Forest Fire Extinguishing

It is wonderful that you are providing ideas and opening discussion.

Your ideas have merit where a fire is small and there is time to move in front and implement such actions.

For larger fires the concept would be dangerous for operators and everyone involved.

You may have heard of some fires in Australia around four years ago. I saw some of the land before and after the fires went through.

Trees 500mm diameter were exploding from radiant heat, the sap was turned into vapour and ignited.

The fires involved both Aus native species and various pines in plantation.

The fire front moved at speeds over 40kph (average) and there were sites where 100kph was observed. Bare ground (I'm talking cultivated paddocks with insufficient grass to feed a sheep) was scorched and blackened where the remnant vegetation (roots) burnt.

The fire jumped these paddocks, in some cases over 1km wide to ignite grass and leaf litter on the other side.

Your suggested method would leave enough trash on the ground for this sort of fire to re-establish and march onward.

There are times when the only defense is to just not be there! (Many people died in those fires in what were though to be well prepared brick homes. Many more died trying to get away when their cars were overtaken by the fires.)

There is a saying in Aus "The Pacific Ocean is the only firebreak that hasn't been jumped....... yet."

Not that one, but I've seen fire embers light spot fires in the tree canopy 500m away from the fire front in the flat country and seen fires jump 500m from ridge top to ridge top in the hills. Nature deserves our respect!

Wow.

You don't know very much about the forest management, do you... it is certain you don't know very much about the dynamics of wildfires.

"Instead of clearing completely a forest zone,..." Where is this a standard practice?

What makes you think "The pruned trees will not die, and they will still continue to grow..."?

"... and anyway they will be still green..." No, they will be grey, as in the pallor of dead trees. And the recovery will not be the same, there will not be the benefit of the decaying tree carcasses on the ground.

Well-seems to be that the climate, and hence the vegetaition of North Dakota are not similar to this of Israel, I discussed the subject with an Israeli forestry ingineer before I mailed this.

Because we have no rain from late beggining of april untill half of november, every where are no trees, is only barren land ,with dry grass, where is more humidity in air-dew at night, the dry grass turnes to be ugly grey ,because of fungi that sattle on the dry grass!

But maybe that the calculations will suit better the southern states of the USA.

"Instead of clearing completely a forest zone,..." Is this a standard practice in Israel?

Did the Israeli forestry engineers tell you "The pruned trees will not die, and they will still continue to grow..."?

I asked the "guru" of the forestry ingineer, and he told me the there are Pine species that are able to continue to grow!

Anyway I'm sorry and shamed that instead of writing "to survive" -thats what I really meant!I wrote:"to grow"

There are 745 million acres of forest land in the USA, alone.

You can't predict when or where a fire will start. You can't predict which way the wind will blow.

Response teams would need to rapidly transport the tree skinners to the fire, if accessible.

Many areas are accessible ONLY by air.

And finally, If we had the sense to let fires burn naturally, the large forest fires we see today would NEVER HAPPEN! Man's insistence to try to alter natures natural cleaning system have destroyed any chance of natural fires controlling themselves.

No solution is perfect [not even me!]

But I think that my idea maybe usefull in mediterrenean climate forests.

There are no chance for natural fire!

Your description has some similarities to modern logging machines, except they cut down the tree, cut off the branches and strip the bark, and leave you with bare logs. See the following You-Tube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3v2vyRYeTE

This machine could clear a strip of trees pretty quickly, but it would leave all the debris there on the ground to catch fire (maybe not as easy as standing trees?).

These work better....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzwS8Gv27J8

Controlled burn-off is a recent technique that has much merit both for property damage and forest health.

The developing wisdom is that many specific forested areas in Canada that undergo periodic burns are healthier in the long run. Firstly there is a release of minerals into the soils giving rise to fruit bearing plants..........good for the animal populations...and secondly much of the underbrush in established forests is eliminated without burning off the crown.

I know very little about forest fires (nothing) but when has that ever stopped me!

So may I offer this idea (hopefully to the powers that may consider it useful?)

If it was my forest (money) I would install a large network of strategically placed
water towers, e.g. large natural or plastic elevated water "containers" which would
be filled by natural rainfall or similar means.

Ideally their water (1,000's of gallons) would be released likely by remote control
from a central fire safety point and / or using nearby fire/smoke sensors.

Their purpose would be to soak the surrounding forest floor area to at least delay,
and probably prevent, the spread of fire locally. (lengthening the reaction time.)

These containers would be sited initially on all the perimeters of properties and later
further rolled out on to an enlarged area of the forest as/when money permitted.

I feel sure this "soaking the nearby forest floor area" would help the containment and
restrict the spread of a fire at that most critical initial time. It would help prevent the
fire rapidly developing into a far more serious outbreak, and help avoid the destruction
of property (and life) in nearby buildings.

It could also save a fortune in man hours and supplies (helicopters etc) and the
associated risk to life of the fighters. I think this could be an excellent investment?

Just a thought. jt.

A mate said to me.. "He could get 100 tampons for £1... no strings attached!
It would be for a limited period only... but a bloody good deal!" (woman's joke.)

You're talking millions and millions of $.

Totally impractical.

I grew up on a farm surrounded by millions of acres of forest, I know.

I also live near forests etc. Lyn - but nothing is for nothing.

Firstly it is not an expensive solution - compared to the alternatives.

Secondly I am not even suggesting we cover all the forests / areas, only the ones
with the most likely risk or damage. ie. near property, public access, perimeters, etc.

Thirdly, what other options do we have? To avoid costly fires and loss of life.

I am sure the cost of several thousands water containers, spaced e.g. every few
acre lots would be negligible compared to the loss of property trees and life?

I offered it as only a localised containment suggestion, and better than nothing?

jt.

I think your idea has merit jt. The only thing I might add might be to somehow incorporate a natural means of storing the water to keep the costs down. Such as digging some pits or channels and putting covers on them. The only problem would be dispensing the water at that point maybe? I'm thinking along the lines of some type of explosive charges. I know, kinda crazy

Anyway, talking about crazy... The reason i jumped in here was because I was thinking of starting a thread on this subject. I was curious what means we have of dealing with these fires. And I also wanted to put an idea out there that I've had for a long time. So here goes...

I was thinking it might be a good idea to fight fire with fire I might say. A means of creating water on the spot.

It's my understanding that water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen. So I was thinking of bringing these two elements together in their liquid (compressed) form, and then combining them where needed. But from what I know of it, this would be an exothermic reaction (an explosion). So the way I envisioned it, you'd take two containers strapped together and drop them from the air above or just ahead of the fire-line, and then detonate them. Although I don't think the concern is that the explosion takes place on the ground so much as you might get better coverage.

Snatr, you idea is not so crazy to explode soemthing like H2 and O2 but may not really make water in a true sense.

Would be better to use a large type "Firestorm Bomb" which would suck all the air from the surrounding area and starve the fires source to continue...but is also dangerous as the terrains are very variable..... US and EU forces have used these during certain types of war ops, very spectacular and effective when done properly. But how many would be needed if the winds etc and terrain is too variable along with the types of timber and fuels in the area.... cinders can still remain hot and reignite a while later unless quenched or racked over by fire crews quickly... big logistics problem quite often

The IFEX cannons air mounted on Chinook choppers could stay on station quite a while (can take a 3,000 gal water bladder inside plus a porable compressor and allow ground forces to come in and rack/wet down the surrounding areas.

Heard of a 30 acre fire suppressed via a single Hughie and 300 gals of water with some chemical suppressant in less then 20 mins. Ground crews then got up the canyon and hill to clean up using ATV and 6 wheeler like you see in the IFEX web site.

suggest everyone review the IFEX site for good ideas going forward, as the system really does have merit.... someone is looking at the IFEX units for the Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado now it is going further out of control this morning again.

Another thing; is the ground debris that has built up over a number of years and by bad logging practices that leaves tons of fuel from there logging on the forest floors...there needs to be a change on how we harvest timber and keep the sites clear of fuels from this work...just look around where fires have happened and read the national reports. And better land management on where we build as well

As one who maintains a large tract of pine and hardwood forest I couldn't agree more with your statement about bad timber harvest debris. When I took possession of the property it took me a few years to cut this debris to ground level and when a fire did sweep the area my forest sustained minimal damage. The fire actually improved those areas it cleared of ground debris and cluttered off-growth.

Old tree stumps and rotten wood took months to actually extinguish burning well into the winter months. I thought it a good idea to let this particular debris burn itself out. The forestry service agreed (with trepidation).

I took a look at the IFEX system. Pretty cool... Pun intended

I saw in some of the videos where they talked about using them in situations other than fire. I could easily see that happening. In fact when I watched the first video, I couldn't help but see it as almost a weapon. I just have to wonder how well a fire would stay extinguished using this method considering that it uses so little water. Although I suppose that a retardant could be added. But the science behind it does fascinate me.

After a short search I couldn't find any links to the firestorm bombs you mentioned. But I get the idea. I was just curious about the chemicals used with them.

I think the idea of locating and getting to the fires early is really important, as you somewhat mentioned in a post below. And trying to manage these areas better would help as well as others have pointed out.

Anyway after looking at the IFEX system, I started wondering about the idea of incorporating the method I was talking about with some type of delivery system. What I'm thinking is to combine these to elements using some kind of jet or nozzle system. Although I could see it being fairly hazardous though But I'm thinking that you could generate quite a lot of water form these two concentrated elements.

Hi Snatr,

I know next to nothing about forest fires, so my reply is only to help.
It would be extremely worrying to have either gas, Hydrogen or Oxygen near about.
(non-starter) Both are dangerous to say the least, and literally everything will burn
in oxygen. (as you probably know already.)

My idea is to stop a fire in it's early stage, or at least delay the build-up, to allow for
professional equipment time to arrive and be confronted with a much smaller fire.
Simply, time is very much of the essence, - between controlling it, or disaster.
To soak the floor of the surrounding area could provided critical minutes for success.

Cost is naturally important, but I visualise large water containers e.g. plastic "bag"
containers with maybe wood panel exteriors (like the old train fillers) to hold several
thousand gallons. These would not be too expensive and last for years.
They would be covered with a cone or apex roof and collect the rainwater from
the roof perimeter gutter.
(The roof is to delay evaporation and prevent debris, which would collect if concave.)

The release of the water would be by hand lever, smoke detector, remote control,
(powered by using a solar panel) or by a fire fuse, if the fire was immediate to it.
I see it being released in several directions simultaneously, as a flood fountain to
completely drench the surrounding area, but not so strongly as to hurt a child, etc.

I think these would be eminently practical, low cost, long lasting, self sufficient, and
of extreme benefit, placed strategically around the perimeter of residential areas and
the fire break strips. Later, rolled out money permitting, further into the forest.

If anyone was threatened by a fire, they could stand under it until relief came.
Property owners may get insurance discounts by having one installed nearby, and
they may be funded by the insurance companies themselves!

It would be nice to think at least one of my ideas had saved a life - wow!
(call them jt's fire exterminators!) Hope this helps.

jt

If you want to set the world on fire, first you have to set yourself alight.

JT,

your concept is feasible if the terrain is uniform, but forests are not, Just look at the current fire in Waldo Canyon Colorado near the Airforce Academy; extremely rugged .

So any water spilled out of your tank system may not go towards the fire source with enough effect to wet the ground and a 1,000 gallons if the ground is parched would do nothing in reality.

Your idea of fire sensor type towers would be better and interconnected via WiFi to each other and solar operated, connected to a central fire command center. If any fire occurs each sensor would have a GPS # for tracking. Then you fly in the Chinook Helo with the Big Bertha IFEX cannon and start your fire fighting efforts, see my previous posting.

The systems can be moved around for strategic reasons according to the expected fire season and the remote sensors always mounted on a highpoint overlooking a large and identifiable area...the military have some good sophisticated IR/Heat sensors which are very ruggged and reliable.

Much cheaper and easier to put into place than large tanks that have to be filled and then maintained, plus expensive if you have to cover millions of acres (in lower NH where I live which is a heavily Forested area which is 345,000+ acres in size and is a small part of the whole state, what about Maine, Oregon, California etc...millions of acres?).

Air attacks or "Firestorm Bombs" plus the Chinook IFEX type set up is the quickest and easiest respsonse, when stragically placed and used with a sensor tower arrangement interconnected to a central fire command center is easier and less costly.

My continued thoughts from a practical and life saving aspect.

Hi Geoff,
Both ideas have merit; they tackle the problem in different ways. (Complimentary)

The "alarm" system is to give early warning of a fire, which is good if it works, but,
it does nothing to contain the growth of a fire before it establishes a serious hold.

The water system can incorporate the early warning, but it is primarily to soak the
ground and give critical time for the fire service to arrive before a fire takes a hold.

I estimate a circular water container e.g 30ft wide and 30ft high would hold (pir2xh)
3.14 x 15 x 15 x 30 cu.ft. x 6.2 (UK gl) = 131,492gl. Assuming it was only 90% full,
= 118342 gl. This could easily put 3 inches of water over nearly 2 acres. More;

Fountains (pipes) could be strategically placed away from the container, radially
maybe up to 300ft away, to extend the area covered. e.g. for a fire break strip.
Several more acres could be protected this way also allowing for the lay of the land.
A spring loaded release lever, tensioned by a "string" around the container base,
could fire burn through, to release the water, if not released by hand or remotely.

They would fill up in the rainy season, and top-up whenever it rained, with little
loss due to evaporation (sealed, water traps etc.) and content monitored initially.

These would be located to protect life and property near residences, fire break strips,
recreational areas, and known (previous) "hot spots" i.e. camp site areas, etc.
Not so easy maybe as the alarms, but great for immediate quenching of a fire start?

That's all from me now. For someone who knows absolutely nothing about forest fires
I have said enough I think! My best regards.

jt.

My wife was talking to me privately, then she said, "You won't tell anyone will you?"

"Your secret is safe with me," I replied.

"You sure about that?"

"Yes, perfectly" I said, "because I wasn't listening."

I don't know what to say jt. Drought is a big factor in these types of fires in the first place. I do know that we try and take steps to prevent big fires by cutting fire breaks all over the place. I'm thinking maybe instead of just cutting paths, that we could dig shallow trenches. But having plastic lined water trenches wouldn't be enough. That's why I mentioned using explosives. I was thinking that if a fire rolled up to that point, they'd go off and disperse the water. Of course there's always safety to consider.

Hi Snatr, I think dissipating the water in trenches is not a good idea, because
the more it is spread out i.e. the less volume it has the easier it will be "lost."

I feel reservoirs of water is the way to go, with alarms also if possible.
My reply to Geoff is listed - and I think I have said enough now.
(about some thing I know nothing!)
My best regards and don't get too close! (to the fires)

jt.

I received a letter from Screw Fix Direct thanking me for my interest,

but they explained, they were not a dating agency.

Hi Folks, been awhile since I was on the forums.

Anyway there is a German Co., called IFEX who make a very novel impulse water gun-cannon IFEX 3000 (see above for idea).

They have a portable back pack version with a 20 liter water volume and a compressed air tank. The gun allows a certain amount of water to enter a chamber; the the compressed air shoots the water out at nearly 200 mph and in tiny droplets...the velocity and misting drowns the air and flame paths by absorbing the heat, so no more air or heat nor very little flame.

They have used several here in New Hampshire as a demo on small forest fires (actually "back-fires" deliberately set) and the IFEX guns easily and quickly extinguished the fires/flames...then the fire fighters came in and used mattocks to dig into the debris.

They also used 6 units back-pack mounted with the 20 liter water loads plus had a 6 wheel John Deere with a water tank onto replenish the 6 tanks and a compressor with water pump integrated. The tank was 850 liters and had 8 portable guns with 100 foot hose reels attached. with all 8 going and the 6 back packs they lasted more than 98 mins of use and stopped around 9 acres of forest fire (set as a "back-fire" demo) was very impressive.

But was dwarfed by the Demo I saw in Austria with the big Bertha version, designed for use with BIG fires.... shots over 200 meters and 25 liters of water each shot. The demo was on a factory fire with furniture making in it...was out in less than 30 minutes and 4,000 liters of water (would have required more than 290,000 + liters of water using conventional fire figthing methods). The big Bertha cannon was mounted on a hydraulid crane type extendable arm and could reach inside the building (they used infrared cameras to observe how things progressed and was gimble mounted.

If this type of system was utilized and properly set-up according to the local terrain and the portables. Forest fires could be safely fought and very little water wasted and this includes chemicals (the fire retardents tend to drift and not always coat out properly)... mounted on the approriate ATV type vehicles all sorts of terrain could be tackled.... they can even mount to a helicopter as a pick-up system, remote operated from in the helicopter.... could have been used during the 9/11 debacle from a safe distance

So look up IFEX 3000 and Rudy Steur rudy@ifex3000.de . Not a cheap system but it works and is very effective, especially if it saves nature and lives.

My two-penny worth.

Good luck there in NZ, AU, SA, Isreal and any other fire prone area's and I have no affiliation with IFEX if anyone was wondering, just have seen, used and like the system...it saves lives.