?
Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
robots could create access pathways, lift heavy branches out of the way
robots can help with back burning
ask experienced firefighters what sort of automated robots they would like
then test them
>>>Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
Would a bulldozer that can operate remotely by firefighters be of use?
How close could a specially designed bulldozer get to a fire or how long could it operate next to a fire line?
The reality is that a bulldozer would need cameras so the operator could see where it was going.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:robots could create access pathways, lift heavy branches out of the way
robots can help with back burning
ask experienced firefighters what sort of automated robots they would like
then test them
>>>Maybe we could use robots to cut firebreaks instead of humans driving bulldozers?
Would a bulldozer that can operate remotely by firefighters be of use?
How close could a specially designed bulldozer get to a fire or how long could it operate next to a fire line?
The reality is that a bulldozer would need cameras so the operator could see where it was going.
infra red sensors which would need heat protection
I bet our firefighters would like to have some MIL MI-26’s around.
Elvis = 9.5 tons
MI26 = 22 tons
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:How much water do you expect a drone to carry?
For the mental exercise, a kilogram of water is a litre.
Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
that Quoted 40,000 litres figure is wrong
Elvis capacity for water Is 9,500 litres (2,500 US gal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(helicopter)
Even so – 9.5 tonnes. Big ask for a drone.
A few technical problems, some mentioned above.
How about this for a better idea? Adapt an army tank to fire projectiles containing firefighting chemicals accurately over distances of 1 km or more.
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Around 40,000 litres plus
Think Elvis helicopter but in drone form.
that Quoted 40,000 litres figure is wrong
Elvis capacity for water Is 9,500 litres (2,500 US gal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(helicopter)
Even so – 9.5 tonnes. Big ask for a drone.
forget little drones
Think remote controlled MI26 Helicopter capable of lifting 22 tons
a squadron 12 of them
mollwollfumble said:
A few technical problems, some mentioned above.
- Can’t easily carry enough water (but older style drones carry nuclear weapons)
- It would melt
- Extreme winds, both generated by the fire and generated by the thunderstorm.
How about this for a better idea? Adapt an army tank to fire projectiles containing firefighting chemicals accurately over distances of 1 km or more.
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Maybe you’d need a few Big Bertha’s?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:that Quoted 40,000 litres figure is wrong
Elvis capacity for water Is 9,500 litres (2,500 US gal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_(helicopter)
Even so – 9.5 tonnes. Big ask for a drone.
forget little drones
Think remote controlled MI26 Helicopter capable of lifting 22 tons
a squadron 12 of them
Why bother when there are perfectly good humans well trained to do the task of flying them?
mollwollfumble said:
A few technical problems, some mentioned above.
- Can’t easily carry enough water (but older style drones carry nuclear weapons)
- It would melt
- Extreme winds, both generated by the fire and generated by the thunderstorm.
How about this for a better idea? Adapt an army tank to fire projectiles containing firefighting chemicals accurately over distances of 1 km or more.
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
>>>How about this for a better idea? Adapt an army tank to fire projectiles containing firefighting chemicals accurately over distances of 1 km or more.
sounds interesting
a purpose built fire fighting projectile that can be directed at the base of the fire
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:Even so – 9.5 tonnes. Big ask for a drone.
forget little drones
Think remote controlled MI26 Helicopter capable of lifting 22 tons
a squadron 12 of them
Why bother when there are perfectly good humans well trained to do the task of flying them?
why bother fighting fires at all
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:forget little drones
Think remote controlled MI26 Helicopter capable of lifting 22 tons
a squadron 12 of them
Why bother when there are perfectly good humans well trained to do the task of flying them?
why bother fighting fires at all
sorry
drones don’t get tired or need sleep
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:Even so – 9.5 tonnes. Big ask for a drone.
forget little drones
Think remote controlled MI26 Helicopter capable of lifting 22 tons
a squadron 12 of them
Why bother when there are perfectly good humans well trained to do the task of flying them?
well yes, you have to have people capable of flying them anyway. it isn’t going to be a couple of joysticks on a little RC transmitter box.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:Why bother when there are perfectly good humans well trained to do the task of flying them?
why bother fighting fires at all
sorry
drones don’t get tired or need sleep
They can operate all day 7 days a week.
That’s a valuable resource considering that things will get worse.
We perhaps should look at fire forecasting at build fire equipment to match predictions.
Firefighters get exhausted, maybe fire fighting exoskeleton frames could be looked at.
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.
Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Lightning defection satellites could be used in conjunction with high attitude fire spotting drones.
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Much better idea.
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Lightning defection satellites could be used in conjunction with high attitude fire spotting drones.
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
Much more reasonable use.
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Heh!
:)
Things OK up there? Milton & Steve?
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Lightning defection satellites could be used in conjunction with high attitude fire spotting drones.
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
How many high altitude fire spotting drones would be needed to cover each state?
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
AwesomeO said:
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
they use leaf blowers to put out fires.
ChrispenEvan said:
AwesomeO said:
Woodie said:Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
they use leaf blowers to put out fires.
Is there a best angle? or best from above?
Michael V said:
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Heh!
:)
Things OK up there? Milton & Steve?
They’re fine.
The two fires are back to yellow alert. Nuther cuppla houses went over night. Highway still closed. They’ve arrested a 40 yo woman who set fire to a drum load of rubbish then went and had a snooze………………………. when it was 42C and total fire ban. Methinks she may need to leave town. They haven’t publicly named her yet.
Dropped down to 25C today, and ironically, a little light drizzle falling ATM.
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
AwesomeO said:Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
they use leaf blowers to put out fires.
Is there a best angle? or best from above?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4FTBp9jX44
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Lightning defection satellites could be used in conjunction with high attitude fire spotting drones.
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
How many high altitude fire spotting drones would be needed to cover each state?
What about a ruddy great big satellite? Well wadda ya know.
AwesomeO said:
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Or maybe use drones in a different way, a swarm to provide accurate realtime and constant heat mapping and close local wind monitoring all feeding back to a composite screen at a firefighting HQ which can direct resources enroute much more accurately.Whilst fires and winds are chaotic and hard to model a single computer map would over time be able to assist target prioritisation and even predictive to where in a front best efforts should be directed to stop damage many kms in front of it.
Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
Or you could just set off one of these instead. That’d put it out.
Woodie said:
Michael V said:
Woodie said:Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Heh!
:)
Things OK up there? Milton & Steve?
They’re fine.
The two fires are back to yellow alert. Nuther cuppla houses went over night. Highway still closed. They’ve arrested a 40 yo woman who set fire to a drum load of rubbish then went and had a snooze………………………. when it was 42C and total fire ban. Methinks she may need to leave town. They haven’t publicly named her yet.
Dropped down to 25C today, and ironically, a little light drizzle falling ATM.
Moolies? Getting any moolies?
Woodie said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Lightning defection satellites could be used in conjunction with high attitude fire spotting drones.
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
How many high altitude fire spotting drones would be needed to cover each state?
What about a ruddy great big satellite? Well wadda ya know.
Well waddya know!
Thanks for the link.
‘nings.
Power outage, so my internets today are brought to you over a string, tied to a tin can, with a coupla holes punched in the top.
Just in case Poik is lurking – Can you get Diphoterine yet? I’m curious a hell about it….
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:
Woodie said:Yeah. Hundred if not thousands of the buggers. Like a swarm of bees. All with ruddy great big fans on them. Line ‘em all up at the fire front, turn the fans on, and blow the fire out, or blow it in another direction away from houses and stuff.
Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
Or you could just set off one of these instead. That’d put it out.
Put out a fair bit of other stuff, too.
Michael V said:
Woodie said:
Michael V said:Heh!
:)
Things OK up there? Milton & Steve?
They’re fine.
The two fires are back to yellow alert. Nuther cuppla houses went over night. Highway still closed. They’ve arrested a 40 yo woman who set fire to a drum load of rubbish then went and had a snooze………………………. when it was 42C and total fire ban. Methinks she may need to leave town. They haven’t publicly named her yet.
Dropped down to 25C today, and ironically, a little light drizzle falling ATM.
Moolies? Getting any moolies?
About a bee’s dick’s worth.
Woodie said:
Michael V said:
Woodie said:They’re fine.
The two fires are back to yellow alert. Nuther cuppla houses went over night. Highway still closed. They’ve arrested a 40 yo woman who set fire to a drum load of rubbish then went and had a snooze………………………. when it was 42C and total fire ban. Methinks she may need to leave town. They haven’t publicly named her yet.
Dropped down to 25C today, and ironically, a little light drizzle falling ATM.
Moolies? Getting any moolies?
About a bee’s dick’s worth.
Bugger.
Michael V said:
Woodie said:
Michael V said:Moolies? Getting any moolies?
About a bee’s dick’s worth.
Bugger.
Morning all.
Our rural fires group use a remotely controlled drone to pinpoint fires in difficult/impassable terrain. We then can plan where we can direct our efforts.
Michael V said:
Woodie said:
AwesomeO said:Might be some merit in that idea for local defence. Mythbusters had a truck mounted jet engine powerful enough to overturn cars, now I doubt you can blow back a fire but you can come at it a different way. Blowing air onto a fire makes it more intense so you could maybe burn in front of houses and fan the fire forward to create a back burnt area buffer. Follow up with an attendant fire truck to damp down fires you may be able to create a corridor or at least reduce fuel to allow the arrival of the proper fire front more manageable.
It would be a fire fighters military equivalent of channeling by obstacle and mines.
It may not work, or being a point defence might be impracticable.
Or you could just set off one of these instead. That’d put it out.
Put out a fair bit of other stuff, too.
If ya gunna do it, then do it properly, I say.
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Yep, here it is. It’s 800 mm from the tip of one arm to the other. The props are 330 mm long. That battery is a 16,00 mah unit, it’ll keep the copter flying for just under 30 minutes. Ignore the long carbon tube sticking out the front, that was just something I was trying at the time.
FWIW I’m working on a vastly better version that only uses three ducted fans. It can VTOL and also transition to fast horizontal flight for efficient use of power. For fire-fighting I think unless you are able to carry very substantial volumes of water it’d be best to have a machine that can hover in place to deliver the water more accurately.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Yep, here it is. It’s 800 mm from the tip of one arm to the other. The props are 330 mm long. That battery is a 16,00 mah unit, it’ll keep the copter flying for just under 30 minutes. Ignore the long carbon tube sticking out the front, that was just something I was trying at the time.
FWIW I’m working on a vastly better version that only uses three ducted fans. It can VTOL and also transition to fast horizontal flight for efficient use of power. For fire-fighting I think unless you are able to carry very substantial volumes of water it’d be best to have a machine that can hover in place to deliver the water more accurately.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Lightning strike position readings could be sent to the drones which then monitor those areas.
FWIW there’s been a ground(ish) based device that’s been around for decades that can help with that – The Stormscope, as fitted to some light aircraft. It couldn’t be too difficult to place such devices on the ground in appropriate areas.
Could a fuel air bomb put out a fire, if so drones could drop them
Tamb said:
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Yep, here it is. It’s 800 mm from the tip of one arm to the other. The props are 330 mm long. That battery is a 16,00 mah unit, it’ll keep the copter flying for just under 30 minutes. Ignore the long carbon tube sticking out the front, that was just something I was trying at the time.
FWIW I’m working on a vastly better version that only uses three ducted fans. It can VTOL and also transition to fast horizontal flight for efficient use of power. For fire-fighting I think unless you are able to carry very substantial volumes of water it’d be best to have a machine that can hover in place to deliver the water more accurately.
You normally need overwhelming quantities of water. As the water is coming from above the fire small volumes are turned to steam before they do any good.
Yep.
Cymek said:
Could a fuel air bomb put out a fire, if so drones could drop them
No.
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:
Could a fuel air bomb put out a fire, if so drones could drop them
No.
That being said, there’s this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOwOYVJ9IgA
I’m a bit dubious, but it seems to work okay in the tests. Perhaps a much larger one could be used strategically.
Spiny Norman said:
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:
Could a fuel air bomb put out a fire, if so drones could drop them
No.
That being said, there’s this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOwOYVJ9IgA
I’m a bit dubious, but it seems to work okay in the tests. Perhaps a much larger one could be used strategically.
I though either the pressure wave or the vacuum created might put out the fire but the amount of energy and the size of fire might negate this.
You could perhaps has something similar to napalm that has fire fighting chemicals instead and carpet bomb an area but not sure how friendly those chemicals are to the environment, could be toxic and the fire does less long term damage.
I like the leaf blower idea.
Maybe one way to improve it would be to add an inert gas fed from a backpack ?
which can be quickly turned on or off as required.
Those Russian heavy choppers have twice the lift of Elvis.
Spiny Norman said:
Spiny Norman said:
Cymek said:
Could a fuel air bomb put out a fire, if so drones could drop them
No.
That being said, there’s this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOwOYVJ9IgA
I’m a bit dubious, but it seems to work okay in the tests. Perhaps a much larger one could be used strategically.
“Only works in enclosed spaces.”
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.
It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
The water is normally dumped just in front of the fire to stop its advance.
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeM
We need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
party_pants said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
Rewatering would limit its use in a lot of Australia. I seem to remember that if a round trip for rewatering tales more than about 15 minutes it not effective.
Tamb said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
The water is normally dumped just in front of the fire to stop its advance.
Ok, does it stop it permanently or just slow it down
Tamb said:
party_pants said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
Rewatering would limit its use in a lot of Australia. I seem to remember that if a round trip for rewatering tales more than about 15 minutes it not effective.
That’s what I was thinking, huge fires would be so hot and burn so quickly you’d need instant action
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
The water is normally dumped just in front of the fire to stop its advance.
Ok, does it stop it permanently or just slow it down
Very much situation dependent. Even a slow down will give land based units a chance to deploy & a fire break to fight from.
Tamb said:
party_pants said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
Rewatering would limit its use in a lot of Australia. I seem to remember that if a round trip for rewatering tales more than about 15 minutes it not effective.
There should be plenty of lakes, rivers or dams which would suit. Maybe not suitable everywhere, but should be of great use around heavily populated areas since they usually have large water supply dams nearby.
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
party_pants said:This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
Rewatering would limit its use in a lot of Australia. I seem to remember that if a round trip for rewatering tales more than about 15 minutes it not effective.
That’s what I was thinking, huge fires would be so hot and burn so quickly you’d need instant action
For really big fires the aim is sometimes not to put them out but to protect lives, property or certain other important assets.
party_pants said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
Crikey, a russian jalopnik, you’d start more fires than you’d put out with that…
party_pants said:
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Way kewlies. Way to go. You could use Sydney Harbour. Go scooting from one end to the other. Suck up mega litres that way. Maybe a cuppla Sydney Harbour fulls, And by the time the water bombing planes got back, the harbour would have filled back up again They might have to pull the bridge down, but. Just so they don’t crash into it.
party_pants said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
The helicopters used to fight the fire here seemed to be fitted with big buckets and were likely refilling from the ocean.
Michael V said:
party_pants said:
Cymek said:
How effective is the dumping of even many thousands of litres of water on a large scale fire, it might put out say a few hundreds square metres.It then has to return to get more water and come back by which time many times the area it put out has been burnt and possibly the area it saved has been burnt as the fire is so hot the water drenched area reignites. I imagine you’d need access to millions of litres of water all at once to be effective
This is the problem with using larger and larger aircraft. They have to stop somewhere to reload on water and fire retardants. Helicopters can get around this problem by hovering over a convenient lake or dam and sucking water up. But helicopters are much less efficient than fixed wing aircraft.
My thinking on this is that we could go for amphibious planes that can do a skim landing on a large lake or dam, filling up their tanks and then scooting off again back to the fire. Get in lots of repeat runs at it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Insert your drones inside your anal cavity, and put your money on the Beriev Be-200:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127EH9pfeeMWe need a national squadron of half a dozen of them on some joint funding arragements by all states. Last week they could have been in Tassie, this week they could have been in Tabulum.
The helicopters used to fight the fire here seemed to be fitted with big buckets and were likely refilling from the ocean.
Bambi buckets: https://www.bing.com/search?q=bambi+bucket&pc=MOZI&form=MOZTSB
I reckon the biggest problem has got to be the winds. They are brutal and swirly and I reckon any aircraft probably need a reasonable amount of weight to be manageable.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
Spiny Norman, do you have a picture of your drone capable of lifting 2 kg? I have an idea for a heavy lift drone, but am unsure of rotor tip velocity.
Yep, here it is. It’s 800 mm from the tip of one arm to the other. The props are 330 mm long. That battery is a 16,00 mah unit, it’ll keep the copter flying for just under 30 minutes. Ignore the long carbon tube sticking out the front, that was just something I was trying at the time.
FWIW I’m working on a vastly better version that only uses three ducted fans. It can VTOL and also transition to fast horizontal flight for efficient use of power. For fire-fighting I think unless you are able to carry very substantial volumes of water it’d be best to have a machine that can hover in place to deliver the water more accurately.
What would happen if you had three of those rotors mounted higher than the other three, as in high, low, high, low, high, low around the circle. And doubled the blade length.
I suspect you could double the carrying capacity, at least. One thing I learnt from CSIRO is that the longer the rotor, the lower the power requirement for fixed thrust.
Ducted fans are actually a total waste. All they do is stop wing tip vortices, and you can do effectively the same with much less weight by just making the rotors a few cm longer.
mollwollfumble said:
What would happen if you had three of those rotors mounted higher than the other three, as in high, low, high, low, high, low around the circle. And doubled the blade length.
I suspect you could double the carrying capacity, at least. One thing I learnt from CSIRO is that the longer the rotor, the lower the power requirement for fixed thrust.
Yes the load carrying would be better, but you’d also need larger motors to drive them. Larger motors need larger controllers and also larger batteries. You have to decide what load you’re going to carry then work out the gear to suit that.
