Forest Fire Fighting Machine

This really is the most ignorant post you have made to date. You obviously have no connection to reality whatsoever.

Blowing on a fire only makes it burn more, toward the O² source.

I suggest that you find a local child, somewhere around the age of 10-12 years old.

Prior to publishing your misguided ramblings, you should ask the child what they think about your brilliant ideas. That might save you some embarrassment in the future.

You are right but it is a but: if the air flow is important it can take more heat and the temperature in front of the flame can go so low that more stuff cannot start to burn. At your birth day what do you do with the "candle flames" on the birth day cake ? You "blow" them, the flame disappears exactly because the fluid flow you blow takes all heat with.

The same with burning coal if one blows it will burn stronger al low flow and will cool down at high flow.

When we think at a forest there is a scale problem and I do not know if the candle can be extrapolated.

I think scale is a big factor here. When one blows on a candle the entire flame is swept away from the fuel source and cooled to below ignition temperature.

This would never happen in a fire. Compare the effect of the largest imaginable helicopter on a forest fire and the impact is negligible. It'll just fan the fire and make it burn more intensely.

Remember, fire fronts can be miles in length.

This isn't even humorous any more.

And, Ed, I don't think one needs to be an experienced firefighter to recognize lunacy when one gets slapped in the face with it.

Cheers.

I agree with Lyn. Also, unless you tether your aircraft to the ground the thrust of the extra propellers would simply push the aircraft away from the flames; it would not be able to hover and blow on the flames at an angle. Newton's 3rd law.

I feel amused to see how people assumes that I am a moron without any knowledge of the basic laws of Mechanics.

It is difficult to describe such a complex machine in a few paragraphs. This is why I did not say that the Machine has a second row of propellers that EXACTLY counteracts the main active propellers.

Many flying models have shown that the machine is very stable and manouevrable.

When you blow air into flames you increse the flames, but IN THE PROPER direction so as they run into already burn forest and so they quench themselves very fast. The higher your counterwind velocity the faster the flames get extinguished. To the point that it could be interesting to use flame throwers, to help extinction.

But, of course, the intention is NOT to use this machine directly against large fire fronts, but to cut large firestops well ahead of incoming flame fronts, by burning wide strips of forest.

This way the machine becomes extremely efficient, because it can cut through forested areas at excellent speeds.

Before somebody comes out with negative calcs, let me say that all the machine needs to do is to counteract the existing wind.

The energy of a wind of 40 Km/h = 11 m/s, which is considered as already dangerous, is of 815 watts per square meter.

If we want to produce a curtain of air 35 meters wide and 10 meters high at minus 40 Km/h we'll need a minimum of energy of 35 x 10 x 815 = 285,259 watts or 285 Kw

But we need another 285 Kw for the reaction propellers.

Power = 285 x 2 = 570 Kilowatts.

Also we need an active counterwind so lets increase the power of the macine to 1000 Kw.

To this, we must add the power to maintain the machine aloft, say another 2000 Kw. The total of 3000 Kw is surprisingly low.

As I said we sould use a minimum of two machines. Preferrably three. one in the center and two to the sides

Chorete

This has to be one of the most delusional ideas I've seen on CR4. Many over unity machines make better sense than this. You obviously have not consulted with anyone who actually fights a forest fire. I will only go into the most obvious flaw of this ludicrous fantasy.

If you have the room and roads to bring a one million watt machine to a forest fire, then you already have a firebreak place. This machine requires room to exist in addition to the firebreak it is trying to create. A team of smoke jumpers occupy the space in between the forest trees they will be clearing to make a firebreak. A team of smoke jumpers has the intelligence and adaptability to assess the location and implement what cutting and safe burning needs to be done to make a firebreak where no roads already exist.

He suggests using 3 of these Choreticopters. You know, if they were linked together they could support a large horizontal wind turbine that used the updraft from the forest fire to generate the electricity needed to power the Choreticopter.

Wouldn't that be even more awesomer??!!

"To the point that it could be interesting to use flame throwers, to help extinction.

But, of course, the intention is NOT to use this machine directly against large fire fronts, but to cut large firestops well ahead of incoming flame fronts, by burning wide strips of forest."

This is called a "back-burn" - and common practice - conditions and terrain permitting.

You would still need a bulldozed track to burn from, and a way of preventing 'spot-overs' behind your 'hovering device'.

People ONLY make an interpretation of what you write. It is what you write which brings them to the written comments.

If they think you have not the knowledge you claim it is because your writings are such that they come to this result.

They are not guilty your writings are!

By the way you claimed to have made successful tests with the "Indian rope" I asked for some pictures to see them and as I wrote to be the first to congratulate but I did not get any real answer to my request, now I very much doubt that pictures of the tests you have done with models of your "fire away blowing machine" will ever be made available to our eyes.

I have never heard 3 megawatts quantified as small. With the volume and velocity of air being moved through two quadrants of your machine, you are overlooking the need for more stabilizing engines, adding to your needed power calculations. You must also consider the super heating of the already burning foliage, and the generated sparks. If you envision the wind turbulence from a 5MW wind generator, you will find a lot of unpredictable turbulence when this much wind force is introduced into chaotic nature. Sparks also start fires.

This has some merit with some kinds of fires - in theory.

For instance helicopter down wash can 'blow flat' a small flame front locally, but will also scatter embers with the turbulence resulting - spreading the fire.

It is also almost impossible to do regular hose work in down-wash strong enough to blow a fire flat [i.e. expect to wet what your aiming at, whilst being assailed by detritus, such as sticks, chunks of bark, sand, dirt, pebbles - anything not tied down]

Second factor is a fire in grass will move about as fast as the wind diving it - how you could neutralise that, so bring the fire to a halt, then reverse the flow - is frankly beyond me. And you'd need to do the entire front simultaneously, or be by-passed and perhaps incinerated, when flames are sucked in from fuel igniting behind you.

Third factor is 'forest'

Unless it is already a canopy fire - blowing on the front will increase the heat (more O₂) and likely lift embers up into the canopy - dramatically increasing the intensity, fuel involvement, flame height - worsening the destruction.

If it is, or becomes, a canopy fire it will create it's own very significant inflow. Your device may simply be sucked in and incinerated.

A note on aerial operations.

The idea is not to wet the flames, so much as, lay retardants on the fuel ahead of the flame front. Because of the heat, so evaporation rates, this is done as close as possible to the front.

When you see 'direct attack' on flames, this is usually to try to reduce radiant heat of a 'hot spot', say a well alight tree, aiding front propagation. You may see what appears to be 'attack on flames' when flame is running up a hill, but the target is always the fuel immediately ahead of the front.

In saying that, it is difficult to do, doubly so in the turbulence a sizable fire creates. Some pilots are better than others, so it can be 'variable' in effect. There are also supply variables that can add a degree of 'useless show'.

I see you are aware that air attack will not 'put out' a fire, without crew on the ground, but I think you need to think more on how crew could work in the presence of your device and in what circumstances it would not exacerbate the situation - or in fact endanger crew anywhere near it.

I have tried for a 'neutral' position on your concept - but I think in the above is much of why fire people will oppose it.

Oh poop! I got zapped. Didn't even get credit for using poor taste.

Let me try again.

Chorete, your concept has no merit, but why don't you record some of your successful experiments and prove me wrong. I'd like to see that eight engined helicopter that blows out fires. You could call it the "Little Red Riding Hood" fire suppression system. Big bad wolf and all. HUff and puff. After all, it is a fairy tale, you know.

All of your ramblings have been totally dismissed by people on this forum who seem to be reasonably intelligent to me.

You have become a member of a unique group here. I can only think of 4 people who have posted such bizarre, over-the-top ramblings such as you.

Congratulations on being a member of that elite team. Together, you should be able to conquer the world.

I haven't completely read all of the replies here; but I'd like to humbly suggest that all experts in this discussion present their credentials in the area of wildland fire experience. Either seriously researching them, fighting them, enduring them close up or fleeing from them. Credibility is important to this discussion.

Ed Weldon (in the category of enduring, fleeing, watching and being scared ___less.)

While I do agree with Lyn's comment that experience is not needed to detect lunacy, I can fall back on my ancient boy scouting experiences here in fighting brushfires in the pine barrens of Long Island. A forest fire is a slow moving, self supported beast that is far easier to starve than extinguish. Any attempt to accelerate burning during the tinder dry conditions that forest fires happen is a fools approach to the problem.

The last thing any firefighter wants is to spread the fire to a protected sight. Increasing the oxygen supply with prop wash will do two foolish things. It will accelerate the velocity of the burning embers so they will travel farther away to set more fires.

The next to last thing a firefighter wants to do is to make the existing fire more difficult to extinguish. The added oxygen will cause the fire to burn hotter at certain places so that more roots and and other sub-surface fuels can ignite. This can create subsoil hot spots that may never extinguish. Those who think that I'm just being hyperbolic, read about the coal seam fire of Centralia PA. Those who think that the 1998 date of the earlier link means that this fire is out, look at this 2010 update.

Now coal seam fires are a different beast than the average forest fire, but many forests do have a floor of peat.

My (and I presume also Ed's) point here is that fighting forest fires must be led by people that know the terrain and the conditions so that they do not make it worse. Making a back burn hotter to starve a fire is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

As quite a few CR4 readers already know - I have been a volunteer bush-fire fighter since my teen years.

Perhaps this is time to 'flesh that out' a bit;

I have held brigade rank, team lead, trained, instructed, etc. I am qualified in a broad spectrum of equipment and appliances, including 'phos-check' and air operations.

I have been 'hands on' on the fire line in 100's of fires; in several countries, in all kinds of terrain; spanning broad acre grass/crop, to alpine forest. Eucalyptus through to pine - meaning I have first had experience from 600ft flames, to of finding my self knee-deep in a root fire.

I have also advised in fire behavior research studies. And naturally, employed my professional skill-sets in equipment design [trucks, water delivery systems etc.] and most of my designs and innovations have been adopted.

Some 'personal' stuff;

My longest 'fire event' was a 6 week campaign, longest fire-line shift - 26 hours without relief was set on that one - which also coincides with my maximum seriously scared, but not by fire, by the BS artists and theorists, who 'loose the plot' when it gets 'real'.

Half a dozen of these fires remain quite memorable - and not just because they acquired media and names staring with 'black', more because the Coronial Inquiry always concludes 'prevention methods' that should be in place, were not and, are still are not.

Naturally, due to this frustration, after one memorable 'disaster', I participated in the development of a 'prevention plan' [the tenants of which, if not the whole principles, are being 'snail pace' adopted]

One hopes that covers "wild fire experience, seriously researching them, fighting them, enduring them close up, fleeing from them.. and, being scared ___less"

One hopes I will now be 'taken seriously' on this topic - but was not my 'experience and intimate knowledge' evident in my first post?

Dont worry 34Point5 seems to be an excellent expert

Grass fires are precisely the best hadled by the machine.

The only experiments with real fire in real fields were made in stubble wheat fields by a team of valiant volunteers holding propellers simulating a real machine. A wind of 30 Km/h was turned backwards at about a velocity with reference to the ground of minus 20 Km/h. The flame fronts were inmediately stopped and extinguished in the area swept by the row of propellers.

The smoke with flying embers rises to a certain safe elevation and then is turned again to the direction of the prevailing Wind forming a C shaped curtain that passes harmlessly over the operators

Another story are the edges of the front being attacked. The flames have the tendency to form heavy vortices that turn them to the inside trying to close the gap of extinguished front

This was corrected by having the two propellers in the edges to face heavily inwards to fight the edge vortices. These vortices are similar to the wingtip vortices of an airplane.

But a canopy fire is an extremely chaotic event dealing with extremely high energies

Machines by definition need a nonchaotic environment to do their work.

Only tests with real machines in real large fires will disclose the truth. And this would cost a lot.

Experiments with model forests and model machines do show general trends only.

Why do not I show my experiments?. For two reasons

1º I am an old man and do not need the money or the glory, but my grandchildren may want to patent the idea. What I write here cannot be considered as a patent disclosure

2º And more important. My videos look cheap, They are scientifically correct but visually horrible.

A friend made an animation, sorry if it is incomplete, it stops at the best moment (I canot find it now, I promise to send it as soon as I find it)

3º I have had so many undeserved rejections to the idea that I do not want any further fights.

If you do not like the idea, fine I cannot care less You'll be the losers if I happen to be right.

In fact I seriously think ridiculous not to have gotten any funds to properly test the idea fullscale "Just to see IF".

chorete

Interesting that you still seem to be trying to use logic and reason with the OP.

I appreciate your firefighting acumen, but I think it's wasted here.

Ultimately, designing fire fighting is playing with lives; this is 'reason' enough for me to calmly explain the 'logic'.

GA from me,

A little note about grass fires as applies in Oz. We have a species of grass known as Kikuyu. This creeping perennial has stolons and rhizomes with above and below ground runners. It is a vigorous, light green grass with flattened culms and takes root from its lower nodes. Kikuyu has a high wearability especially when grown in full sun and good ability to recuperate. It has a high thatching tendency and is quick to establish. It is not an Oz native but from Kenya in South Africa. It grows well in the "wild" and if not controlled grows quite tall and spreads far and wide.

In a dry summer Kikuyou will burn readily and can propagate a fire underground through those runners.

This makes fighting open plains grass fires more dangerous as the fire can (will) sneak up behind you..

Maybe we should open a fire fighting thread, to allow actual truthful, anecdotal knowledge to become part of interweb lore...

Just a thought.

As a former Bush Firefighter in Oz, I concur with Just an Engineer and his reply(GA from me too).

Bush fires once they have reached a certain size are almost living entities. The result of the heat generated by the fire creates a low pressure cell of air as the super heated air rises. Colder denser air is drawn (from all around the fire zone) into that low cell to replace the superheated air this then provides additional impetus to the fire front.

One of the problems flying into the low cell created by a fire front is the loss of power experienced by the motors from the super heated de-oxygenated air, as well as the turbulent up drafts affecting the control of the aircraft.

Of course there are more than one type of "bush fire" but the more dramatic ones occur in mountainous terrain. In Oz, the Eucalyptus trees (which are the main arboreal entity) will produce a vapour of the eucalyptus oil when the weather is warm. This vapour has a flash-point, which is high but it will burn. The vapour is what gives the "blue" in the Blue Mountains (in NSW). When you have a fire of any real magnitude it starts in the valleys and it is not long before it creates a fire front along the side of the mountain. The propagation is by leading embers carried by the currents of wind created by the front. Once the fire is hot enough it will cause the eucalyptus vapour to ignite and propagate the fire further.

As for the implementation of the Chorocopter in hilly terrain that you experience on the great dividing range, I'd see it as problematic. You'd probably have better luck in blowing it out explosively but it would need a pretty big bang, and I don't think I'd like the job of powder monkey in that situation...I have been caught on a fire break 10 metres wide that the fire front just ran over the top of and kept going. The fire would have been advancing at over 30 mph on a 2 mile wide front along the face of the hill from the valley floor to the ridge top. I saw it 6 miles away and asked the question of my DC "Do you think that ones going to be our problem?" He responded by getting us all out of there, and just in time too.

Still this is what CR4 does best, bench racing ideas.....

Nuts, totally nuts.

I'm glad that as usual there are real and practical people on this board. Common sense will prevail. I've enjoyed reading some of the real life experiences of fire-fighters, even though it's a gravely serious subject.

I doff my hat to you.

Glad to see the enormous amount of knowledge I have attracted.

Scientists and theory engineers are usually very angry with natural events like volcano eruptions, earthquaques, tsunamis and above all Forest Fires, because they are too complex to be described mathematically.

I understand the deep gut feelings mixed with cold blooded knowledge of people that has been involved in such grandiose event as a large Forest Fire.

But people who invent machines, like me, need desperately to simplify the complex set of events taking place in a real fire.

Let me try.

Many people have come to think that my machine "Blows" the flames as in a birthcake. To do this, enormous powers would be required.

What my machine does is to reverse the existing wind just enough to incline the flames backwards. During the operation the flame propagtion is totally stopped at a neat line.

The groumd team is supposed to be located behind the the vertical of the machine, not exposed to the air downwash, but close enough to the "Extinction line" to enter the burned area as soon as the machine retires.

They have to be very efficient because the hot embers have the "Nasty" tendency to start propagating the flames again, as soon as the machine is retired.

Now let me try a Thought Experiment, to see if I can get good feedback.

Let me start a fire in a dense forest in a windy day.

According to theory the flame front advances forming an elongated ellipse.

My question is: Will the front advance just contrary to the wind?.

My answer is: depends on the wind velocity for every type of forest.

There MUST be a wind velocity above which the fire would NOT propagate at all counter the the wind.

No matter how dense and tall and dry is the forest this limit velocity must exist. True Or false?.

Now: If this is true, then my machine can be successfull because it can ALWAYS produce a "Conterwind" strong enough to stop the advance of the fronts, no matter how horrifically powerfull they might be.

One of the most common criticisms for my machine is: How a machine of only 3000 Kw can fight a monstruous fire that can have the energy of a Nuclear Bomb?. That was the criticism of a Nobel Price Scientist in Thermodynamics

My answer is: In the same way a switch deviates enormous amounts of energy, with your fingertips.

The machine does not fight the fire. It only deviates its energy in a harmless direction..

But again, I am emphasizing too much the use of my machine against flame fronts.

But this is not going to be its common use.

It would be mostly used to cut wide firestops.

You have mentioned that to start a firestop by Back Burning you must have a starting trench.

Not with my machine. I have poor videos that nevertheless show very clearly how the machine cuts a wide firestop all by itself.

In real life, a team of ground firemen should follow the machine putting out embers.

Another thing: I mentioned that the ground team should be positioned just behind the machine, at a safe distance from radiation. I believe that a small helicopter flying continuously in the area covered by the high flying smoke plume should work putting out the small fires started by flying embers.

This appears an easy task. Flying embers do not go anywhere: They can only exist in the area covered by the smoke plume. This is a well defined and predictable area

As for the suction of the front on the machine, this will only help to decrease the power of the machine. Do not worry, the machine has power enough to take care of any suction.

Another thing. I do not believe in sudden changes of wind direction.

Wind is a macro phenomenon that involves large regions in the Planet. Wind changes at the pass of the fronts but in a matter of hours.

What people sees as sudden wind changes are just large vortices that they do not see as vortices but just as plain wind. But the changes takes seconds or minutes only (The typical gusts) . And so their effect is scarce in the long run.What matters is the average velocity and direction.

Another thing is the fire in deep canyons: If the fire advances along the sidewalls there is a moment when the radiation from both walls create such a high temperature in the center that it surpasses the flash point of the vegetation and a sudden explosion occurs, This is the way a team of firemen were killed recently in Spain.

I have found the Animation

excatruck.com/machine04.html

Remember. This is an animation by a friend The machine has deflecting vanes instead of propellers. It is not finished, it does not show what happens (Or should happen) when the machine stops and moves to the next zone. Nor it shows how a firebreak is made.

The music is composed by my friend.

chorete

I felt this 'twist' in my bones, from the start.

Yes; if you throw a Molotov cocktail into a crop, or forest, on a perfectly still day and a perfectly flat paddock - a fire would propagate in a perfect circle given perfectly symmetrical fuel load.

Too many perfects.

But say it decides to head in a direction, the back edge tends to be less intense than the 'front'.

It may be if you add wind - the back lacks 'radiation support', or O₂ input, or fuel, or has been in shade so more moist, or runs into a ditch, or road - so is 'extinguished'

In reality nothing is symmetric. Nothing is flat, no fuel load is uniform.

One other thing - I've seen a 5 knot nor-easterly change to a 30 knot Southerly in about as long as it takes to say "sh*t what's that coming?".

In mountains wind can go though 360 twice a day.

In a regular 'paddock' it reverses with dawn and dusk.

Believe it.

I'm too tired now to comment on the video - except to say I could put that 'downhill' forest fire out on my Ag bike with a rake-hoe and urine.

Dear 34 point 5

I think that when we consider big forest fire, we have to consider the factor of a "standing tree" is a big target for the fire embers, much more compared to same biomass if it would lay on the ground. And if the tree would be crushed, so that all the big branches would be compacted together, the fire risk would be much more reduced. A standing tree is exposed much more to the heat radiated from the fire, and to the hot wind, al this will dry the tree much faster, and make it to a perfect fuel!

What do you think about my following idea:

To use a Vulcan gun, to " cut" tree trunks, well ,though I'm like most of the Israelis retired soldier, never I used a Vulcan, nor did I try to fell trees with a gun, but probably could this be a "constructive destruction", to use a unit of vulcans when a forest fire is out of control, and fell within few minutes hundred of trees, that immediately after being felled will be crushed by a fleet of gigantic bulldozers! Well , this requires a good topography, but I think that in most of the big forest fires, crawler bulldozers could pave their way!

Lots of people have suggested munitions and/or explosives in the past.

What it tends to do is create a lot of fine material to be uplifted, ignited and 'spot forward' of the fire.

A fire should never become a 'canopy fire'. This equals 'uncontrollable' and 'too late'.

If you have one, it's because you haven't kept your forest [or plantation] tidy.

I.e. there was enough ground litter, scrub, low branches, to lift flame into the canopy.

So if you cut the trees - they simply add to the mess and fuel load around the stumps.

If you have a fleet of giant bulldozers use them to clear a corridor at least a tree height wide, ideally three, with no overhanging [connecting] canopy and get rid of anything that can fall on crew or block the track.

Put the felled trees on the non-fire side, then reduce a 2 blade wide [8 m] track to bare earth; and back-burn from that into the approaching fire - at dusk, or when it is cool enough.

Be aware, in high fire conditions, 'bare earth' will carry fire due to trace organic matter.

Be very careful the felled trees, or windrow of litter, do not catch fire.

Assume they will, so assure the crew have a good enough, wide enough, stump and hole fee, track to escape. I.e. you need to grade the bare earth track at least 2.5 vehicles wide. This is also required for water delivery by bulk carriers, as units leaving to refill can leave the line vulnerable to spot-overs.

You should also bulldoze 'havens' - but how to create and place those is a 'case by case' and influenced by too many things to be trying to cover here. Or me attempting this, then you doing, with a 'little knowledge' is more than a dangerous thing - more like 'mass fatality'.

Of course you should have done this all earlier, got rid of the felled stuff and tidied your forest - then crews could just turn up and put out the low fire trickling through when it reaches the grass boarder. Or even a chopper could flyby and wet the grass

But that would involve 'thinking ahead'.

Actually....felled trees play a vital role in the life of a forest. If you remove them you remove habitat for countless little creatures that make their living on the forest floor. I understand your point completely. We just have different opinions on how to best deal with the fires that are created by nature and mankind. Nature has done a wonderful job at forest renewal, why mess with perfection?

Because we stopped being nomads?

I want to be clear as a bell in my criticism. If you try this in a real forest fire you will kill people.

You can make in an animation a mythical world that responds to any real or imagined physical laws you want. Saying things like, "I do not believe in sudden changes of wind direction." just proves to me that you are delusional. You even contradict yourself in the middle of your deranged reply.

"Wind is a macro phenomenon that involves large regions in the Planet. Wind changes at the pass of the fronts but in a matter of hours." Well if wind was only a macro phenomena, then your machine could not effect the wind created by the fire.

You have no understanding of the power and energy that is being released by a forest fire. You capture information only when it suits your opinion and then ignore it as a need to simplify to achieve a design. In this reply you recognize that the radiant energy of a forest fire can exceed the flash point of other vegetation and yet you ignore the obvious effect that force feeding air into a fire will make it burn hotter.

Interesting thread. Put me in the camp that says protect structures and life and let mother nature handle the rest. The planet has billions of years of history of cycling and renewal without man's intervention. Sometimes I think we over try to keep things just the way we've become accustom to them.

Blowing on flames with a helicopters tail wash (or a jets thrust) is interesting. I'm sure on small scales it would work but it also would be feeding the flames the O2 they need to survive. It's easy to see how this could quickly multiply the problem. In California we get Santa Ana winds that spread embers for miles, the results are devastating. How about spending my tax dollars on reseeding instead of such a dangerous machine.

"Put me in the camp that says protect structures and life and let mother nature handle the rest"

Fair comment and thanks for the opportunity for a pet rant

The principle aim of fire fighters is 'asset protection'. And, for that reason, it is funded substantially by the insurance industry.

Given the 'influence' to do it, most bush-fire people would see all 'bush/forest' broken buy pasture lanes [stocked & kept grazed] - and the blocks 'hazard reduced' by regular 'cold burns'.

Many are against this 'interference' with 'nature'- though it's a controlled replication of the actual natural process - which serves to prevent 'wholesale destruction of the flora and fauna'.

The same "many" expect the massive fire that WILL COME if you can't/don't hazard reduce - to be magically stopped at their overgrown, litter filled yard/doorstep.

I.e. "protect lives (first) and structures" starts miles away and involves constant 'interference'.

This is also know as 'planning & preparation'.

"In California we get Santa Ana winds that spread embers for miles"

Spain is the same - so I wonder why the OP is unaware of 'hot fire' uplift?

Nice plume of water. The problem is that its extinguishing power is nearly negligible compared with the enormous power of a large forest fire.

I know that I do not have the right to ask people to answer my questions, and not with things only remotely related.

Last try: Do you believe that a fire, no matter how big, cannot propagate counter wind ( At a certain wind velocity)?.

If you say yes. Then How can you say that my machine, that produces a counterwind of the needed intensity, cannot stop a fire, no matter how big it is?.

A forest does not have any intelligence and it does not know if the wind is natural or produced by a crazy machine, so it will never go against the wind ( In this case artificial).

In more detail: The machine does not need to produce a counterwind in all the Region but only on a surface say 35 m wide x 10 m high. If the trees are very tall then make it 20 m high.

Do not pay attention to the video. It was made by a person that does not know anyting about fires or machines. It was intended, if he had finished it, for use with politicians.

chorete

PS I never lose time in these forums. For example somebody has already put a name to my machine Choretecopter. I love it. Thanks. I'll pay any Copyright.

We need here the opinion of an aerodynamicist

Don't stop thinking outside the traditional box. I love it!

We need here the opinion of an aerodynamicist

No, just come down to South Texas this October, and we will go out with the preharvest crew that burns the sugarcane fields and see some real fires, and watch the wind patterns that develop, includig occasional "Fire Tornados". (They burn 40% of the biomass that grew during the year, and that biomass is about 42% glucose as cellulose and hemicellulose. The remaining stalks contain 13 - 16% sucrose.)

The problem is that its extinguishing power is nearly negligible compared with the enormous power of a large forest fire.

And using a chopper to try to snuff out the flames will work????!!!!

Using a fire to snuff out the chopper will.

_{Did you catch Hookers post?}

_XXXIV.v

This thread has become a total waste of time.

Like all the other offerings by Chorete.

I OK with outside the box, but I'd like to keep it on the same planet.

I watched your video.

Let me say that a large part of my background is as a flight engineer of a CH-47 helicopter with over 2200 flight hours. Many of those hours were spent as the operator of two hydraulically operated 350 gallon buckets suspended under the Chinook. They are/were designed to disperse water/retardant over fires. Let me say, though, that we didn't usually hang around active flames long enough to see what effect our 120 mph rotor wash had on the fire. Too dangerous, to us and the helicopter.

First, your deflected airflow using those curved vanes will probably make the vehicle uncontrollable or unsustainable in altitude, especially if you're trying to maintain some optimum roll angle relative to the fire. The first priority of any rotary wing vehicle must be to maintain flight control and attitude. From the video (and I don't doubt it's a proof of concept only) it does not appear you have enough power to fly and control your vehicle and position for the fire, or an adequate understanding of rotary wing flight to be able to position hold such a vehicle as required for the task. In a nutshell, diverting the amount of airflow from lift to the fire that you appear to need would result in significant loss of lift. It may even contribute to ring vortex state loss of lift and bring the vehicle down (google ring vortex state for info). Possibly even the heated rising air could help induce ring vortex.

Secondly, I question whether the vehicle could withstand the radiant energy emitted by a fire at the apparent close distance required. I doubt you could build it light enough to fly yet with adequate "armor" to protect from radiant heat and flying debris.

Neat idea, though. Lots of work to realize it, though, IMO.

Hooker

The machine in the video is the invention of the guy who made the video.

In reality my machine looks like this

The two rows of props are dynamically and aerodynamically balanced so they do NOT affect at all the operation of the lifting rotors. The machine is piloted as a Chinook.

For downhill operation the whole truss is inclined the necessary angle. Also this operation does not affect the main rotors.

This a tethered test of one of the models, without batteries.

The electric power is sent via a cable from the ground

Propellers an rotors look curved due to Stroboscopic effect.

I almost nothing about fighting fires but to me this whole Consept is flawed from the start.

Am I correct in assuming this machine of yours will have rotors blowing air down on a fire and a second set of blades, in close proximity to counter the force of the first set. In essence one blowing up and on blowing down.

My one question is where are you getting all the air to fuel this process because it looks like you are trying to create a vacuum around your craft.

Though that might work on the fire.

What a heated discussion! Much Thanks. I have not seen one of this intensity for a while on Cr4. Has anyone thought of the transportation and positioning of such a fire-fighting machine - during application in the field?

Here in Florida we have large forest fires every year that consume tens of thousands of acres. I am no longer a firefighter but have experience. What OP doesn't understand is that the wind CREATED by the fire can be many times worse than prevailing winds. Depending on the terrain or current fuel load, a wind machine will not direct a fire that is creating its own wind. Leave the firefighting to professionals and save the wind machine or blowing out candles.

Sorry to see that there are good firemen opposing the idea

But, up to the moment it seems that nobody did understand my machine.

Assume a long flame front with zero wind. The flames propagate in one direction not by direct action but by radiation only. A very intense fire creates a very intense chimney of flames that get its air from the front and back of the flame front. So there is an intense flow of air OPPOSING the advance of the flames, but never stopping them. This wind created by the fire works in favor of my machine. But to say that it will suck the machine is silly. The machine forward or rearward speed is far superior to this wind speed.

The machine should be located far enough in front of the flames to resist radiation. But as the machine is sucking fresh air from above, it is being actively refrigerated. As a real machine has never been tested, I ignore if it would need some radiation shielding. Probably.

I do not deny that in cases of very strong natural winds, the hot smoke plume flies very low and so the machine will swallow some of this hot smoke. This only means that the machine would have limits as any other machine in the World. But the experiments show that this limit happens at uncommonly high wind velocities..

It has been proven, by simple calculations, that the power needed is within usual limits in Aviation.

Why nobody understands such simple reasoning?.

Does the machine INCREASE the flames? Of course, but in the upwards direction, which is not only harmless but that elevates the smoke plume higher, which is a very good thing for the machine. Even flying embers have an extra opportunity to cool down.

Being good firemen is not enough to criticise the machine, they should have some knowledge of Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics.

chorete

If it has been proven by simple calculations, please share them with us, so we can better understand your reasoning

I'm sorry, but you are the one that doesn't understand the problem.

Bush fires are not singular entities. They are each individual circumstances varied by its complexity or its sublties. Even when the same area is burnt again it can still behave unpredictably and differently from the last time, due to many varying factors.

We all understand what your machine is supposed to do, we have all given you factual reasons for why it is such a folly.

In my (what was)brigade, we have people from all walks of life. There were doctors lawyers, bankers, mechanics, electricians, boiler makers, and scientists of all persuasions as well as this radio mechanic. Our training (at the time) was based on the known science and proven anecdotal experience. The training given now is much more indepth and ongoing.

The bottom line for fighting Busfires is that prevention is way better than the alternative.

Controlled burning, clearing of perimeters and trails are by far the best method of fighting Bush fires. Unfortunately Greenies have ignorantly forced through legislation to prevent rational actions and refuse to accept the blame for the consequences.

One other thing. Australia is not underpopulated, the country as a whole has more than sufficient population than can be effectively supported by its infrastructure and its ability to feed and water that population. The fact that we have a large (in comparison) land mass with only 20 odd million people only belies the fact that most of the middle is desert, and uninhabitable with out a lot of terraforming.

Adding additional wind to forest fire is going to stir up burning debris and add it into the thermal updraft creating spot fires and, consequently, a larger fire. The scale of your experiment is far from anything close to the realities of forest fires as to be invalid.

People don't fight fires that reach that stage. They retreat and build fire lines and other defensive positions.

When are you guys going to get over the idea of any human machine being able to take the offensive against a wildland fire at its height? This is the same category as building a machine of some sort to take the offense against a tsunami.

BTW, Chorete's idea is also no good because it does nothing to stop global warming or fight terrorism.

Ed Weldon

Hi Ed

I don't think I've ever read a post from you with such sarcasm. Calfire and such (not USFS) are very effective at attacking and controlling fires. Their equipment works well for these purposes. If Chorete's idea wasn't an attempt to improve the capacity to fight large fires then what is the point? Again, Calfire can effectively control and put out small fires with their helicopters, smoke-jumpers and fixed wing aircraft. Adding more air to a fire will increase it's burn temperature and potential for sending burning debris airborne. Wildland firefighting is built on the idea of a triumverate creating the fire: fuel, air and heat. If you take away one of those factors the fire will cease. If the air flow is favorable the crews can burnout fuels ahaead of the fire to eliminate that leg. If not, they dump water and try to reduce the heat and, consequently, its capacity to spread. I think, with both direct and indirect experience, that adding a fan to the flames is an ineffective and potentially dangerous idea.

Cheers

Can you tell us what your knowledge of Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics consistes of?

Copied from my second message

The energy of a wind of 40 Km/h = 11 m/s, which is considered as already dangerous, is of 815 watts per square meter.

If we want to produce a curtain of air 35 meters wide and 10 meters high at minus 40 Km/h we'll need a minimum of energy of 35 x 10 x 815 = 285,259 watts or 285 Kw

But we need another 285 Kw for the reaction propellers.

Power = 285 x 2 = 570 Kilowatts.

Also we need an active counterwind so lets increase the power of the macine to 1000 Kw.

To this, we must add the power to maintain the machine aloft, say another 2000 Kw. The total of 3000 Kw is surprisingly low.

As I said we sould use a minimum of two machines. Preferrably three. one in the center and two to the sides

Chorete

Where are you getting these numbers from?

A Chinook helicopter is approxamitly 15m long (half the length of your machine) and has a +3500kw powerplant depending on the model.

Your design has to have at least three times as much power as you said to remain on station the machine will have to push up as well as down.

So I ask the question again, where are you getting your numbers from???

My numbers are quite simple.

The 815 W/ m2 is taken from here

A Chinook is made to carry heavy payloads.

My machine only carries itself and it is made very lightweight (A truss).

So my numbers are more or less correct.

The very first post I made here was to introduce a theory for a new engine design. Had I known at the time what this forum was like I would have never wasted my time. You have to speak to an audience that's willing to listen or you're completely wasting your time.

I think your design would actually spread more fire than extinguish it. I might be right, you might be right. My point is that you've clearly explained your concept. I think you're past the point of convincing the majority of the people here that you have a worthwhile concept. It' might work well but it isn't working here. I admire your willingness to think "differently", I just think you're at the point of banging your head against a wall that isn't going to move.

Good luck and I look forward to more of your posts.

And how heavy is light weight?

"My machine only carries itself and it is made very lightweight (A truss)."

Consisting of cockpit, pilots (observers at least 4), engines, drive Assemblies, fuel, shielding and your truss

Not to mention hydraulics, avionics, aerodynamics, cooling system and landing gear.

And your wind speed calculations are based on ideal conditions at sea level.

Tell you what, try this experiment take a candle and blow on it with a hear dryer set on low then take another one and us it opposite the first.

Now increase the number of candles but a multiplier of 10 and then 10 again.

The last two experiments should be done in a large shed or barn preferably with concrete floors an plenty of fire extinguishers handy.

Do not you see that your opposition is very irrational?.

You contend that I'll not have enough power. Do not you see that this is only a small detail?. Let me increase my power to 10,000Kw, Still pretty acceptable. The 747 posted by somebody has a lot more.

Please go to the base of the invention and do not criticise secondary aspects of it.

chorete

I have neer published anything, I do not even have a FTP server.

Can somebody tell me how canI send a video to the forum?.

chorete

You'll have to post your video some where else like YouTube & post a link here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQr130mS96o

I hope it works.

This is the very first video I made to prove the theory.I have videos of model machines burning model forests, but as I said, may be my grandchildren would like to patent the idea.

It is a can full of kerosene and a propeller of about 20watts.

If you imagine a row of 20-50 cans and 20-50 propellers, you'll have a nice fire. But the phenomenon is the same

See the distance of the propeller to the fire and how the rejected flames rise up and then turn in the direction of the external wind, without burning he machine. You can easily imagine a ground team, located where I am, putting out flying embers,

It is easy to see how the fire increases its temperature (Turns from red to yellow).

A kerosene can will take minutes to get extinguished, but if it had been a puff of grass it would have taken a few seconds (10-60).

Do you like it now a little bit more? I hope so.

Chorete

In the translation from model to real sizes the flow patterns are tha SAME and the real distances proportinal.

"Being good firemen is not enough to criticise the machine, they should have some knowledge of Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics"

Well as it happens - I'm quite highly qualified in those too.

So;

In your table you have elected 11m/s = 815 W @15⁰C @ sea level.

This table is a full momentum conversion. I.e before any losses in a capture, or propulsion, or lift, device.

Or the Betz correction is not present, nor is propeller efficiency.

Bush fire ambient temperatures are usually in the 30 - 40⁰C range.

So you need to adjust again "thermodynamically".

Meaning your numbers are basically 100% to 400% out.

In 'aerodynamics', your lift will be equally reduced in that ambient.

You may find there is simply insufficient air density to hover.

You will probably find the inrush to the fire, far too turbulent to hover in anyway.

Hence "sucked into the fire" is very possible - as is "crash and burn".

Will the propellers blow where they are supposed to?

No.

The down-wash will radically re-vector and disperse output from all but the center units.

The amount of re-vectoring will vary with rotor power/pitch setting

The velocity of the down wash varies with temperature and altitude.

I.e. you cannot 'set and forget' the propeller modules. How you predict where it blows? - shall we just say; "computer controlled"?

What happens if a propeller unit fails?

What happens to power if the engines induct 'smoke' - as in low oxygen very hot air?

Where are the center units getting air? is any drawn from below? [hold that thought]

-------------------

In your video, you demonstrate 20W against liquid accelerant.

This is a surface evaporation and combustion fire, meaning you are not forcing air into a matrix of 'fuel depth'.

A parallel of "matrix" you can try at home; light a wad of steel wool, then blown on it.

However your video does demonstrate 20 W is way under needs. I would suggest you are going to need Watts similar in magnitude to the fire Watts out.

Given blowing on it likely initially square the fire Watts out - you have radically underestimated the hp required.

The 'fireman side' has been covered, but what you 'demonstrated' is exactly what I would have expected - flames move, heat increases, smoke attacks you and you have to retreat.

Also I note you switch, as suits, between grass and forest scenarios.

Have you forgotten you cant blow through the trees in front of a fire , or you cant get low enough to blow on the base of fire 'hovering over other trees'?

So now let's combine Fire, Thermodynamics and Aerodynamics knowledge.

Say you are in a hover - then blowing 'momentarily' squares the radiation output of the fire - and the trees ahead of the front - the ones right under your belly - start exploding into flame?

Where are the center propeller units getting air?

Well the video link does work, but I don't like your idea any better. Where is the well reasoned engineering analysis? So far you still only provide dreams and fantasies of how you think your large machine should work. I am beginning to think that you are hopeless. Please don't hurt anybody.

WOW! At last somebody did fid the ONLY weak point of the machine.

In order to fight a flame front the air from the machine MUST PENETRATE through the tops of the trees just in front of the advancing flames. Very clever criticism!.

I did not want to show more videos, mostly because they are shameful, although they show clearly what hey need to show.

In this one I use a small portion of an artificial forest of trees made with stainless steel mosquito screen soaked with kerosene or heavy oil (Depending on the burning properties I want to test).

The tree tops are dense, just to try this phenomenon of air penetration, The trunks are made with hollow tubes full of holes and the ground vegetation is simulated with crumpled pieces of mosquito screen also soaked in the appropriate kind of oil.

The aproximation to a real maditerranean forest is very good as seen by many ignition tests.

In the video you can see that the air from the machine penetrates the tree tops just enough to stop the propagation of the flames.

THE MACHINE IS STOPPED BEFORE COMPLETE EXTINCTION, just to show that the forest at the left (Highly flammable) was being protected in a very efficient way by the machine.

Also the machine never gets burned by the radiation. Propellers are made of plastic and they got melted only once in an accident where power was lost.

I hope you can see that the machine has horizontal propellers and a lifting rotor. So all your guesses on the aerodynamical problems are wrong. You can see in the video how well the machine works.

The WIND is simulated by a far away powerful fan That is started at the beggining of the video.

Please do not force me to show the video of the machine doing its INTENDED practical work: CUTTING A FIRESTOP throgh a dense forest under heavy winds.

Chorete

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NP0TDlGMvg>

The next step is upward. you need to build full scale prototypes, and put it into a real situation, and see if it works as expected. Nature is an excellent source of engineering feedback. Your design is still 'childish', and needs the maturity that can only be brought by operating in nature's harshest conditions.

With the full scale prototypes. (I think you will need several) you can then make adequate video documentation of your technology in action, which will be absolutely required in order to sell the technology to buyers of forest fire fighting equipment.

good luck.

Chris

Thak you Chris.

My problem here is: Does anybody realize that a real size proto will cost many $ millions?.

Even model tests with artificial forest with a minimum of 2 or 3,000 trees will cost many thousand dollars.

As testing, for example, the cutting of a wide firestop under heavy winds can be made by simulated machines installed in cranes and moved over the artificial forest set in a closed, well ventilated laboratory, stiil cost much more money than I can get, this exciting experiment is at a standstill wayting for funds.

That I probably will never get. It is a pity. So much money is spent in training programs and so!.

I have no doubts that my machine has enough merit to get some funds. But due to strong criticism by the Organizations, it will never get the money.

I do not expect to make real tests. Only well designed laboratory tests, that could convince the Politicians.

PS Exactly: THis machine design is Childish. I grew in a wonderful mediterranean forest full of life. Now this forest is TOTALLY gone,

Even the numerous cristaline fountains HAVE DISAPPEARED. What was a green forest is NOW a vast extension of bare ground completely eroded. And this has happened whitin a lifetime!

(The shirtless pyromaniac is a fat old man too).

Chorete

Chorete

I haven't seen anything that would lead me to pursue further funding

You may as well be suggesting throwing a large blanket over a wild fire, which has the same sort of promise in theory

You should try to design some more realistic simulations. There isn't much kerosene or plastic in the forest

I don't think it needs to cost millions for a prototype... you don't have to use new parts and materials.. that can come later

your most expensive part is the engines/motors.

Also, you have to think 'investors' not politicians. (don't give up too much control) as politicians are only people who run the government. while your body may be controlled by government, there is no reason your technology needs to be limited in the same way, and as such, perhaps there are corporations or individuals who will see enough in your technology to invest. (and people invest for different reasons, not just financial reward. There are those out there who may find a personal reason. your job is to ask in the right way)

You may not be able to afford full blown multi-unit prototype, ( sorry) but you should be able to organize a next-larger scale version from your current prototype/fire, with a more realistic burn scenario.(wood/tinder - not charcoal or fuel) (for starters, remember that a prototype needs to focus on just blowing the air.. not on the flying, and that you can exclude a flying frame for the purpose of proving the function of directed airflow in a more realistic fire.

you appear to have the concrete paved outdoor space to conduct a larger scale fire (get a permit) and get a group of friends with water tanker to control the event.. the build a realistic wooden miniature forest.... maybe 2-3 feet high.. 50 feet square and put your fan system on a gantry-clothesline control.... (multi-cable system) so you can position the fan anywhere. (and video everthing)

then you need to conduct controlled burns, measuring the rate of burn as compared against a 'control' fire (uncontrolled free burn in this case) and record tabular data, which is the real purpose of this experiment. You should also record (in real time) the ambient temperature, pressure, humidity, and wind speed and direction, during the experiment. and perhaps a matrix of sensors in the fire area itself, at various elevations.

additionally, you might measure the effects of your blown air injection with addition of moisture in varying amounts, or CO2... which can help starve the fire... again, you aren't quenching the fire, just controlling the rate and direction of burn (right?)

When this is done, you will have sufficient data to present to investors for a full scale op. (all done without risking any person or asset)

you don't have to jump directly into the big leagues... you take graduated steps, and prove the technology at each step.

I can't personally know whether or not your technology will work, as I do not have the experience. I can say that if you apply a disciplined scientific approach, you can measure the effects against pure reality, in various scales and conditions, and record the scientific data, which is what you are missing in your current discussion. You may find that what you record will work only in certain situations... but I'm sure that you will benefit from the experience.

If 'asset protection' is the name of the game.. you may not stop the fire overall.. but perhaps you maybe can save a house or two, in specific locations in a forest fire... and that alone is helpful... so don't give up.

Chris

You should try to obtain the support for a computer simulation not as you did but one made with a multiphysics software as COMSOL or equivalent. You could try to get the support of an University which could use students for the programming work. This will be for you free since the different parts will be student projects in physics simulation.

Building a prototype is not any solution before there are positive results with other means less costly.

You have not thought about this possibility since it is modern machine design and not yet very familiar for many engineers active today.

Today no prototype is build before a simulation shows a good chance of success.

I know that different institutions in Europe do fire simulations. many years ago an inventor wanted to use CO2 to stop fires. I made my comments a simulation was done and it came out that it could have not work due to different reasons. For me it was clear from the start but not for others.

yes, but a simulation can not simulate the chaotic conditions, or unpredicable situations of a forest fire very well. Only reality can provide what is needed here. Reality is one of the best simulators on the market these days.

Chris

If a simulation shows that it does NOT work then a prototype is thrown away money.

I agree with your principle of reducing the amount of physical testing... but if he has very little money, then it is better spent buying some cheap (junkyard or free) materials. the lessons will be more solid and informing for him, imho.

For any org that has money, I agree with your statement. (unless you know simulation companies that work pro bono)

Chris

Ah, but in your comment Chris lies the crux of my problem with Chorete here. I don't believe that he's willing to learn anything from an experiment. He has an established belief how his machine should work and nothing will persuade him otherwise. Just look at how he has responded to the members here with an avionics background that have criticized the amount of power required for his approach. (Speaking of avionic problems, what will happen when the engine sucks up too much soot and smoke from the fire?)

In essence Chorete's approach is to take some form of a helicopter to a forest fire and use its downdraft to blow into the fire. We can debate forever as to how to direct this downdraft with multiple blades and/or deflecting vanes but the principle is to blow into the fire to make an added level of control in making a controlled back burn. Helicopters are used all the time to fight forest fires. They are not used in this fashion. I've heard and even proposed some of the many very plausible reasons posted here why helicopters are not used in this fashion now. I don't think that Chorete will listen to any of these reasons.

I think he is willing to learn and study.. he said so

but he has a hard time dealing with direct negativity...

I've thought of using helicopters (sort of) to fight fires before. when I was 20 or so, and was (re) inventing this idea for enclosed counterrotating rotor systems, that could carry large cargo boxes (or tanks underneath) For firefighting, the tanks would be emptied, and blown onto the fire by the downwash. (but there might be a few technical wrinkles to work out before this becomes functional... )

just the same... go big or go home right?

chris

I assume by quoting me - you are addressing me.

So where you say "I hope you can see that the machine has horizontal propellers and a lifting rotor. So all your guesses on the aerodynamical problems are wrong." this is directed at me.

Clearly you continue to 'not see' all but the center propellers are in lifting rotor down wash.

To a certain extent, the first animation "your friend" made is probably more 'practical'. I.e. vectoring the down-wash.

You could make this deflector 'fold away' in the response phase, and adjustable for targeting the front.

You could enhance the flow via a ducted slot under the deflector.

You could balance the lateral thrust by biasing deflectors.

If you concentrated on vectored lift hp, and threw out most of the propeller motors, you may find carrying some water would get you better results (and response from fire people)

Or perhaps - getting positive input is about thinking about what you are being told - rather than being un-mannered, perversely unyielding and bullheaded.

-------------------------------

Your last video of giant fans and tiny kerosene forest - again demonstrates you have no concept of scale, or proper comparison protocols, or 'measurable results'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NP0TDlGMvg

It seems not to work

Chorete

Link

what are we supposed to be seeing?

"what are we supposed to be seeing?"

A shirtless pyromaniac? With a delusional imagination?

This thing is still alive? It should have been put out of it's misery long ago.

Lyn -- How about "live and let live". None of us are being asked to put any money into this project are we? One never knows where this discussion will end up and what good ideas may come out of it. We are just beginning to learn what we can do with new multirotor remote flight control technology. This stuff is full of opportunities for creative invention.

Suppose rather than redirect a fire with air flow the principles chorete is looking at were used primarily for protection of a remote controlled machine that lifted fire hoses to gain better access to a fire?

Quite interesting was a news report just last night about a huge concrete pump with a 200 foot range being airlifted to Japan in a giaant Russian military transport. It's job will be to pump concrete into the reactor buildings of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Do you realize that had a remote controlled machine such as chorete proposes been available to direct pumped water into the cooling tanks of those reactors the extent of the current nuclear disaster might have been greatly minimized?

I realize your general sense of scorn for this particular idea and the specific application may be well placed. But this is still r&d for chorete. In this phase what is learned, whether it supports the idea or not, is all of value.

Ed Weldon

Et tu Ed?

OK, I'll go back to ignoring this. Perhaps my brain just cannot reach this far.

Maybe some good will come of it yet.

Cheers.

Easy. You have a strong fire propagating to the left pushed by a heavy wind.

Then, the machine starts operating and the propagation is stopped very efficiently. It takes a very long time to get extinguished because the artificial forest WAS soaked in excess in kerosene.

That was made on purpose to show clearly that the parcel of forest to the left, also heavily soaked in low flash point kerosene, was being protected froom radiation very efficiently by the machine. An important part of the video are the last frames showing how the forest in the left catches a very fiery fire, that should have destroyed the machine, if it had no been refrigerated by its own internal flows of fresh air.

All this clearly shows that you cannot convince people that beforehand do not want to be convinced.

BTW. Where are the impartial guys like Anonimous Hero?.

Please consider this. Forest Fires are a disaster to Countries like Southern Spain now in a proccess of fast desertization.

So any effort to solve the problem should be treated kindly and not with ferocious opposition.

What if I am right?.

I would not be concerned if firemen lose some protagonism in front of the Machine. This happens always than a new machine is invented in any Field. I maintain that ground teams would be absolutely necessary. only that their efforts would be much more efficient.

Cannot you see all this?.

Chorete

Thankyou for the LINK!

Chorete,

You have not presented a single shred of credible evidence that even remotely suggests that you can extinguish a fire with more wind. Your belief that you can put out a forest fire with a helicopter, or helicopters is childish and exhibits a total lack of fundamental knowledge of physics and reality.

Fires are miles wide, will you have a miles long string of these huffing and puffing? And mid-air collisions will abound, because you cannot stabilize these things in a firestorm, no matter how much you wish it to happen. With each rebuttal here, you have manufactured a reactionary response based on what was said, not what your "invention" was supposed to be able to do.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent, so it is a shame that you don't direct your considerable time and resources toward some feasible device to help mankind.

Have you ever thought about devising a way to grow crops on arid land?

How about curing AIDS?

Maybe you could show us how to purify contaminated water, with no filtration.

Sometimes just being tenatious isn't enough. You also have to be right. And you're not right.

You are definitely one determined fellow. Look, I have fought brush, forest, muck, fuel oil, building, and ship fires. I am now a fire protection engineer. Your machine although a novel idea WILL NOT WORK in the real world. You have read in this thread the reasons why it won't from some pretty smart experts. We are not here to thwart novel concepts but rather to analyze them and assist where they might work. I believe you have been shown why this machine won't work.

This thread has been a lot of fun to read. I even signed in on Saturday to check for updates. Engineers are pretty feisty people too !

Let me try to resume what has ben said.

1º Blowing air into a heavy flame is a nonsense: Not quite. Please look at the Video. the more you blow the more you efficiently stop the flames. The flying embers are much less dangerous because the smoke plume is diverted first backwards before it comes back to the prevailing wind direction. So there is much more time to cool down. I do not see any problem for a ground team to put out these embers. Even a small helicopter, using water or extinguisers for this purpose only, could be used

2º Any machine just in front of the tremendous radiation of a large flame front, will take fire: Not at all. The video is REAL and the energy relations are the same in the model than in REALITY. The machine is well protected by its own induced flow of fresh air.

3º The machine could not fly stable in the turbulence of large fires, or it will be sucked by the fire induced winds. Not true. In fact the wake of a flame front is a well quasilaminar region of air currents. The only thing to be afraid of are the fire induced tornadoes. But in fact I have never seen one of these in Spain in many years of large devastating fires.

4º My calculated 1000 Kw for the firefighting part of the machine is unrealistic. OK make it 10.000 Kw. Still acceptable by aviation standards, I'll buy this. Make the total Power, including lifting, 15.000Kw.

5º A machine will quench a small section of a flame front at a time, and so a Km long front could not be easily handled. OK But do not forget that the TRUE use of this machine would be for cutting firestops much ahead of the advancing dangerous flame fronts. Cutting a firestop is a localized operation that can be maintained easily under control. The only minor problem is that we cannot cut firestops exactly perpendicular to the prevailing wind. The cut would always make a certain angle with the wind direction. Having demonstrated (I believe) that the wind from the machine can PENETRATE through the tree tops, there is no need of a starting trench. The need of this trench is a big nussance.

6º Anythng else?

Chorete

" cutting firestops much ahead of the advancing dangerous flame fronts."

Once again, you have conjured up a defense to suit your immediate needs. Where was this in the video?

Your idea is lame now, it was lame 10 years ago and it will be lame 20 years from now.

I'm really having trouble understanding what your purpose is for being here?

You don't seem to want any help...

Any advice is taken as an attack & you vigorously defend your position, instead of trying to build & enhance your knowledge

Dear LYN The firestop cuuting operation is NOT shown in the video.

There is another video that clearly shows how the machine cuts a firestop against a heavy wind, that I do not want to show here.

Chris and other friend define very well what I want to do. Computer symulations and small protos tests using simulated machines hanging from a 3D controlled gantry. I have extremely well developed plans.

The problem is that even for this, I do not have enough funds,

And, in the same way that has happened here, I simply cannot convince any University or Investor even for the preliminary work.

Tank you all for your sane (Or insane) criticism,

Chorete

Chorete -- Don't give up. Some of your audience here seems to be narrowly focused on the type of wildland fires which are the biggest and scariest. They are like the city folks who seldom see news in real time and in their face. So it never occurs to them that there are a lot of fires that never make the headlines. That includes wildland fires.

Wild land fires have a life cycle. Tools at the disposal of humans to fight these fires all have there place of utility within that life cycle. Helicopter airdrops of 300 gallons are of critical value during the immediate onset of a fire and by themselves can surpress many small fires. Once the fire grows beyond some point the mission of the helicopter changes to local supression and people and asset protection.

As with wars and other great catastrophic events there is not one universal tool that works everywhere. So it will be with Chorete's idea. Hopefully he will find a niche wide enough to develop the idea. All wildland fores are different. We have watched from our home on several occasions over the last 37 years while wildland fires were being fought. Everyone was different. From the one that was knocked down by a single helicopter to two big fires that took days to get under control. (5000 acres and 13,000 acres) And those two fires were as different as night and day due to terrain, weather conditions and vegetation. California has a wide range of different terrain and vegetation conditions. We see it all and the result is a fairly high level of fire protection experience and capability. Pay attention to comments from professionals in this venue. They've collectively been there and done that.

Ed Weldon

Massive W. Texas fire spreads up to 125 sq. miles