What would be the cheapest (but not necessarily nastiest) effective bushfire bunker for someone (a friend) to make for themselves.. (she is renting a wooden farmhouse surrounded by gum trees growing very close by, and there is only one exit road and the land-lord is unsympathetic)?

I was thinking along the lines of.. dig hole couple of metres deep.. Acquire fairly heavy concrete slab about I.5 m square to cover hole.. Lift open and hold with fencing wire (run over pulley and back into hole).

When a fire comes.. jump in hole with bolt cutters/fencing pliers, blanket, oxygen cylinder, water and shovel :)

A slightly more upmarket job would involve using a jack or two.

You should read this first…

http://www.abcb.gov.au/education-events-resources/publications/~/media/Files/Download%20Documents/Education%20and%20Training/Handbooks/2010_Performance_Standard_for_PBS.ashx

>oxygen cylinder

No. Scuba tank.

Ian said:

oxygen cylinder

Yeah, inflammable gases are great around fires.

my take on it is there is none, you’ll need air supplies etc

the better option would be to construct a small dam that can hold 100,00 – 200,000 litres of water and fight the fire with a reliable water pump that can pump scary amounts of water directly at the fire as it approaches the dam.

a 100,000 pool isn’t that big, it would be relatively easy to create a covered dam that could be twice or three times that size. just make sure pump works when you need it to.

http://www.ebay.com.au/bhp/fire-fighting-pump

Sounds like you are building a big Hangi.

wookiemeister said:

http://www.ebay.com.au/bhp/fire-fighting-pump

I have owned three of those. The pull start on those Chinese units sometimes fails on the second or third pull. The first thing to do is to replace the cord with a decent one. That done, they can last for a few years before failure.

you could have 1/2 water pumps pumping water into a sprinkler system that has been laid in the direction of the expected direction of the fire

the main fire pump would be used to direct water at the fire coming directly at the homestead

maybe you’d be better off using a fixed water cannon sat near the home/ dam

some strategy would need to be worked out

do you spend a little water soaking the vegetation before the fire hits? or do you save it all for when the fire hits for proper?

as I’ve said before, you use a few billion dollars to build a fire fighting drone force.

each drone could carry 1 tonne of water

if each drone cost 1 million dollars each you could still afford it, if you had 2000 of these drones you could pour 1 tonne of water down on one spot every few seconds ANYWHERE, ANYTIME

I was talking about this kind of thing in the last bushfire a few years that killed 200 people, in fact you’ll find I always talk about this

no one cares

wookiemeister said:

no one cares

Penalties, that’s what we need.
Burn offenders at the stake.

the only way to effectively control large bushfires in remote/ urban areas is to dump large quantities of water on them from the air

don’t bother with land bases forces – they can’t get to the fire by foot or truck and have the added danger of being killed

modern technology – don’t be afraid of it

you’d need a “nearby” airfield from which to operate

you could cut and level a few of these airfields in the bushfire areas

you could even fly the drones in themselves, you’d need a crew of techs that would set the operation up and some crew that would refuel them, refill them as they land though strictly speaking this is better off doing automatically

ie the drone rolls onto a platform and is automatically refuelled , refilled

the drones might operate from different airstrips but then fly to an existing flying pattern where they line up for their bombing run

20’ shipping container, buried at least halfway into the ground with a heap of dirt piled up onto it. They can be had for under a grand. For breathing I’d just have a 200 litre drum of water with plenty of cloths that you could dip into it to keep the smoke out when you hold them over your mouth.

who knows

we could even MAKE MONEY by hiring this drone force out to other countries when a bush fire hits them

California is always ablaze, Europe has this problem now and then

Spiny Norman said:

20’ shipping container, buried at least halfway into the ground with a heap of dirt piled up onto it. They can be had for under a grand. For breathing I’d just have a 200 litre drum of water with plenty of cloths that you could dip into it to keep the smoke out when you hold them over your mouth.

I suspect this sounds like a coffin

to not allow the fire near you in a fire is the better option

big covered dam, multiple water pumps that are tested, you blast the fire as it tries to envelop you

wookiemeister said:

Spiny Norman said:

20’ shipping container, buried at least halfway into the ground with a heap of dirt piled up onto it. They can be had for under a grand. For breathing I’d just have a 200 litre drum of water with plenty of cloths that you could dip into it to keep the smoke out when you hold them over your mouth.

I suspect this sounds like a coffin

to not allow the fire near you in a fire is the better option

big covered dam, multiple water pumps that are tested, you blast the fire as it tries to envelop you

Yeah, cover the dam. Why didn’t I think of that?

if you don’t have an effective tool to stop the fire the fire will continue breaking out

humans are tool making animals – those unable to build the tool are condemned to history, this is part of what 2001 a space odyssey was about , the ape that makes the tool survives

Spiny Norman said:

20’ shipping container, buried at least halfway into the ground with a heap of dirt piled up onto it. They can be had for under a grand. For breathing I’d just have a 200 litre drum of water with plenty of cloths that you could dip into it to keep the smoke out when you hold them over your mouth.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/family-survived-black-saturday-in-bunker-20090527-bnnh.html

you dig a few thousand dams where the properties are and get them to maintain their equipment

you make a few airstrips near water / dam where the drones can operate

first you establish a perimeter and make the ground favourable to you

when the fire breaks out things are in your favour, you can guide the fire where you want it to, can protect things you want saving

you can have an extra 10,000 fire fighters yet never be able to defend or guide the fire to your advantage and spend an awful lot of money trying to achieve very little

the sooner they realise that these kinds of fires can only be fought from the air , the better.

3) don’t flick the roaches out the window.

with this strategy you might not even need fire breaks you allow the fire to sweep around homesteads using the aforementioned method, you will find it hard to stop but you can guide the fire around suburban areas and into zones where the fire can be killed at your leisure

morrie said:

>oxygen cylinder

No. Scuba tank.

…And goggles.

Ian said:

What would be the cheapest (but not necessarily nastiest) effective bushfire bunker for someone (a friend) to make for themselves.. (she is renting a wooden farmhouse surrounded by gum trees growing very close by, and there is only one exit road and the land-lord is unsympathetic)?

I was thinking along the lines of.. dig hole couple of metres deep.. Acquire fairly heavy concrete slab about I.5 m square to cover hole.. Lift open and hold with fencing wire (run over pulley and back into hole).

When a fire comes.. jump in hole with bolt cutters/fencing pliers, blanket, oxygen cylinder, water and shovel :)

A slightly more upmarket job would involve using a jack or two.

Sounds like a really good design!

For a hangi oven.

Rented place? Be ready and evacuate early. Accept that sometimes things burn. Perhaps put your valuable photos and documents with someone trusted in an urban situation for the summer period.

Drop a tank in the ground, maybe 5 inches dirt on top, extra support if required, suitable ladder or whatever access, goggles, maybe small towels can dip in water for face (filter). Grab an oxy bottle, but don’t overdo it, you know if you and the others fart a lot with too much oxy’ a static charge might have it burn right back to your ring and take you out.

Think about where you sink the tank, whatever it is near might burn for four hours like an inferno. If a hot burning tree comes down on your tank things might get a bit uncomfortable, hungi style.

Tank laying down with side entry/exit might be better. Probably good idea if bunch hot burning wood/coals can’t make it inside too.

Ready-made concrete unit made for the job might be better.

buffy said:

Rented place? Be ready and evacuate early. Accept that sometimes things burn. Perhaps put your valuable photos and documents with someone trusted in an urban situation for the summer period.

Not trying to make money out of anyone’s predicament but I’ve wondered if there isn’t an opportunity to offer a service of some kind that would record and document people’s photos, wills, insurance papers etc and archive them electronically and securely.

>>Not trying to make money out of anyone’s predicament but I’ve wondered if there isn’t an opportunity to offer a service of some kind that would record and document people’s photos, wills, insurance papers etc and archive them electronically and securely.<<

In the back of my mind is someone did that by rescuing hard drives (where possible) after the big fires here. I can’t remember the details. I think it was done for free

buffy said:

>>Not trying to make money out of anyone’s predicament but I’ve wondered if there isn’t an opportunity to offer a service of some kind that would record and document people’s photos, wills, insurance papers etc and archive them electronically and securely.<<

In the back of my mind is someone did that by rescuing hard drives (where possible) after the big fires here. I can’t remember the details. I think it was done for free

all you’d need to do is get them to transfer the files in their computer over the internetZ before the fire

>>all you’d need to do is get them to transfer the files in their computer over the internetZ before the fire<<

First thing to go is the power. That’s why they say to have a battery operated radio. And why internet information is not always available when you want it….

buffy said:

>>all you’d need to do is get them to transfer the files in their computer over the internetZ before the fire<<

First thing to go is the power. That’s why they say to have a battery operated radio. And why internet information is not always available when you want it….

well what i’m thinking that you do this before the power goes out as a precaution, you plan for the eventuality rather than waiting for the disaster to happen. people get an sms maybe a week before hand to start transferring as the zone they live in is seen as a risk.

There you go with that crystal ball again, wookie.

Because when I build a bushfire bunker, cheapness is the most important thing.

wookiemeister said:

you could have 1/2 water pumps pumping water into a sprinkler system that has been laid in the direction of the expected direction of the fire

the main fire pump would be used to direct water at the fire coming directly at the homestead

maybe you’d be better off using a fixed water cannon sat near the home/ dam

In a hot fire, a fixed water cannon is like pissing into the wind.

In the recent Margaret River fire, the flames were 60m high.

Here is some footage from a NSW fire in the last couple of days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZ_vjG0wms

Although I am fairly ignorant, I think my strategy would be

a) be comprehensively insured and
b) get the fuck out

Kingy said:

In a hot fire, a fixed water cannon is like pissing into the wind.

I have told Wookie before that he is underestimating the intensity of the biggest and most dangerous fires.

dv said:

Because when I build a bushfire bunker, cheapness is the most important thing.

:)

I have spent over $10,000 on mine, so far.

So, beyond using scuba gear rather than oxygen (not flammable btw) tank my design sounds like a goer?

dv said:

Although I am fairly ignorant, I think my strategy would be

a) be comprehensively insured and
b) get the fuck out

That’s my strategy.

wookiemeister said:

first you establish a perimeter and make the ground favourable to you

when the fire breaks out things are in your favour, you can guide the fire where you want it to, can protect things you want saving

you can have an extra 10,000 fire fighters yet never be able to defend or guide the fire to your advantage and spend an awful lot of money trying to achieve very little

the sooner they realise that these kinds of fires can only be fought from the air , the better.

Bad fires are on windy days. Windy days force aircraft to stay grounded.

It takes around 50 mm of rain to extinguish a fire, and it still requires ground crew to black it out.

The State Mine fire currently burning is around 38,000Ha. That would require 19,000,000 tons of water, which would need to be dropped in a 1 hour period, or it would evaporate before you were finished dropping it.

But your aircraft are grounded anyway because of the wind.

Whats your backup plan?

Kingy said:

Whats your backup plan?

a) be comprehensively insured and
b) get the fuck out

Ian said:

So, beyond using scuba gear rather than oxygen (not flammable btw) tank my design sounds like a goer?

Better than nothing. Make sure it is far enough away from trees that might fall on the hatch.

dv said:

Although I am fairly ignorant, I think my strategy would be

a) be comprehensively insured and
b) get the fuck out

Good plan.

Though sometimes you can’t get out. Have a fire refuge somewhere nearby.

>Drop a tank in the ground, maybe 5 inches dirt on top, extra support if required.

If you are going to bury a tank, it must be made for the purpose. A cheap plastic or tin tank will most likely collapse, particularly in the wet season when the ground pressure rises. Cost of concrete in ground tank, 2.5m dia and 2.5m deep, delivered, $7,000.

A pit in the ground with unsupported walls is also subject to collapse.

Any shelter needs a radiation shield at the entrance door. I see many designs that overlook that. In consequence, the door heats up and distorts/gets too hot to touch.

Kingy said:

Though sometimes you can’t get out. Have a fire refuge somewhere nearby.

Yes, true.

And, as you say, anything is better than nothing. What you create may be less than ideal, but it’ll increase your chances many time over.

buffy said:

Rented place? Be ready and evacuate early. Accept that sometimes things burn. Perhaps put your valuable photos and documents with someone trusted in an urban situation for the summer period.

Yeah. This sounds like the best plan to me..

Depends on the distance to safety down the one access road (for which I lack the data).

>>Depends on the distance to safety down the one access road (for which I lack the data).<<

I meant early early to evacuate. Not even to be there for days of extreme danger.

From the old bushfire bunkers in the Victorian forests (very large trees), they were simply a bulldozed pit covered with logs, then covered with the bulldozed soil. They were quite long with one end buried and water often lay on the ground, it being built in clay. No signs of a door, but probably logs that would take some time to burn through.

maybe its time to consider new laws for new homes built in bush/forest areas to be as fire retardant as practically possible

including mandatory fire bunkers

drones could be part of answer both on the ground and in the air

fire fighting drones on the ground can take more heat than humans

fire fighting drones in the air could be designed for those conditions

designing say water carrying quad copters, big ones that can easily adapt to changing wind conditions

Many of those houses being built on ridges and butting up to bush were always going to go, some year. Maybe they will be rebuilt to a fire standard appropriate to the risk of the location.

maybe its time to look at installing fixed fire fighting infra structure around various forest areas close to suburbs

and base that on actual fire data with computer modeling

Skunkworks said:

Many of those houses being built on ridges and butting up to bush were always going to go, some year. Maybe they will be rebuilt to a fire standard appropriate to the risk of the location.

yes that makes sense, we need to look at as much fire data as possible

Another vote for ‘Leave Early’.

While it might be very easy to construct a fire shelter, we humans have a long history of making bad mistakes under the kind of pressures that an approaching bushfire places upon us – unless we’re well trained and regularly drilled. Combine this with a tendency to wildly under-estimate hazards and it’s entirely too easy to find yourself in deep shit.

In this scenario, all it takes is for her to be caught half-way home from the shops, or spend too long chasing a panicked dog, or trying to help the next-door neighbour, or any one of a thousand other very likely problems, and she’s dead.

PermeateFree said:

From the old bushfire bunkers in the Victorian forests (very large trees), they were simply a bulldozed pit covered with logs, then covered with the bulldozed soil. They were quite long with one end buried and water often lay on the ground, it being built in clay. No signs of a door, but probably logs that would take some time to burn through.

That’s right.

I seem to remember something being discussed after Black Saturday about someone surviving the fire-front just being in a big piece of culvert that was buried at one end.. no breathing apparatus.

PermeateFree said:

From the old bushfire bunkers in the Victorian forests (very large trees), they were simply a bulldozed pit covered with logs, then covered with the bulldozed soil. They were quite long with one end buried and water often lay on the ground, it being built in clay. No signs of a door, but probably logs that would take some time to burn through.

This story describes somewhat similar shelters.

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/map/tanjilbren.htm

buffy said:

There you go with that crystal ball again, wookie.

not really

it was well known which areas are prone to bushfires, no need for crystal balls

houses in bushfire prone areas for example – place becomes a tinderbox, you start transferring files.

buffy said:

There you go with that crystal ball again, wookie.

not really

it was well known which areas are prone to bushfires, no need for crystal balls

houses in bushfire prone areas for example – place becomes a tinderbox, you start transferring files.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Skunkworks said:

Many of those houses being built on ridges and butting up to bush were always going to go, some year. Maybe they will be rebuilt to a fire standard appropriate to the risk of the location.

yes that makes sense, we need to look at as much fire data as possible

maybe it need to go much further, so that whole suburbs are designed to be fire resistant

I have no problem with people who want to live in the bush

but when you have lots of homes being built with little or no consideration for existing forest / bush topology

its asking for trouble

I know its all expensive to do all that, but things can be done slowly over time

maybe some things could be done faster

Kingy said:

wookiemeister said:

first you establish a perimeter and make the ground favourable to you

when the fire breaks out things are in your favour, you can guide the fire where you want it to, can protect things you want saving

you can have an extra 10,000 fire fighters yet never be able to defend or guide the fire to your advantage and spend an awful lot of money trying to achieve very little

the sooner they realise that these kinds of fires can only be fought from the air , the better.

Bad fires are on windy days. Windy days force aircraft to stay grounded.

It takes around 50 mm of rain to extinguish a fire, and it still requires ground crew to black it out.

The State Mine fire currently burning is around 38,000Ha. That would require 19,000,000 tons of water, which would need to be dropped in a 1 hour period, or it would evaporate before you were finished dropping it.

But your aircraft are grounded anyway because of the wind.

Whats your backup plan?

you are missing the point of how the drones would be used, you aren’t trying to take on the whole of a fire

mission 1 detect and douse fires at their inception if possible

mission 2 concentrate water bombing to save property/lives

mission 3 where no property exists to burn you try to guide the fire to where its easier to fight

Ian said:

PermeateFree said:

From the old bushfire bunkers in the Victorian forests (very large trees), they were simply a bulldozed pit covered with logs, then covered with the bulldozed soil. They were quite long with one end buried and water often lay on the ground, it being built in clay. No signs of a door, but probably logs that would take some time to burn through.

That’s right.

I seem to remember something being discussed after Black Saturday about someone surviving the fire-front just being in a big piece of culvert that was buried at one end.. no breathing apparatus.

Concrete culverts are ideal as you could also use them in sandy soil. Bushfires even in heavily timbered areas are generally quite fast moving and the intense heat need only be shielded from for short periods (often only minutes).

if you wanted to go really crazy you could even pump bio-degradeable foam at the fire rather than just water than might sink into the ground

you could coat the area with foam just before it hits with a fixed hose

you might even have something mounted on a ute – who knows

foam seems to be very good for putting out raging fires

Rule 303 said:

Another vote for ‘Leave Early’.

While it might be very easy to construct a fire shelter, we humans have a long history of making bad mistakes under the kind of pressures that an approaching bushfire places upon us – unless we’re well trained and regularly drilled. Combine this with a tendency to wildly under-estimate hazards and it’s entirely too easy to find yourself in deep shit.

In this scenario, all it takes is for her to be caught half-way home from the shops, or spend too long chasing a panicked dog, or trying to help the next-door neighbour, or any one of a thousand other very likely problems, and she’s dead.

I agree:

Plan A – Leave Early

Plan B (always good to have a Plan B) -

Dig hole couple of metres deep.. Acquire fairly heavy concrete slab about I.5 m square to cover hole.. Lift open and hold with fencing wire (run over pulley and back into hole).

When a fire comes.. jump in hole with bolt cutters/fencing pliers, blanket, scuba gear, water and shovel.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

From the old bushfire bunkers in the Victorian forests (very large trees), they were simply a bulldozed pit covered with logs, then covered with the bulldozed soil. They were quite long with one end buried and water often lay on the ground, it being built in clay. No signs of a door, but probably logs that would take some time to burn through.

This story describes somewhat similar shelters.

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/map/tanjilbren.htm

With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants. Quite a number of people have died in their backyard bunkers of many designs. If you are looking for a fool proof way of surviving a big bushfire, then there is only one way and that is to get the hell out of there.

Ian said:

Plan B (always good to have a Plan B) -

Dig hole couple of metres deep.. Acquire fairly heavy concrete slab about I.5 m square to cover hole.. Lift open and hold with fencing wire (run over pulley and back into hole).

When a fire comes.. jump in hole with bolt cutters/fencing pliers, blanket, scuba gear, water and shovel.

Oh, just buy a bloody helicopter,

>If you are going to bury a tank, it must be made for the purpose. A cheap plastic or tin tank will most likely collapse..

…”..extra support if required….”

Might have been better said …”….as required..”

When kid I cubby housed made from old rainwater tanks sat in the ground, old man dug them in with the loader, not sure if the spiders moved in disinclining further use, or I grew out of using them, or maybe the spider population helped me mature quicker.

You mentioned a IR barrier at entry/exit, very important that. Be good if people considered this more when installing fences, materials choice, height from ground (if any), that sort of thing.

I think universities should be funded to look at building fire laboratories, big ones that can be made to replicate as much as possible the conditions in a real fire, some large fires create their own weather patterns so Im thinking along those lines

Im thinking wind tunnels to help design future fire fighting air drones and fire fighting ground drones

fire is a plasma, maybe other types of plasmas could be used

collecting as much fire data as possible, more information, more knowledge, better understanding, more sharing data and information

PermeateFree said:

With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants.

Yes. Happened in firestorm bombing raids in WW2.

In the last days of the Vietnam War, the VNAF loaded a FAE bomb (CBU-55, i think) onto a Hercules, and pushed it out the back at random.

By sheer random chance, it exploded over a NVA divisional headquarters.

AFAICR, over 350 NVA soldiers were either incinerated in the blast, or had their lungs collapsed by the sudden ‘uptake’ of air.

I suppose what you could have is the water laden sausage idea I’ve had before

the drone releases a water sausage that explodes a certain time after release with some simple clockwork mechanism

the water sausage will be full of water and a mix of detergent (?) that is mixed with the water

a small gas canister is detonated inside the sausage causing initially the sausage to expand and then explode releasing a foamy mix onto the target area

the sausage delivers water directly to the site without any wasted over spray

a tonne of foamy water being delivered every few seconds would be effective to save a homestead

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think universities should be funded to look at building fire laboratories, big ones that can be made to replicate as much as possible the conditions in a real fire, some large fires create their own weather patterns so Im thinking along those lines

Im thinking wind tunnels to help design future fire fighting air drones and fire fighting ground drones

fire is a plasma, maybe other types of plasmas could be used

collecting as much fire data as possible, more information, more knowledge, better understanding, more sharing data and information

I think they have done quite a lot of research into the action of fires, the problem is they can be so fickle and change within seconds. Most fires create their own wind currents that react to land formations and vegetation composition, so very difficult to predict what they will do. We have all seen how the fires leave some flammable property alone, yet will burn to a cinder similar material only metres away.

it would be fairy easy to design fire fighting ground drones to fight fires

operators could control them with simple controllers

one consideration might be that if an operator becomes injured another operator needs to take over control of that drone or take control from another source ie a fire truck or a base

the drones could be flexible, have mufti roles

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

>With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants.

Interestingly, the document linked by fsm in at the start of this thread speaks of higher pressures outside the bunker and smoke ingress being the issue. That surprised me.

Also this from page 26

Literature dismisses the possibility of suffocation inside an unsealed private bushfire shelter due to bushfire derived oxygen deficiency reasoning that humans can survive at atmospheric oxygen levels below the flammability limit. This is supported by research that demonstrates flaming combustion ceases at atmospheric oxygen concentrations less than 11%

CrazyNeutrino said:

it would be fairy easy to design fire fighting ground drones to fight fires

operators could control them with simple controllers

one consideration might be that if an operator becomes injured another operator needs to take over control of that drone or take control from another source ie a fire truck or a base

the drones could be flexible, have mufti roles

you’d have the ATC for drones controlling this, you wouldn’t have firemen controlling them, the air traffic control for the drones would be responsible for their control at all times. regional control ATC would steer aircraft away from the drones.

firemen would have transmitter on them so their location was known to the drones, if they activated a panic button ATC would call to them via the on-board radio system of the drone asking them what was wrong.

if need be the drones would then go off mission and dump foam/water on the fireman/ firecrew.

the drones themselves could act as aerial mobile phone towers, meaning that anyone with a phone would still have contact to the outside world

>a small gas canister is detonated inside the sausage causing initially the sausage to expand and then explode releasing a foamy mix onto the target area

thus suffocating anyone who might otherwise have survived the fire, as well as any fire fighters who might be lurking about.

http://www.ericsson.com/au/news/130723_csiro_research_254740124_c

New unmanned aerial vehicles help CSIRO fire research

csiro has a fire research lab. csiro site seems to be off line atm.

ChrispenEvan said:

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

you can’t fight fires using land based equipment in these area as evidenced over and over again by numerous fires

cost?

we are spending 5 billion or more on refugees

untold billions on the so called F-35 disaster

43- 90 billion on the NBN

a few billion dollars to pay for a 1 million dollar drone with a fleet of 2000 would be a drop in the ocean of government waste

fires around Australia could be contained and lives and property saved

overseas the drones could be transported via large transport aircraft and we could earn a fair amount of kudos going to fire someone elses fire

ChrispenEvan said:

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

you can’t fight fires using land based equipment in these area as evidenced over and over again by numerous fires

cost?

we are spending 5 billion or more on refugees

untold billions on the so called F-35 disaster

43- 90 billion on the NBN

a few billion dollars to pay for a 1 million dollar drone with a fleet of 2000 would be a drop in the ocean of government waste

fires around Australia could be contained and lives and property saved

overseas the drones could be transported via large transport aircraft and we could earn a fair amount of kudos going to fire someone elses fire

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think universities should be funded to look at building fire laboratories, big ones that can be made to replicate as much as possible the conditions in a real fire, some large fires create their own weather patterns so Im thinking along those lines

Im thinking wind tunnels to help design future fire fighting air drones and fire fighting ground drones

fire is a plasma, maybe other types of plasmas could be used

collecting as much fire data as possible, more information, more knowledge, better understanding, more sharing data and information

I think they have done quite a lot of research into the action of fires, the problem is they can be so fickle and change within seconds. Most fires create their own wind currents that react to land formations and vegetation composition, so very difficult to predict what they will do. We have all seen how the fires leave some flammable property alone, yet will burn to a cinder similar material only metres away.

the research needs to look at those sudden changes, that can happen within milliseconds
drones on the ground could deliver sudden changes to drones in the air and vice versa
drones one ground could take samples from the ground using all the sensors required

and same with the drones in the air, looking at micro changes and real time and working to control the fire with continuing changing information

humans cannot do that, that fast

drones can

I was in Canberra when the Canberra bush fire hit, I saw the Brindabella Ranges on fire, a long line of fire coming down the mountains and hills

no one was there to collect all that information close at hand on the fire front

but drones can do it, they could be designed to collect specific information

morrie said:

>a small gas canister is detonated inside the sausage causing initially the sausage to expand and then explode releasing a foamy mix onto the target area

thus suffocating anyone who might otherwise have survived the fire, as well as any fire fighters who might be lurking about.

a small fizzy water canister?

morrie said:

>With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants.

Interestingly, the document linked by fsm in at the start of this thread speaks of higher pressures outside the bunker and smoke ingress being the issue. That surprised me.

Also this from page 26

Literature dismisses the possibility of suffocation inside an unsealed private bushfire shelter due to bushfire derived oxygen deficiency reasoning that humans can survive at atmospheric oxygen levels below the flammability limit. This is supported by research that demonstrates flaming combustion ceases at atmospheric oxygen concentrations less than 11%

Whatever, the end result is suffocation. You might go the same way in you fire shelter if things go wrong.

seeing the nutters are on the rampage i’ll go do something else ands let them bullshit their way along.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants.

Interestingly, the document linked by fsm in at the start of this thread speaks of higher pressures outside the bunker and smoke ingress being the issue. That surprised me.

Also this from page 26

Literature dismisses the possibility of suffocation inside an unsealed private bushfire shelter due to bushfire derived oxygen deficiency reasoning that humans can survive at atmospheric oxygen levels below the flammability limit. This is supported by research that demonstrates flaming combustion ceases at atmospheric oxygen concentrations less than 11%

Whatever, the end result is suffocation. You might go the same way in you fire shelter if things go wrong.

which is why mapping all known property and water bombing that property in the event of a fire is the better way to go

I am confident that 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds is ample water to stop a fire at a homestead and save the occupants

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

>With very large fires can be draw the air out of bunkers thereby suffocating the inhabitants.

Interestingly, the document linked by fsm in at the start of this thread speaks of higher pressures outside the bunker and smoke ingress being the issue. That surprised me.

Also this from page 26

Literature dismisses the possibility of suffocation inside an unsealed private bushfire shelter due to bushfire derived oxygen deficiency reasoning that humans can survive at atmospheric oxygen levels below the flammability limit. This is supported by research that demonstrates flaming combustion ceases at atmospheric oxygen concentrations less than 11%

Whatever, the end result is suffocation. You might go the same way in you fire shelter if things go wrong.

which is why mapping all known property and water bombing that property in the event of a fire is the better way to go

I am confident that 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds is ample water to stop a fire at a homestead and save the occupants

wookiemeister said:

a few billion dollars to pay for a 1 million dollar drone with a fleet of 2000 would be a drop in the ocean of government waste

fires around Australia could be contained and lives and property saved

You’ve been told time and again that water bombing would be useless against the fiercest and most dangerous fires. The amount of heat we’re talking about would evaporate any dropped water almost instantly.

ChrispenEvan said:

seeing the nutters are on the rampage i’ll go do something else ands let them bullshit their way along.

yes people seemed to think that rockets, robots, computers, cars, tanks, machine guns and a whole host of machines were so far horizon that they could never exist.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

a few billion dollars to pay for a 1 million dollar drone with a fleet of 2000 would be a drop in the ocean of government waste

fires around Australia could be contained and lives and property saved

You’ve been told time and again that water bombing would be useless against the fiercest and most dangerous fires. The amount of heat we’re talking about would evaporate any dropped water almost instantly.

so why do they use aerial water drops at all or even send fire crews to fight fires? seems to me that they should just evacuate and not bother at all

fire trucks shouldn’t carry water period

ChrispenEvan said:

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

Yeah, we’ve been through all of this a dozen times. The small helitacks we use in WA carry about a tonne of water or just over. Even a small drone carrying one tonne of water is going to be as large as a helicopter.

the biggest area of concern is not what they do over the fire, it’s getting them back home to base and reloaded and refueled, so they can take off again for another go.

drones have some good points

they dont suffer from smoke inhalation, and they can tolerate far more heat than humans, they can be made more fire retardant and fitted with the right sensors they can see around themselves

they can share information way more quickly than people can

they can come in various forms, just look at what the military drones can do on the ground

time for university fire fighting drone funding

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

Yeah, we’ve been through all of this a dozen times. The small helitacks we use in WA carry about a tonne of water or just over. Even a small drone carrying one tonne of water is going to be as large as a helicopter.

the biggest area of concern is not what they do over the fire, it’s getting them back home to base and reloaded and refueled, so they can take off again for another go.

you don’t use helicopters

you use winged drones

the water sausage or spray is just dropped on the move like any bomb carried by any military aircraft using known and proven technology for at least the last 50 years

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how much are all these drones going to cost? how big are they? look at the size of the helicopters already in use and the amount of water they can carry. are the drones going to be that large? what about air traffic control over the fire? visibility is bad, even with IR. training of the “pilots”, cost. etc. i reckon it would be cheaper to buy more firefighting trucks and actually employ firefighters full time. a drone to use as an “eye in the sky”, yes. but that is about all.

Yeah, we’ve been through all of this a dozen times. The small helitacks we use in WA carry about a tonne of water or just over. Even a small drone carrying one tonne of water is going to be as large as a helicopter.

the biggest area of concern is not what they do over the fire, it’s getting them back home to base and reloaded and refueled, so they can take off again for another go.

you don’t use helicopters

you use winged drones

the water sausage or spray is just dropped on the move like any bomb carried by any military aircraft using known and proven technology for at least the last 50 years

wookiemeister said:

so why do they use aerial water drops at all or even send fire crews to fight fires? seems to me that they should just evacuate and not bother at all

fire trucks shouldn’t carry water period

Firetrucks and bombing are useful but only against less intense fires. For comparison look at the Black Saturday fires in Victoria against the current fires in NSW. One is an order of magnitude or two fiercer than the other.

Different building standards for those areas would be cheaper over the long term. Darwin cyclone proofed itself.

as I have explained before, you have a precut airfield near a water source preprepared dam or other

the drones operate from these airfields

a small crew is used to oversee the drones landing and taking off and repairing them as necessary

firechief ATC controls the drones from airfield to fire and back

you use a set up that allows drones to be refuelled and re filled quickly – you don’t use men to do this time is of the essence so cut the man out of the operation

bang 1 tonne of water
…..

bang 1 tonne of water

……..

bang 1 tonne of water

that fire would have be a monster to turn all that water to steam, then again steam isn’t that great for continuing the fire is it?

foam, fire retardant the possibilities are endless as to how you might use these things

Insurance will sort this out eventually, premiums will be unaffordable unless you build to appropriate standards.

Skunkworks said:

Insurance will sort this out eventually, premiums will be unaffordable unless you build to appropriate standards.

+1

captain_spalding said:

Oh, just buy a bloody helicopter,

Bloody helicopter!! Don’t talk shit to me!!

Has to be a jump take-off gyrocopter..

You know it makes sense.

:)

wookiemeister said:

you don’t use helicopters

you use winged drones

the water sausage or spray is just dropped on the move like any bomb carried by any military aircraft using known and proven technology for at least the last 50 years

Doesn’t matter if they are helicopters or fixed wing, they are going to be relatively large aircraft to be able to lift and carry a tonne of water. You have large numbers of them all needing to land somewhere and be reloaded with water, then turned around and sent off back into the fray until such time as the fire is out.

It’s madness. Better of having fewer and larger manned aircraft (or helicopters) that can reload on the fly (literally) from a convenient water source and run lots of short runs. Something like this, amphibious aeroplane that can do a dummy landing run and replenish the water tanks, then lift off and go back to the fire.

Have a word with Justin Leonard, project leader of the CSIRO Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre.

http://www.bushfirecrc.com/people/justin-leonard

Click on “contact” button for phone number, street address and email.

party_pants said:

Wont anyone think of the scuba divers?

Skunkworks said:

Wont anyone think of the scuba divers?

They’d all be holed up in their underground bunkers with their air tanks at the first sign of fire.

party_pants said:

They’d all be holed up in their underground bunkers with their air tanks at the first sign of fire.

That explains that bit of apocrypha.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

Wont anyone think of the scuba divers?

They’d all be holed up in their underground bunkers with their air tanks at the first sign of fire.

And prepared for the inevitable following flooding rains..

It’s win-win.

Ian..you’ve been watching the patterns….

wookie…..you don’t need to double click Submit.

buffy said:

Ian..you’ve been watching the patterns….

wookie…..you don’t need to click Submit.

Fixed

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

so why do they use aerial water drops at all or even send fire crews to fight fires? seems to me that they should just evacuate and not bother at all

fire trucks shouldn’t carry water period

Firetrucks and bombing are useful but only against less intense fires. For comparison look at the Black Saturday fires in Victoria against the current fires in NSW. One is an order of magnitude or two fiercer than the other.

The estimate of the energy released during the black Saturday fires was equivalent to about 1500 Hiroshima bombs. You need a lot of water to quench that kind of conflagration.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

so why do they use aerial water drops at all or even send fire crews to fight fires? seems to me that they should just evacuate and not bother at all

fire trucks shouldn’t carry water period

Firetrucks and bombing are useful but only against less intense fires. For comparison look at the Black Saturday fires in Victoria against the current fires in NSW. One is an order of magnitude or two fiercer than the other.

The estimate of the energy released during the black Saturday fires was equivalent to about 1500 Hiroshima bombs. You need a lot of water to quench that kind of conflagration.

I am over those sort of estimations, they don’t tell you anything. Thunderstorms are supposed to be dropping Hiroshimas daily all over the world.

Ian said:

Rule 303 said:

Another vote for ‘Leave Early’.

While it might be very easy to construct a fire shelter, we humans have a long history of making bad mistakes under the kind of pressures that an approaching bushfire places upon us – unless we’re well trained and regularly drilled. Combine this with a tendency to wildly under-estimate hazards and it’s entirely too easy to find yourself in deep shit.

In this scenario, all it takes is for her to be caught half-way home from the shops, or spend too long chasing a panicked dog, or trying to help the next-door neighbour, or any one of a thousand other very likely problems, and she’s dead.

I agree:

Plan A – Leave Early

Plan B (always good to have a Plan B) -

Dig hole couple of metres deep.. Acquire fairly heavy concrete slab about I.5 m square to cover hole.. Lift open and hold with fencing wire (run over pulley and back into hole).

When a fire comes.. jump in hole with bolt cutters/fencing pliers, blanket, scuba gear, water and shovel.

A heavy concrete slab is not necessarily the best shield from a fire. A lightweight concrete slab might be better as well as less likely to crush you. Lightweight concrete is a better insulator than dense concrete. There are various lightweight mixes used for things like pizza ovens. Pearlite and cement – that sort of thing.

I have most definitely been living with Mr buffy for too long…..here is what I read:

>>…… A lightweight concrete slab might be better as well as less likely to crush you. ………….things like pizza ovens. Pearlite and cement – that sort of thing.<<

Oh dear…

Skunkworks said:

I am over those sort of estimations, they don’t tell you anything. Thunderstorms are supposed to be dropping Hiroshimas daily all over the world.

A fair enough comment, so lets try to add a little science to the mix.

From this paper http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/5905c7bb-48f1-4d1d-a819-bb2477c084c1/EXP.003.001.0017.pdf we find that the average fireline intensity was about 100,000 kW/linear metre; ie,: each metre at the front of the fire was giving out 100 megajoules of energy per second.

The heat capacity of water is about 4 joules/degree*gram. It takes 4 joules of energy to raise 1 gram 1 degree. It therefore takes 4MW (joules per second) to raise 1 tonne 1 degree in 1 second, To raise to boiling point we need to raise about 80 degrees and therefore 320 MW.

So one tonne of water will be raised to boiling point in one second in a tad over 3 metres of the fire front.

How many drones did wookie say he had at his disposal?

• The normal engineering OoM issue has probably come in to play in the above calculations :)

buffy said:

I have most definitely been living with Mr buffy for too long…..here is what I read:

>>…… A lightweight concrete slab might be better as well as less likely to crush you. ………….things like pizza ovens. Pearlite and cement – that sort of thing.<<

Oh dear…

Actually, if you had a pizza oven big enough to crawl inside, it might fit the bill nicely. Things designed to keep heat in will also keep heat out.

sibeen said:

Skunkworks said:

I am over those sort of estimations, they don’t tell you anything. Thunderstorms are supposed to be dropping Hiroshimas daily all over the world.

A fair enough comment, so lets try to add a little science to the mix.

From this paper http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/5905c7bb-48f1-4d1d-a819-bb2477c084c1/EXP.003.001.0017.pdf we find that the average fireline intensity was about 100,000 kW/linear metre; ie,: each metre at the front of the fire was giving out 100 megajoules of energy per second.

The heat capacity of water is about 4 joules/degree*gram. It takes 4 joules of energy to raise 1 gram 1 degree. It therefore takes 4MW (joules per second) to raise 1 tonne 1 degree in 1 second, To raise to boiling point we need to raise about 80 degrees and therefore 320 MW.

So one tonne of water will be raised to boiling point in one second in a tad over 3 metres of the fire front.

How many drones did wookie say he had at his disposal?

• The normal engineering OoM issue has probably come in to play in the above calculations :)

…especially when we consider the latent heat of vaporisation…

I should have said analogy not estimation.

morrie said:

sibeen said:

Skunkworks said:

I am over those sort of estimations, they don’t tell you anything. Thunderstorms are supposed to be dropping Hiroshimas daily all over the world.

A fair enough comment, so lets try to add a little science to the mix.

From this paper http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/5905c7bb-48f1-4d1d-a819-bb2477c084c1/EXP.003.001.0017.pdf we find that the average fireline intensity was about 100,000 kW/linear metre; ie,: each metre at the front of the fire was giving out 100 megajoules of energy per second.

The heat capacity of water is about 4 joules/degree*gram. It takes 4 joules of energy to raise 1 gram 1 degree. It therefore takes 4MW (joules per second) to raise 1 tonne 1 degree in 1 second, To raise to boiling point we need to raise about 80 degrees and therefore 320 MW.

So one tonne of water will be raised to boiling point in one second in a tad over 3 metres of the fire front.

How many drones did wookie say he had at his disposal?

• The normal engineering OoM issue has probably come in to play in the above calculations :)

…especially when we consider the latent heat of vaporisation…

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

wookiemeister said:

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

That’s the spirit. I have nearly three tonne in my pond. I tonne is not a big amount of water.

wookiemeister said:

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

You seriously underestimate how large an aircraft needs to be to have a 1 tonne payload. You won’t be able to get anywhere near it.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

That’s the spirit. I have nearly three tonne in my pond. I tonne is not a big amount of water.

I have around 2000 tonnes in the dam in front of the house, in mid summer. I do have piping in place as a ring main around the house. But I need to set up the drenching system. I am intending to buy a new diesel electric start pump this year, if I can find one that wasn’t made in China.

how detailed are existing 3D maps of the blue mountains and all the hilly areas around Sydney?

if drones are to be succusful they need highly detailed 3D maps

Im imganing a complete system taking in geo stationary satiellites, oberver drones way above the fires, 1000 meters + drones closer to the fires dumping water, drones on the ground doing what ever they can, and fire fighters

imagine say 50 drones all the ground collecting data, say 20 drones in the air collecting data in real time, they can all share information in real time, mapping the fire as it progresses

but how accurate are our 3D maps

on another level how accurate are vegetation maps, which sort of trees are growing where

when I was in Canberra during the fires there, one thing I observed were the lack of resources

they were stretched to the limit, when the line of fire came down the mountains and hit the suburbs around 470 homes got lost

so it might be possible to design fire breaks in front of suburbs but that would need much work

if climate change is going to make our weather conditions worse, then we need to really seriously look at drones

with all the experience of fire fighters that information can be programmed into the drones

with regard to rapidly changing conditions, that needs more science research, all that fast changing micro weather information

the science there is exciting, rapidly changing fire vortexes, how do you go about replicating these in the laboratory, imagine observer drones collecting data from these fire vortexes real close up

fire vortex 1

fire vortex 2

and I imagine that there are plenty of other fire patterns that exist and perhaps ones we haven’t seen yet

For example, my BiL’s two seater plane has a payload of about 250 kg with a full tank of fuel. That’s two adult males and maybe a bag of clothes each. To carry a tonne will need quite a lot more lift.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

That’s the spirit. I have nearly three tonne in my pond. I tonne is not a big amount of water.

1,000 litres = 1 ton of water

morrie said:

I am intending to buy a new diesel electric start pump this year, if I can find one that wasn’t made in China.

I know a handy fellow who has purchased a Chinese pump, acting on advice after starting it once to make sure it works, he is stripping it down and replacing the bearings which are apparently the weak point.

PermeateFree said:

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

I couldn’t be bothered to do any calculations 1 tonne of water every 2 seconds would be more than enough to put out a fire in a small area

That’s the spirit. I have nearly three tonne in my pond. I tonne is not a big amount of water.

1,000 litres = 1 ton of water

The pond is 2800 litres.

party_pants said:

To carry a tonne will need quite a lot more lift.

This was realised very early in the history of aviation.

Fortunately, some unsung genius came up with the revolutionary idea of ‘building bigger aeroplanes’.

sibeen said:

A fair enough comment, so lets try to add a little science to the mix.

From this paper http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/5905c7bb-48f1-4d1d-a819-bb2477c084c1/EXP.003.001.0017.pdf we find that the average fireline intensity was about 100,000 kW/linear metre; ie,: each metre at the front of the fire was giving out 100 megajoules of energy per second.

The heat capacity of water is about 4 joules/degree*gram. It takes 4 joules of energy to raise 1 gram 1 degree. It therefore takes 4MW (joules per second) to raise 1 tonne 1 degree in 1 second, To raise to boiling point we need to raise about 80 degrees and therefore 320 MW.

So one tonne of water will be raised to boiling point in one second in a tad over 3 metres of the fire front.

How many drones did wookie say he had at his disposal?

• The normal engineering OoM issue has probably come in to play in the above calculations :)

Look. I only wanted a simple hole in the ground with a slab… I didn’t expect the Royal Commission!

morrie said:

I have around 2000 tonnes in the dam in front of the house, in mid summer. I do have piping in place as a ring main around the house. But I need to set up the drenching system. I am intending to buy a new diesel electric start pump this year, if I can find one that wasn’t made in China.

Second hand Japanese mini tractor perhaps?

or are they all made in China now too?

party_pants said:

morrie said:

I have around 2000 tonnes in the dam in front of the house, in mid summer. I do have piping in place as a ring main around the house. But I need to set up the drenching system. I am intending to buy a new diesel electric start pump this year, if I can find one that wasn’t made in China.

Second hand Japanese mini tractor perhaps?

or are they all made in China now too?

Not a bad thought.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

To carry a tonne will need quite a lot more lift.

This was realised very early in the history of aviation.

Fortunately, some unsung genius came up with the revolutionary idea of ‘building bigger aeroplanes’.

Indeed.. but Wookie’s fleet of these aircraft will need a proper airport to operate from. It’s not going to be the sort of portable operation of a roughly bulldozed strip and a few trucks to set up an operating base.

drones of the plane variety are really portable

you can use existing roads for them to take off and land

helicopter drones are even more portable

sibeen said:

A fair enough comment, so lets try to add a little science to the mix.

From this paper http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/5905c7bb-48f1-4d1d-a819-bb2477c084c1/EXP.003.001.0017.pdf we find that the average fireline intensity was about 100,000 kW/linear metre; ie,: each metre at the front of the fire was giving out 100 megajoules of energy per second.

So equivalent to a 100,000 old-fashioned one-bar radiators. Per metre. That’s scary!

OTOH, http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p487 says
Forest Encyclopedia Network said:

Fireline intensity may vary by more than 1000-fold, or from 15 to at least 100,000 kW/m (Alexander 1982). However, most fire intensities seldom exceed 50,000 kW/m and most crown fires fall within the range of 10,000-30,000 kW/m. Low intensity surface fires are generally less than 550 kW/m. Fireline intensities above 4000 kW/m are generally characterized as “high intensity” (Alexander 1982). Because considerable burning can take place after passage of the flaming front, these figures do not describe the total energy or heat released (Alexander 1982).

sibeen said:

The heat capacity of water is about 4 joules/degree*gram. It takes 4 joules of energy to raise 1 gram 1 degree. It therefore takes 4MW (joules per second) to raise 1 tonne 1 degree in 1 second, To raise to boiling point we need to raise about 80 degrees and therefore 320 MW.

So one tonne of water will be raised to boiling point in one second in a tad over 3 metres of the fire front.

How many drones did wookie say he had at his disposal?

• The normal engineering OoM issue has probably come in to play in the above calculations :)
  

Thanks for doing the calculation, Sibeen.

morrie said:

…especially when we consider the latent heat of vaporisation…

Good point. OTOH, water vapour isn’t as good as liquid water is for inhibiting the flow of oxygen to the flame front, and the convection caused by rapidly rising water vapour will help pull fresh air into the fire front. But still, latent heat of vaporisation can suck up an awful lot of heat.

The energy required to change liquid water at 100°C into water vapour (without raising its temperature) is roughly 6.75 times the amount of heat that Sibeen calculated (i.e., that required to raise the temperature of liquid water from 20°C to 100°C). So the total effectiveness of the water is 7.75 times what Sibeen said. Which is less than 1 order of magnitude. :)

But why stop at 100°C? Surely the water vapour will get to much higher temperatures in a severe fire. I guess it’d be nice to keep it below the fuel ignition temperature, and we do have to worry about the convection problem I mentioned above.

a drone might be a bi plane or a flying wing

it doesn’t need to be ultra fast or ultra manoeuvrable it just needs to get to the fire dump the water and return

a bulldozed and flattened strip would have to do, grass strips when done properly can be good enough – the british used to land spitfires on them – i’m sure that a maintained strip will be good enough. if you were hardcore you might lay down gravel and create a draining effect for the area.

the strip would have to allow aircraft to fly in and bring fuel assuming we are using fossile fuels

CrazyNeutrino said:

drones of the plane variety are really portable

you can use existing roads for them to take off and land

helicopter drones are even more portable

baby steps neutrino baby steps

first you have to get them used to the idea

if you were using roads it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make sure the power poles aren’t lining it or someone isn’t using it (which might be the case in an emergency.)

the drones i’m thinking of would be prop driven and be able to be serviced easily

in the possibility of a fire breaking out you’d need to get fuel tankers ready to be used and start topping up a tank

helicopters would be good but might suffer from complexity issues and range

you might have some of the helicopters to be used for straight rescue

as ever each drone is a mobile phone tower so that the mobile phone coverage expands radically in the event of a fire

if you went real hardcore you might have automated fire trucks that could move into position

I think fire bunkers are a very bad idea and I think that home made ones are an even worse idea.

I support the notion of a comprehensive insurance policy coupled with an early evacuation plan – if people choose to live in an area known for bush fire then they need to be prepared for the worse.

diddly-squat said:

I think fire bunkers are a very bad idea and I think that home made ones are an even worse idea.

I support the notion of a comprehensive insurance policy coupled with an early evacuation plan – if people choose to live in an area known for bush fire then they need to be prepared for the worse.

If I lived in such an area, I would still have one as a Plan B, just in case your Plan A becomes unworkable.

diddly-squat said:

I think fire bunkers are a very bad idea and I think that home made ones are an even worse idea.

I support the notion of a comprehensive insurance policy coupled with an early evacuation plan – if people choose to live in an area known for bush fire then they need to be prepared for the worse.

People have a tendency to wait&see, and by the time they see flames, it’s too late to leave.

Also, some fires start and spread so quickly that people nearby get no notification of the approaching firefront.

Many Black Saturday lives could have been saved if there was a fire bunker nearby. The royal commission into the Black Friday fires recommended that a fire bunker be built on every street, and they were, but they fell into disrepair. This cost a lot of lives.

There are no easy answers. Sticking around to save your house isn’t a bad idea when the fires aren’t particularly fast moving however if things get out of control a bunker as a back-up plan is a necessity.

Kingy said:

diddly-squat said:

I think fire bunkers are a very bad idea and I think that home made ones are an even worse idea.

I support the notion of a comprehensive insurance policy coupled with an early evacuation plan – if people choose to live in an area known for bush fire then they need to be prepared for the worse.

People have a tendency to wait&see, and by the time they see flames, it’s too late to leave.

Also, some fires start and spread so quickly that people nearby get no notification of the approaching firefront.

Many Black Saturday lives could have been saved if there was a fire bunker nearby. The royal commission into the Black Friday fires recommended that a fire bunker be built on every street, and they were, but they fell into disrepair. This cost a lot of lives.

wait and see is just crazy stoopid… wait and see what?

I agree that some remote properties are at greater risk, but evacuations warning can be easily broadcast

unless you are going to dig a serious hole that has it’s own self-contained ventilation system, then fire bunkers are a bad idea IMO.

diddly-squat said:

Kingy said:

diddly-squat said:

I think fire bunkers are a very bad idea and I think that home made ones are an even worse idea.

I support the notion of a comprehensive insurance policy coupled with an early evacuation plan – if people choose to live in an area known for bush fire then they need to be prepared for the worse.

People have a tendency to wait&see, and by the time they see flames, it’s too late to leave.

Also, some fires start and spread so quickly that people nearby get no notification of the approaching firefront.

Many Black Saturday lives could have been saved if there was a fire bunker nearby. The royal commission into the Black Friday fires recommended that a fire bunker be built on every street, and they were, but they fell into disrepair. This cost a lot of lives.

wait and see is just crazy stoopid… wait and see what?

I agree that some remote properties are at greater risk, but evacuations warning can be easily broadcast

unless you are going to dig a serious hole that has it’s own self-contained ventilation system, then fire bunkers are a bad idea IMO.

A lot of people have no idea of the power of a hot fire. They are expecting a grass fire that they can put out with a garden hose. That is why they wait and see what is coming. There is also a large amount of denial in their brains at that point. “It won’t happen to me”.

You don’t need a complicated bunker. It just needs to be able to resist extreme heat for ten minutes or so. A hole in the ground with some logs and earth over it is usually enough. One family on Black Saturday sheltered under wet towels between two concrete tanks.

Kingy said:

You don’t need a complicated bunker. It just needs to be able to resist extreme heat for ten minutes or so. A hole in the ground with some logs and earth over it is usually enough. One family on Black Saturday sheltered under wet towels between two concrete tanks.

Yes, a much more rough and ready version of that which was proposed in the OP.

(Remember the OP? #Slaps Forehead Making Sound of Very Large Slap# FAAAARK!)

Ian said:

Kingy said:

You don’t need a complicated bunker. It just needs to be able to resist extreme heat for ten minutes or so. A hole in the ground with some logs and earth over it is usually enough. One family on Black Saturday sheltered under wet towels between two concrete tanks.

Yes, a much more rough and ready version of that which was proposed in the OP.

(Remember the OP? #Slaps Forehead Making Sound of Very Large Slap# FAAAARK!)

The biggest problem is that no-one will recommend a particular fire bunker because if you die in it, then they will be liable for it.

Dig a hole, cover it up, take plenty of water and blankets with you. You will probably be ok.

Kingy said:

Ian said:

Kingy said:

You don’t need a complicated bunker. It just needs to be able to resist extreme heat for ten minutes or so. A hole in the ground with some logs and earth over it is usually enough. One family on Black Saturday sheltered under wet towels between two concrete tanks.

Yes, a much more rough and ready version of that which was proposed in the OP.

(Remember the OP? #Slaps Forehead Making Sound of Very Large Slap# FAAAARK!)

The biggest problem is that no-one will recommend a particular fire bunker because if you die in it, then they will be liable for it.

Dig a hole, cover it up, take plenty of water and blankets with you. You will probably be ok.

Yep. Thanks a lot Kingy and to the few others who addressed my query.

I doubt your point about liability for death or injury sustained while following advice given here though :)

How is jumping in a covered hole safe in a bushfire? How hot do they get? While the fire is surrounding your bunker is there going to be any oxygen left?

Ian said:

Kingy said:

Ian said:

Kingy said:

You don’t need a complicated bunker. It just needs to be able to resist extreme heat for ten minutes or so. A hole in the ground with some logs and earth over it is usually enough. One family on Black Saturday sheltered under wet towels between two concrete tanks.

Yes, a much more rough and ready version of that which was proposed in the OP.

(Remember the OP? #Slaps Forehead Making Sound of Very Large Slap# FAAAARK!)

The biggest problem is that no-one will recommend a particular fire bunker because if you die in it, then they will be liable for it.

Dig a hole, cover it up, take plenty of water and blankets with you. You will probably be ok.

Yep. Thanks a lot Kingy and to the few others who addressed my query.

I doubt your point about liability for death or injury sustained while following advice given here though :)

Well if I die in a bushfire whilst sheltering in a hole with plenty of water and blankets, I’m going to sue Kingy for every cent he’s got.

Automate the fire fighting systems on properties

The owner leaves and the water turns on when fire is near

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

wookiemeister said:

Automate the fire fighting systems on properties

The owner leaves and the water turns on when fire is near

In the last big Blue Mountains bushfires circa 1960.. My grandmother went to her sister’s farm next door and they turned the orchard sprinklers on. My grandmothers place burned to the ground but all were safe under the sprinklers.

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

Only the smallest of fires could be treated in this way. –

Big waste of money. However, it can tend to help if the water lands in the right places.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

Only the smallest of fires could be treated in this way. –

Big waste of money. However, it can tend to help if the water lands in the right places.

We are taught that waterbombing can slow the advance of fire until ground crews can reach the scene.
To be effective the round trip time; fill, flight, drop, return to water, refill needs to be quite short, about 10 minutes.

wookiemeister said:

Automate the fire fighting systems on properties

The owner leaves and the water turns on when fire is near

Modern fire prevention / suppression systems use several layers of protection which can be either fully automatic or remote controlled. The same techniques and equipment are used whether you’re protecting a multi-story office complex or a 100 hectare farm.

Fire protection engineering is a specialist field…

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

Only the smallest of fires could be treated in this way. –

Big waste of money. However, it can tend to help if the water lands in the right places.

We are taught that waterbombing can slow the advance of fire until ground crews can reach the scene.
To be effective the round trip time; fill, flight, drop, return to water, refill needs to be quite short, about 10 minutes.

Yes. To be effective it would need to be constant stream of bombardment. risky and very expensive. Plus the fact that it would need to be a constant stream/fleet of water bombers landing on a nearby very big lake. which by the way, we are short of, in general terms.

Rule 303 said:

Fire protection engineering is a specialist field…

quite.

Something else to consider, for the worst case. We bought a fireproof case many, many years ago. It’s a heavy beast. It has our insurance documents, marriage certificate, some papers relating to the dogs, and family heirloom jewellery in it. It sits within the fireplace (ours is an old house), or next to it (if we are having a fire in the open fire place). This means that should the worst happen, either with a domestic housefire or a grassfire, we know exactly where to find the case. Chimneys generally survive.

Something like this one:

https://ugc.officeworks.com.au/answers/0576/product/OWSFC001GY/qx-suresafe-docu-case-fireproof-questions-answers/questions.htm

Sorry for advertising, it was the closest I could find to what we have.

Maybe you should have it in the open fire to see if it works :)

buffy said:

Chimneys generally survive.

… as a cruel reminder of where the fire should have been.

buffy said:

Chimneys generally survive.

Yeah. One of my clearest memories of traveling through the countryside north of Adelaide is of the big stone chimneys dotting the landscape.

Ian said:

buffy said:

Chimneys generally survive.

Yeah. One of my clearest memories of traveling through the countryside north of Adelaide is of the big stone chimneys dotting the landscape.

Testimony to the fact that this land isn’t open to settlement as easily as many may believe.

Interesting story on telly about a Tasmanian fire expert suggesting the use of goats to keep the fuel load down. Apparently they do that in the US now. My colleague does it on his property and he has been talking about the concept for years. Fence off stretches of bush and let the goats eat it down. Then move them to the next place.

morrie said:

Interesting story on telly about a Tasmanian fire expert suggesting the use of goats to keep the fuel load down. Apparently they do that in the US now. My colleague does it on his property and he has been talking about the concept for years. Fence off stretches of bush and let the goats eat it down. Then move them to the next place.

Emphasis on moving them.

Goats eat the living stuff. What we need is to get back to whatever balance that eats the dead stuff.

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

Interesting story on telly about a Tasmanian fire expert suggesting the use of goats to keep the fuel load down. Apparently they do that in the US now. My colleague does it on his property and he has been talking about the concept for years. Fence off stretches of bush and let the goats eat it down. Then move them to the next place.

Emphasis on moving them.

Goats eat the living stuff. What we need is to get back to whatever balance that eats the dead stuff.

Goats don’t seem to eat the saltbush, which is the most fire retardant.

I’d have thought, morrie that you would have thought of fungi first.. before goats that is.

roughbarked said:

I’d have thought, morrie that you would have thought of fungi first.. before goats that is.

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

I’d have thought, morrie that you would have thought of fungi first.. before goats that is.

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

Maybe you could use sterilised goats?

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

I’d have thought, morrie that you would have thought of fungi first.. before goats that is.

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

I’d have thought, morrie that you would have thought of fungi first.. before goats that is.

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

No. What species do you think might be lost?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

No. What species do you think might be lost?

If you think that this is an issue, perhaps you should raise your concerns with Prof. David Bowman, University of Tasmania. He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

http://www.utas.edu.au/plant-science/people/David-Bowman

morrie said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

No. What species do you think might be lost?

If you think that this is an issue, perhaps you should raise your concerns with Prof. David Bowman, University of Tasmania. He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

http://www.utas.edu.au/plant-science/people/David-Bowman

Wasn’t it goats that ate the cedArs of Lebanon?

CrazyNeutrino said:

how detailed are existing 3D maps of the blue mountains and all the hilly areas around Sydney? if drones are to be successful they need highly detailed 3D maps. I’m imagining a complete system taking in geostationary satellites, observer drones way above the fires, 1000 meters + drones closer to the fires dumping water, drones on the ground doing what ever they can, and fire fighters. imagine say 50 drones all the ground collecting data, say 20 drones in the air collecting data in real time, they can all share information in real time, mapping the fire as it progresses. but how accurate are our 3D maps?

on another level how accurate are vegetation maps, which sort of trees are growing where?

when I was in Canberra during the fires there …

The 3-D maps are plenty accurate in plan view, but in terms of height much less accurate, perhaps not accurate enough. I was looking at some GIS maps of eastern Northern Territory and western Queensland and found that occasionally the height was out by 60 metres. I’ve noticed Google Earth in Victoria is sometimes out by 20 metres in height. GPS is far more reliable with horizontal position than vertical.

For vegetation maps, I did my own reanalysis of some from Geoscience Australia, because I needed to estimate vegetation height for near-ground wind calculations over the whole of Australia, part of an analysis of how much sea-salt aerosol was collected by trees and crops. Vegetation height calculated that way is probably reliable within a factor of 2 or 3 as an average over large areas (eg. 1 km * 1 km), but individual trees vary in height much more than that.

It was even clear to me instantly, looking on from a distance, that the Canberra event would have been a disaster even if there hadn’t been a fire at all. The wind alone caused a lot of damage, as well as carrying embers into places that no ember should have been able to reach. But it was over a year before I heard that it had been a genuine tornado. What is amazing in retrospect is that no “fire tornado” had ever been reported before. Coping with either the fire or the tornado alone would have been possible, but both together was not possible to cope with.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Not in the race.

Goats will eat back the entire undergrowth in the karri forest. Much more efficient than trying to burn it, which just results in more growth. While there is an obvious risk of increasing the feral goat population, there is no doubt that the strategic application of goats is a way of reducing the fuel load.

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

No. What species do you think might be lost?

Let us consider a wider perspective. The Karri Forests of southwestern WA is a unique environment as are other habitats dominated by large structures (trees in this instance), which do not occur elsewhere. Such environments also have their own flora and fauna that have evolved there and often occur nowhere else.

To introduce animals like goats is like introducing the cane toad to Australia with many unexpected consequences, which with the toad are still being evaluated, but we do know the results are environmentally disastrous.

Goats can eat most things, but like most grazing/browsing animals they prefer certain vegetation over others and will concentrate on these plants first, only later turning their attention to less palatable species. This means certain varieties will be decimated, often stopping or greatly reducing their regeneration – not good in the long run for any species.

With species disappearing, other animals that depend upon them like small mammals, reptiles, insects, etc that feed on these plants, pollinating them, eating the fruits or in turn are consumed by other animals, will also disappear or be greatly reduced. This will result in the gradual change and ultimate destruction of the ecosystem; the goats may not kill the trees, but will adversely impact on other things that make the habitat work.

The hard hooves of the goats will trample and adversely disturb the ground litter, which in turn will impact on the fauna that calls this environment home. The same trampling will also compact the soil, causing erosion in run-off areas. Waterways will also be impacted by erosion and pollution, which in turn will endanger their inhabitants.

Goats readily spread weeds, by both the passing of seed through their gut, but more importantly by soil disturbance damaging the natural defences of a closed plant community that prevents the colonisation of alien species. This disturbed soil also creates an ideal habitat for weed seed germination and large-scale colonisation.

There are many disadvantages of introducing animals like goats into any natural environment, let alone a unique one with many species vulnerable to change. What you propose I suggest is poorly considered.

PermeateFree said:

There are many disadvantages of introducing animals like goats into any natural environment, let alone a unique one with many species vulnerable to change.

History speaks for itself.

morrie said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

How many species do you think you might lose doing this? Perhaps you hadn’t considered that aspect?

No. What species do you think might be lost?

If you think that this is an issue, perhaps you should raise your concerns with Prof. David Bowman, University of Tasmania. He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

http://www.utas.edu.au/plant-science/people/David-Bowman

Perhaps you might like to point out where he has advocated the use of goats to enhance environmental values? The link you supplied is little more than a resume on Prof. David Bowman? I would be greatly surprised if he would support your ill considered views.

If feral animals must be used for vegetation control then donkeys are a better proposition than goats.

• He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

Real life elephants are not like cartoon elephants. They do not have a limitless stream of water from their trunks that can be used to put out fires or mischievously soak sneaky cats…

Tamb said:

If feral animals must be used for vegetation control then donkeys are a better proposition than goats.

No comment.

Tamb said:

If feral animals must be used for vegetation control then donkeys are a better proposition than goats.

When will the message get through? The aborigine had no permanent house other than those made of stone.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

If feral animals must be used for vegetation control then donkeys are a better proposition than goats.

When will the message get through? The aborigine had no permanent house other than those made of stone.

Not quite true. The Jirrbal people of the Atherton Tableland had semi-permanent settlements & shelters.
They only moved when camp conditions got a bit grotty & even then the move was only a small one.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

If feral animals must be used for vegetation control then donkeys are a better proposition than goats.

When will the message get through? The aborigine had no permanent house other than those made of stone.

Not quite true. The Jirrbal people of the Atherton Tableland had semi-permanent settlements & shelters.
They only moved when camp conditions got a bit grotty & even then the move was only a small one.

Yes. I am aware of the variations.

But they weren’t donkeys.

Anyway, to cut to the chase. My FiL was a state forester and he banned agistment of grazing animals from all the forests under his control. Because they destroyed the regenerative ability of the forest.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

But they weren’t donkeys.

Possibly I should have emphasised the word MUST. I was not advocating the use of donkeys, merely stating that they are preferrable to goats

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

But they weren’t donkeys.

Possibly I should have emphasised the word MUST. I was not advocating the use of donkeys, merely stating that they are preferrable to goats

If donkeys existed in the landscape in the same numbers as goats, I’m sure you’d change that tune.

roughbarked said:

Anyway, to cut to the chase. My FiL was a state forester and he banned agistment of grazing animals from all the forests under his control. Because they destroyed the regenerative ability of the forest.

A good thing unless it leads to catastrophic fires which destroy pretty much all life in the burned area.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Anyway, to cut to the chase. My FiL was a state forester and he banned agistment of grazing animals from all the forests under his control. Because they destroyed the regenerative ability of the forest.

A good thing unless it leads to catastrophic fires which destroy pretty much all life in the burned area.

Catastrophic fires occur because smaller less dangerous fires are discouraged. The forest uses fire to regenerate. Grazing animals destroy the ground flora and all the new tree seedlings.

Concern for the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

morrie said:

No. What species do you think might be lost?

If you think that this is an issue, perhaps you should raise your concerns with Prof. David Bowman, University of Tasmania. He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

http://www.utas.edu.au/plant-science/people/David-Bowman

Perhaps you might like to point out where he has advocated the use of goats to enhance environmental values? The link you supplied is little more than a resume on Prof. David Bowman? I would be greatly surprised if he would support your ill considered views.

On a television interview last night.

Here, know it all.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3873911.htm

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

If you think that this is an issue, perhaps you should raise your concerns with Prof. David Bowman, University of Tasmania. He is the one advocating not only goats, but elephants.

http://www.utas.edu.au/plant-science/people/David-Bowman

Perhaps you might like to point out where he has advocated the use of goats to enhance environmental values? The link you supplied is little more than a resume on Prof. David Bowman? I would be greatly surprised if he would support your ill considered views.

On a television interview last night.

The problem with goats in particular is that they do not prefer to eat grass but do prefer to kill tree seedlings and low shrubbery even to the point where they climb trees and pull them to the ground. They kill forests, they do not maintain them. The other problem is that they don’t eat dead wood. Elephants are in the same category.

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps you might like to point out where he has advocated the use of goats to enhance environmental values? The link you supplied is little more than a resume on Prof. David Bowman? I would be greatly surprised if he would support your ill considered views.

On a television interview last night.

The problem with goats in particular is that they do not prefer to eat grass but do prefer to kill tree seedlings and low shrubbery even to the point where they climb trees and pull them to the ground. They kill forests, they do not maintain them. The other problem is that they don’t eat dead wood. Elephants are in the same category.

Tell the good Professor then.

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

On a television interview last night.

The problem with goats in particular is that they do not prefer to eat grass but do prefer to kill tree seedlings and low shrubbery even to the point where they climb trees and pull them to the ground. They kill forests, they do not maintain them. The other problem is that they don’t eat dead wood. Elephants are in the same category.

Tell the good Professor then.

EMMA ALBERICI: And finally, in a recent issue of Nature magazine you wrote an article arguing for the introduction of elephants, of all things, to the Australian landscape as a way of mitigating the bushfire risk. Can you talk us through that thesis?

DAVID BOWMAN: Well absolutely. We know that the megafauna, the giant marsupials, became extinct and there is circumstantial evidence that the loss of these giant animals resulted in changed fire regimes. Now that’s still debated, but we certainly know that large animals consume fuel and if you have large animals – not necessarily elephants; we can use goats – if you can consume fuel, it’s what I like to call a low emissions fuel management technology. The smoke issue of prescribed burning, the risk of escapes of prescribed burning is forcing a rethink about how we’re going to interface communities with bushland. What’s happening in Colorado is that because of all of the issues of the fires they’re having there, community groups are self-organising and using goats to control fuel. I suspect that we’re going to use a bigger range of animals to manage fuel and I think possibly even elephants in some environments. We are going to have to completely re-imagine and open our minds up to whatever strategies are going to work. But the old rusted-on approaches of thinking that a bushfire disaster is all about response and recovery, that’s completely over. We now have to embrace change on a massive scale. We’re on a massive retro-fitting of our lifestyles and our relationships with fire.

EMMA ALBERICI: Dr Bowman, we have to leave it there. We appreciate your time this evening. Thank you very much.

__________________________________ I’d be happy to take absolutely out of each of his first sentences.

morrie said:

Tell the good Professor then.

The problem with the professor is that he is seeing the world as inhabited by humans densely enough to remove all other wildlife or control it to enable human settlement and safety from fires. So what does the good professor know about how to keep any fauna alive?

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

On a television interview last night.

The problem with goats in particular is that they do not prefer to eat grass but do prefer to kill tree seedlings and low shrubbery even to the point where they climb trees and pull them to the ground. They kill forests, they do not maintain them. The other problem is that they don’t eat dead wood. Elephants are in the same category.

Tell the good Professor then.

>>DAVID BOWMAN: Well absolutely. We know that the megafauna, the giant marsupials, became extinct and there is circumstantial evidence that the loss of these giant animals resulted in changed fire regimes. Now that’s still debated, but we certainly know that large animals consume fuel and if you have large animals – not necessarily elephants; we can use goats – if you can consume fuel, it’s what I like to call a low emissions fuel management technology. The smoke issue of prescribed burning, the risk of escapes of prescribed burning is forcing a rethink about how we’re going to interface communities with bushland. What’s happening in Colorado is that because of all of the issues of the fires they’re having there, community groups are self-organising and using goats to control fuel. I suspect that we’re going to use a bigger range of animals to manage fuel and I think possibly even elephants in some environments. We are going to have to completely re-imagine and open our minds up to whatever strategies are going to work. But the old rusted-on approaches of thinking that a bushfire disaster is all about response and recovery, that’s completely over. We now have to embrace change on a massive scale. We’re on a massive retro-fitting of our lifestyles and our relationships with fire.<<
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3873911.htm

Well David Bowman makes no reference as to how you might use feral goats to reduce fuel. I am however very confident that if he suggested using them in environments with unique ecosystems, not only would he run into considerable opposition from all who study the environment, but his professional reputation would be ruined. Therefore I feel sure he not would not make such a catastrophic recommendation.

I can however see how goats might be used and that is in farming areas to control shrubby regrowth and weed infestation, but certainly not in areas of natural vegetation with intact ecosystems. Below is an official government publication about goats, which draws attention to their affect on the environment plus their already wide distribution.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/feral-goat.pdf

Bowman has done a fair bit on fire and weeds and native fauna and flora.

The whole “elephant” thing was an opinion piece in Nature to draw attention to testing hypotheses about novel methods for controlling specific issues, on a case by case basis.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482030a.html

http://theconversation.com/elephants-on-grass-only-lively-debate-can-save-australias-environment-5287

And the goat example in California is this:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/06/goats-used-reduce-risk-of-california-wildfires/
“Goats graze the area in fenced in five to 10-acre sections and have already proven to be incredibly effective by reducing one area with two foot high grass to less than an inch high in just 24 hours. “

Goats are used in the US as alternative to mowing and spraying, in an areas which have long supported native ungulates and many areas which are former or current pastures. They eat undesirable weedy species in those areas.

This has been attempted in Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-30/goats-to-eat-away-at-fire-risk/416138) – but I have no idea what the result was – I cant find the follow-up report, but this method involved goat graziers to run their livestock in a plantation as an alternative to scrub-rolling or spraying.

However, it’s difficult to consider goats for fuel load reduction in Australian native forests, woodlands and shurblands since it has been well-documented that they can do a lot of damage to native species and communities, and for this they retain their status as a feral pest.

The last time I referred to Bowman and his ‘elephant in the room for the sake of discussion’, discussion quickly turned to an out-of-the-blue personal attack on me – so I will bow out of this one with parting comment that I personally would not wish to see grazing brought back to the SW forests as a fire management strategy on conservation estate because livestock really do have an impact upon vegetation communities, and a number of studies in similar austral forests haven’t demonstrated the promised fuel-reduction outcomes from grazing trials.

e.g.

http://ww2.biol.sc.edu/~newplant/BIOL301L/firegrazing.pdf

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-grazing-reduce-bush-fires-in-national-parks-11820

However, what people do with their freehold estate is their decision and choice, and this could form the basis for comparative studies should they embark on a rigorous documentation of fuel loads, fire risk, community changes post-grazing and with a good baseline dataset.

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

this is a very old article written when the idea of drones was rare

as things as moved on i’m sure that a million dollar drone is well within budget

a 1000 or 2000 drone fleet would cost 2 billion dollars

flattening the ground near roads to make airfields for drones to land on would cost maybe 500 million on top

the drones would be transported by some small cargo aircraft to the airfield or the drones could simply fly there individually

tankers would turn up to the airfield to make sure that fuel continues flowing.

ideally the airstrip would be cleared and mowed so the chance of fire spreading to the drones if the airstrip was over run by fire was minimised.

in a few weeks no one will even remember the bushfires so you could save money by not doing anything to mitigate the bushfires

as 200 houses get burnt to the ground we are still fighting a war in the middle that’s costing us a fortune – its all about what’s seen to be value for money, fighting fires or shooting up the natives in a country that most people didn’t know or care about.

wookiemeister said:

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

this is a very old article written when the idea of drones was rare

as things as moved on i’m sure that a million dollar drone is well within budget

a 1000 or 2000 drone fleet would cost 2 billion dollars

flattening the ground near roads to make airfields for drones to land on would cost maybe 500 million on top

the drones would be transported by some small cargo aircraft to the airfield or the drones could simply fly there individually

tankers would turn up to the airfield to make sure that fuel continues flowing.

ideally the airstrip would be cleared and mowed so the chance of fire spreading to the drones if the airstrip was over run by fire was minimised.

in a few weeks no one will even remember the bushfires so you could save money by not doing anything to mitigate the bushfires

as 200 houses get burnt to the ground we are still fighting a war in the middle that’s costing us a fortune – its all about what’s seen to be value for money, fighting fires or shooting up the natives in a country that most people didn’t know or care about.

If road closures free up roads why will airstrips be needed?

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Tamb said:

Saw someone mention waterbombing previously. Consider this: http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC50p18

this is a very old article written when the idea of drones was rare

as things as moved on i’m sure that a million dollar drone is well within budget

a 1000 or 2000 drone fleet would cost 2 billion dollars

flattening the ground near roads to make airfields for drones to land on would cost maybe 500 million on top

the drones would be transported by some small cargo aircraft to the airfield or the drones could simply fly there individually

tankers would turn up to the airfield to make sure that fuel continues flowing.

ideally the airstrip would be cleared and mowed so the chance of fire spreading to the drones if the airstrip was over run by fire was minimised.

in a few weeks no one will even remember the bushfires so you could save money by not doing anything to mitigate the bushfires

as 200 houses get burnt to the ground we are still fighting a war in the middle that’s costing us a fortune – its all about what’s seen to be value for money, fighting fires or shooting up the natives in a country that most people didn’t know or care about.

If road closures free up roads why will airstrips be needed?

you can land the drones on the road sure, as long as the road isn’t narrow or has trees over hanging it or a million other obstructions that might be on it

if someone decides to use the road when they shouldn’t (the fog of war) then you’ll disrupt the landing cycle of the drones and might get someone killed

have a separate airstrip for the drones, it allows them to land and take off and taxi effectively in a way that roads don’t allow.

if you’ve got firetrucks and ambulances trying to weave their way around the drones on the road there’ll be an accident

Seriously, the problems are:

Water bombing requires a lot of water near the fire and a lot of delivery units constantly filling and emptying. The paltry efforts we put up, now are like pissing against the wind.

The roads in inaccessible terrain aren’t suited to having airstrips built nearby.

roughbarked said:

Seriously, the problems are:

Water bombing requires a lot of water near the fire and a lot of delivery units constantly filling and emptying. The paltry efforts we put up, now are like pissing against the wind.

The roads in inaccessible terrain aren’t suited to having airstrips built nearby.

the drones are able to fly to the fire relatively quickly, they are moving at a constant speed and move in a straight line

aircraft can travel to places quite quickly

as I said a tonne of water every 2 seconds, doesn’t sound like pissing against the wind to me, especially when that water can be dumped on fire crews that have become trapped, houses that are in danger of being destroyed etc.

you are using the bombers to guide the fire around stuff that’s important, you aren’t trying to put it all out at once

there will be suitable places where water is available

Water bombing requires a lot of water near the fire and a lot of delivery units constantly filling and emptying. The paltry efforts we put up, now are like pissing against the wind.
—————————————————-

Yeah, at the end of the day they have a small bucket of water that invariably misses its target.

But everyone seems to be having fun…

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

Seriously, the problems are:

Water bombing requires a lot of water near the fire and a lot of delivery units constantly filling and emptying. The paltry efforts we put up, now are like pissing against the wind.

The roads in inaccessible terrain aren’t suited to having airstrips built nearby.

the drones are able to fly to the fire relatively quickly, they are moving at a constant speed and move in a straight line

aircraft can travel to places quite quickly

as I said a tonne of water every 2 seconds, doesn’t sound like pissing against the wind to me, especially when that water can be dumped on fire crews that have become trapped, houses that are in danger of being destroyed etc.

you are using the bombers to guide the fire around stuff that’s important, you aren’t trying to put it all out at once

there will be suitable places where water is available

As it is now, there is no problem with using airstrips for takeoffs and for refilling planes. The range of the aircraft is long enough but the adequate supply of accessible water isn’t. Which drone are you aware of that can carry a tonne of water?

I’ve had this kind of trouble explaining to things to people in the past

I had to explain to the power authority I worked at that if they didn’t try to work out which meters they had weren’t working properly they weren’t to get money for the power they supplied

we were turning up to meters that had been reading zero units for two units

there was some resistance to simply checking a data base and seeing what meters were always reading zero and finding out why.

after I explained (as an apprentice that huge amounts of money were being lost they eventually decided to start chasing after these meters and start collecting money on them)

I could try to explain that you build aircraft that can carry 1 tonne of water, or explain that spending a few billion on a drone fleet could protect life and property or the idea we could MAKE MONEY by hiring out the drone fleet elsewhere around the world but people resist change. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.

wookiemeister said:

I’ve had this kind of trouble explaining to things to people in the past

I had to explain to the power authority I worked at that if they didn’t try to work out which meters they had that weren’t working properly they weren’t to get money for the power they supplied

we were turning up to meters that had been reading zero units for two YEARS

there was some resistance to simply checking a data base and seeing what meters were always reading zero and finding out why.

after I explained (as an apprentice that huge amounts of money were being lost they eventually decided to start chasing after these meters and start collecting money on them)

I could try to explain that you build aircraft that can carry 1 tonne of water, or explain that spending a few billion on a drone fleet could protect life and property or the idea we could MAKE MONEY by hiring out the drone fleet elsewhere around the world but people resist change. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.

wookiemeister said:

I’ve had this kind of trouble explaining to things to people in the past

I had to explain to the power authority I worked at that if they didn’t try to work out which meters they had that weren’t working properly they weren’t to get money for the power they supplied

we were turning up to meters that had been reading zero units for two YEARS

there was some resistance to simply checking a data base and seeing what meters were always reading zero and finding out why.

after I explained (as an apprentice that huge amounts of money were being lost they eventually decided to start chasing after these meters and start collecting money on them)

I could try to explain that you build aircraft that can carry 1 tonne of water, or explain that spending a few billion on a drone fleet could protect life and property or the idea we could MAKE MONEY by hiring out the drone fleet elsewhere around the world but people resist change. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.

I’m not resisting change. I see your point about non-manned drones. It is more that your figures would be skew wif if you expect them to carry a tonne at the price you suggest.]

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve had this kind of trouble explaining to things to people in the past

I had to explain to the power authority I worked at that if they didn’t try to work out which meters they had that weren’t working properly they weren’t to get money for the power they supplied

we were turning up to meters that had been reading zero units for two YEARS

there was some resistance to simply checking a data base and seeing what meters were always reading zero and finding out why.

after I explained (as an apprentice that huge amounts of money were being lost they eventually decided to start chasing after these meters and start collecting money on them)

I could try to explain that you build aircraft that can carry 1 tonne of water, or explain that spending a few billion on a drone fleet could protect life and property or the idea we could MAKE MONEY by hiring out the drone fleet elsewhere around the world but people resist change. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.

I’m not resisting change. I see your point about non-manned drones. It is more that your figures would be skew wif if you expect them to carry a tonne at the price you suggest.]

don’t worry about it RB in a few weeks no one will remember, in a few years there will be more bushfires and we will be having the same conversation.

the church of sssf

now tax deductible

Wookie we understand what you want to do, we only disagree about it efficacy. Put simply your fleet of fire-fighting drones wouldn’t make a difference to the outcome of the worst fires, and for less intense fires the current strategy is both cost effective and adequate in saving lives and property.

wookiemeister said:

I could try to explain that you build aircraft that can carry 1 tonne of water, or explain that spending a few billion on a drone fleet could protect life and property or the idea we could MAKE MONEY by hiring out the drone fleet elsewhere around the world but people resist change. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.

My dear Wookie. The problem is you haven’t convinced us such a drone is practical in the first place, let alone operating a fleet of tens, hundred or even thousand to get the desired frequency of service of 2 seconds. I reckon an interval of 2 minutes would be an astonishing achievement for a small fleet of drones.

’ve had this kind of trouble explaining to things to people in the past

I had to explain to the power authority I worked at that …. in the meantime the fires continue to burn. i’m sure there was some resistance to even having a fire brigade.
————————————————————

Well said…ish

It is all about energy in and energy out. Some would call it Math.

Burn it slowly in winter or quickly in spring. Capitalism forgive me but, burn it in summer…

the outcome of the bushfires in victoria was that they needed to spend a billion dollars putting the powerlines underground

rejected

wookiemeister said:

the outcome of the bushfires in victoria was that they needed to spend a billion dollars putting the powerlines underground

rejected

But it alone wasn’t going to stop the fires.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

the outcome of the bushfires in victoria was that they needed to spend a billion dollars putting the powerlines underground

rejected

But it alone wasn’t going to stop the fires.

the power lines were likely to start them in the first place and still are

anyway nothing will change

see you here for the next major bushfire

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

the outcome of the bushfires in victoria was that they needed to spend a billion dollars putting the powerlines underground

rejected

But it alone wasn’t going to stop the fires.

the power lines were likely to start them in the first place and still are

anyway nothing will change

see you here for the next major bushfire

It is fine to put underground power into new developments but way way out in the sticks?

Do you know that each power pole costs $20,000 but they still stand them up.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

But it alone wasn’t going to stop the fires.

the power lines were likely to start them in the first place and still are

anyway nothing will change

see you here for the next major bushfire

It is fine to put underground power into new developments but way way out in the sticks?

Do you know that each power pole costs $20,000 but they still stand them up.

as I said

see you here for the next major bushfire

1 ignore the problem

2 deny the problem

3 shoot the problem

4 now go back to number 1

just to let you know RB its nothing personal

i’m not having a go at you

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

the power lines were likely to start them in the first place and still are

anyway nothing will change

see you here for the next major bushfire

It is fine to put underground power into new developments but way way out in the sticks?

Do you know that each power pole costs $20,000 but they still stand them up.

as I said

see you here for the next major bushfire

1 ignore the problem

2 deny the problem

3 shoot the problem

4 now go back to number 1

I didn’t say it had anything to do with me ignoring problems.

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Resolved yes. But not by you and your hare-brained ideas.

wookiemeister said:

just to let you know RB its nothing personal

i’m not having a go at you

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Myself included.

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Resolved yes. But not by you and your hare-brained ideas.

200 dead in the last fire

200 houses burnt out this fire (seems to me that somethings broke)

as I said

see you here for the next major bushfire

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

people like squirrels

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

people like squirrels

If that is the case they probably won’t like it when the wings fall off trying to lift a tonne of water and the poor squirrel has to die to save their house and don’t worry about the koalas.

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Resolved yes. But not by you and your hare-brained ideas.

200 dead in the last fire

200 houses burnt out this fire (seems to me that somethings broke)

as I said

see you here for the next major bushfire

God you’re a moron. Not once have you responded to people’s legitimate arguments against your billion dollar white elephant.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

people like squirrels

If that is the case they probably won’t like it when the wings fall off trying to lift a tonne of water and the poor squirrel has to die to save their house and don’t worry about the koalas.

squirrels are highly organised creatures and well known for their loveable nature

once you tell people they will be protected by squirrels there will be no objections to my squadron of water bombers

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

I’ve just grown tired of the interminable debate and complaint that accompanies something that could be resolved

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

you forgot Collins class and the various missile systems they couldn’t make work

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Perhaps you could consider the legitimate objections to your plans, and come up with a revised or modified version of it.

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

DIY drones already sells the technology that can control the drone via GPS

it can fly a route given to it

you start with making something that can fly with a reliable autopilot, then you work out how you will build an airframe to carry 1 tonne of water

design brief and design considerations

party_pants said:

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

All this and the drones would be useless in the worst fires.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

DIY drones already sells the technology that can control the drone via GPS

it can fly a route given to it

you start with making something that can fly with a reliable autopilot, then you work out how you will build an airframe to carry 1 tonne of water

design brief and design considerations

Remember that a tonne of water doesn’t behave in the same way as a tonne of seated passengers.

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

ok

the drones are actually manned by squirrels

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

you forgot Collins class and the various missile systems they couldn’t make work

Yes, and these are examples of using technologies which existed at the time, or had been demonstrated experimentally. Or it was a case of combining several existing technologies together into one complete system.

The technology for your drone system does not yet exist. Even in the various parts to be out together in one system. The examples of waste you cite are actually reasons not to adopt your ideas, they are not reasons why we should leap into a project destined to be an even bigger failure..

Witty Rejoinder said:

the drones would be useless in the worst fires.

Waiting to see how wookieworld can solve these issues.

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

a firefighting programme loaded onto an arduino connected to some heat sensors could trigger a response such as starting a powerful water pump and hosing the fire automatically

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Be realistic. The technology does not exist yet to do what you want to do. Developing technology is often a complicated and torturous process. Often over-ambitious projects fail to live up to expectations – you name there here often as examples of waste – like Seasprite, JSF, These are examples of failed or difficult programs.. But you never concede that your ideas are just as or even more ambitious, yet you cite these examples as waste which justify investment in your scheme, even though your schemes are higher risk technologically.

DIY drones already sells the technology that can control the drone via GPS

it can fly a route given to it

you start with making something that can fly with a reliable autopilot, then you work out how you will build an airframe to carry 1 tonne of water

design brief and design considerations

Remember that a tonne of water doesn’t behave in the same way as a tonne of seated passengers.

that’s why you have slosh baffles

wookiemeister said:

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

a firefighting programme loaded onto an arduino connected to some heat sensors could trigger a response such as starting a powerful water pump and hosing the fire automatically

Hmm. Have you ever lived in the bush for long wookie?

you could dig large undercover dams to store water safely

a pump could fire this water at the fire

the fire might never come for ten years but when it does come you are ready

anyone caught in the area would know that the nearest house would have a firefighting system spraying water at the fire and they might have a chance there

wookiemeister said:

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

Houses with sprinkler systems were still destroyed on Black Saturday such was the intensity of the fire.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

Houses with sprinkler systems were still destroyed on Black Saturday such was the intensity of the fire.

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

there was someone here that lived through that wasn’t there?

used to post here a lot / sssf

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

Houses with sprinkler systems were still destroyed on Black Saturday such was the intensity of the fire.

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

Use the Great Artesian Basin?

wookiemeister said:

there was someone here that lived through that wasn’t there?

used to post here a lot / sssf

several but the fire missed them.

wookiemeister said:

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

It doesn’t matter. Even a system that sprays 10,000 litres a minute will fail in an intense bushfire.

irrigation pumps would be the go

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

It doesn’t matter. Even a system that sprays 10,000 litres a minute will fail in an intense bushfire.

could you soak the area before the fire hit and then create a massive mist of water?

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

It doesn’t matter. Even a system that sprays 10,000 litres a minute will fail in an intense bushfire.

This is true.

wookiemeister said:

irrigation pumps would be the go

Where they have irrigation pumps.. there are very few bumps you could call a hill.

maybe you need a system that creates a large misty cloud that soaks the trees before the fire hits?

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

the more practical measure would be to force people who live in these areas to have reliable and adequate fire fighting equipment so when the fire comes their way they can stand their ground and defeat it or leave and allow the fire fighting systems to take over and save the homestead

Houses with sprinkler systems were still destroyed on Black Saturday such was the intensity of the fire.

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

… and you have the hide to call our proposed new sports stadium a waste of money?

Be far cheaper to have resources available to concentrate on evacuating to population to a place of safety, and just rebuilding the houses that get destroyed. Maybe set up a government fund to guarantee the insurance industry in a worst case scenario. As long as people survive, building can be rebuilt. Not worth the billions upon billions to secure each individual property against fire if it costs more per each property is worth.

you’ve got powerful pumps that spray lots of water to water crops

these have some serious capacity behind them

wookiemeister said:

maybe you need a system that creates a large misty cloud that soaks the trees before the fire hits?

We have that but it doesn’t burn on rainy days.

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

i’m talking about serious water systems

that can pump serious water for a short time

you just need an adequate dam

It doesn’t matter. Even a system that sprays 10,000 litres a minute will fail in an intense bushfire.

could you soak the area before the fire hit and then create a massive mist of water?

To what end? The aim is to save a house. If that quantity of water won’t do it nothing will.

its cheaper to just let the place burn to the ground every few years

the insurance can take up the slack

just get everyone out and let the place burn

if a few towns burn to the ground so what its still going to be cheaper doing nothing

when theres a fire its probably not worth sending the fire brigade – just let it burn

wookiemeister said:

you’ve got powerful pumps that spray lots of water to water crops

these have some serious capacity behind them

They run rivers backwards but they would instantly vapourise in 2,000ºC

wookiemeister said:

its cheaper to just let the place burn to the ground every few years

the insurance can take up the slack

just get everyone out and let the place burn

if a few towns burn to the ground so what its still going to be cheaper doing nothing

when theres a fire its probably not worth sending the fire brigade – just let it burn

I dunno, they don’t shift towns when they are flooded every 30 years.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It doesn’t matter. Even a system that sprays 10,000 litres a minute will fail in an intense bushfire.

could you soak the area before the fire hit and then create a massive mist of water?

To what end? The aim is to save a house. If that quantity of water won’t do it nothing will.

maybe you could have a waterfall type system, that is the house sits inside a wall of water

by the sounds of it rivers catch on fire in these bushfires so that won’t be much use

I know a bloke who was standing on his roof with a hose when the Canberra bushfire tornado leapt over his head and miraculously spared him but wiped out his whole street..

ok new plan

we just let the thing burn

don’t contain it, don’t play with it

if it moves towards a town just get everyone out and let the place burn

Allright must choof off now as my son has been assulted by 5 black males…

Other than that all is well..

Cheers Bucko

what they should do is use this opportunity to test various ways of protecting property with water

Mr Ironic said:

Allright must choof off now as my son has been assulted by 5 black males…

Other than that all is well..

Cheers Bucko

try to move out of the area – it will often be cheaper and less painful in the long run

wookiemeister said:

ok new plan

we just let the thing burn

don’t contain it, don’t play with it

if it moves towards a town just get everyone out and let the place burn

It depends on the intensity of the fire. Sometimes houses can be saved with no loss of life. It all depends on the conditions.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

ok new plan

we just let the thing burn

don’t contain it, don’t play with it

if it moves towards a town just get everyone out and let the place burn

but theres a risk that the fire could intensify

its easier to just let the place burn

the insurance companies would eventually get jack of it and make living in bushfire country largely impossible for exisiting buildings

It depends on the intensity of the fire. Sometimes houses can be saved with no loss of life. It all depends on the conditions.

The insurance companies already do this. They make people who don’t live in bushfire or flood prone areas pay.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

ok new plan

we just let the thing burn

don’t contain it, don’t play with it

if it moves towards a town just get everyone out and let the place burn

It depends on the intensity of the fire. Sometimes houses can be saved with no loss of life. It all depends on the conditions.

It’s a question of cost too, of course. Having a permanent land-based systems of tanks, pipes and pumps to guarantee the survival of each dwelling might cost several million dollars per dwelling. Which may be several times what the property is worth to rebuild. Whereas conventional firefighting equipment to protect during low intensity fires might be a fraction of the cost of each dwelling – thus making it worthwhile putting out small fires, but just evacuating one’s bowels and running away for the really big ones.

party_pants said:

It’s a question of cost too, of course. Having a permanent land-based systems of tanks, pipes and pumps to guarantee the survival of each dwelling might cost several million dollars per dwelling. Which may be several times what the property is worth to rebuild. Whereas conventional firefighting equipment to protect during low intensity fires might be a fraction of the cost of each dwelling – thus making it worthwhile putting out small fires, but just evacuating one’s bowels and running away for the really big ones.

Exactly.

what you could do is deliberately set fire to forest every few years

you could have a squadron of drones dropping incendiaries or you could use the airforce to deliberately set fire to the forest or just send the army in and tell them to have a military exercise there, either way you’d get the same result.

you could allow all the fire bugs from prison and get them to set fire to the forests – where once they were public enemies , now they could be heroes, it would certainly boost their morale.

instead of waiting for the next major fire we could encourage people to set fire to stuff all the time, when you take a trip to a national park just encourage people to start fires.

it could be the more fire the better

You’re an ideas man, wookie

dv said:

You’re an ideas man, wookie

Nevermind the koalas.

when going for a picnic you could siphon some petrol out of the car and into a used drink bottle

stuff some used napkins or wipe cloth into the top of the bottle and light the top of the bottle

throw the bottle at a tree or something and drive off

the national parks might actually fine people that don’t start fires

“excuse me sir I see you camped her last night”

yes

may I ask why you didn’t have a fire sir?

well it would burn everything

exactly – that’s a 300 fine – that that be a lesson to you – good day

you could always get creative and leave a time bomb to go off after you have driven away

if it was particularly dry the fire would really go off

anyone coming the other way who was planning to camp there too would see you charging the other way and figure that you’d just started a fire and follow you back

wookiemeister said:

you could always get creative and leave a time bomb to go off after you have driven away

if it was particularly dry the fire would really go off

anyone coming the other way who was planning to camp there too would see you charging the other way and figure that you’d just started a fire and follow you back

The arson squad have pinpointed your location and have sent a SWAT team.. pack your hard drives up and run.. NOW!

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

you could always get creative and leave a time bomb to go off after you have driven away

if it was particularly dry the fire would really go off

anyone coming the other way who was planning to camp there too would see you charging the other way and figure that you’d just started a fire and follow you back

The arson squad have pinpointed your location and have sent a SWAT team.. pack your hard drives up and run.. NOW!

if only there was anything of any value on those hard drives I would

I have decided to burn them, its safer

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

you could always get creative and leave a time bomb to go off after you have driven away

if it was particularly dry the fire would really go off

anyone coming the other way who was planning to camp there too would see you charging the other way and figure that you’d just started a fire and follow you back

The arson squad have pinpointed your location and have sent a SWAT team.. pack your hard drives up and run.. NOW!

.. and don’t forget to evacuate your bowels for good measure, let’s you run faster!

no I have done what I have always done taken a look from the other end

burning stuff to get rid of the problem could be the easiest to do many things

instead of demolishing a house just burn it to the ground – its easier

you could burn all kinds of things that aren’t needed any more or things that are causing problems, old cars, old newspapers, sheds, books and even witches

e-waste would be top on the list

one problem they always seems to have is getting rid of old tyres and batteries

why not just burn them?

maybe what you could do is use nature to help us

pile up all the waste we create in national parks and then wait for a few years for the place to become like a tinder box

if what people are saying is true the sheer heat of the bushfire would vapourise all this stuff

I was just about to say something stupid.

Close call.