|
Fire!!!!!!!!!!! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bruce
Coul you please elaborate on this.
(1) A lot of people are already working on fire dynamics - I thought that the dynamics of fires were well understood
(2) They are working to understand how fires propagate - I also thought that this was well known
(3) So that control solutions may be derived to put them out - I think the difference between current 'control solutions' and what you are hoping for is marginal. If you think people are going to stumble across some new fantastic way of putting fires out you are deluded. |
Ok, let me elaborate. We do not have an understanding of how forest fires develop and propagate. Combustion is a highly complex reaction to model. It requires extensive CFD codes to simulate even simple idealistic processes, let alone model fires that propagate in an environment with very large number of disturbances and parametric uncertainties. To model forest fires, you need to develop models for combustion of biological matter (trees). You need to take environmental factors like the climatic conditions and soil properties into consideration. You also need to take the terrain characteristics like the presence of water bodies into account.
If we have an in depth understanding of the fire dynamics, then it is entirely possible to develop feedforward and feedback control mechanisms that use a co-ordinated structure of ground and air-based fire fighting nodes to put out the fires quickly before they start spreading to other regions. It's a very complicated task but it will be done. Control solutions that I talk about need paradigm shifts in the way fires are put out. Current mechanisms are becoming increasingly inefficient at dealing with forest fires. You cannot build larger and larger water tankers. You have to develop alternative mechanism to deal with them. |
|
|
| Bruce |
Sorry but thats garbage. When people fight fires they already take into account most of the relevant practical variables like wind direction, how far away embers may land and the dryness of the ground. What do you hope to achieve by having every little detail of the situation modelled? At best it will result in a marginal improvement to the manner in which we fight fires.
You seem to think that if we can accurately model the workings of fires the problem will be solved or that at the least we will experience large gains in fighting them. Not true. The problems are well known and dont have easy solutions.
The problem - you have dry ground, a lot of very combustible material, high wind, a big fire and limited resources with which to put it out. Oh Wait! Now that we have this thing accurately modelled its easy, problem solved. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
How much do you know about Controls theory to dismiss this idea as garbage ? Forest fire is not just a materials problem as you seem to put it. It is a materials problem precisely because we do not have a thorough quantitative understanding of the phenomenon. The purpose of modeling is to develop sophisticated control algorithms that will in general,
1) Use accurate predictions about the fires and enable a co-ordinated attack on critically identified hot spots even in the presence of limited resources.
2) identify and use resources optimally on a global scale, something which is impossible to do manually.
I don't know much about fires, and I may be off in describing certain characteristics, but I know enough about Controls to see its applicability in non-engineering problems. As I said, this type of fire fighting is radically different from what is being done today. Your ignorant statements and the lack of appreciation of the importance of accurate modeling makes me think that you know nothing about Controls theory or in general appreciate how it is used to solve both engineering and non engineering problems. |
|
|
| dJohn |
| quote: | | What I say is that people shouldn't be living in areas where it's a foregone conclusion that they'll have to deal with predictable natural disasters on a regular basis, and furthermore that this whole notion that we can manipulate and control the environment around us to suit our desires (not needs) is rooted in a logical fallacy, and people who buy into shouldn't really be shocked when things don't go right. |
True, I'll give it you that the manipulation of environments to suit our wants over our needs is questionable, and that it is rooted in logical fallacy that the population "needs" to spread to these areas where natural disasters are prone, but there is no notion of "controlling" the environment. I hate to be nit picky, but nobody is, or can really control a geographical environment, let alone habitable areas, or else we would have sunny days 24/7 and no disasters at all. These areas were targeted for residence primarily due to the ing ridiculous concept of "property value"(in which San Diego shows a gross disparity between average cost of a house vs median income..4th in the nation to be exact).
So to say that people shouldn't be shocked, I can partially agree. What I don't agree on is that development should be selective towards non-disaster prone areas, because if that were to be true. we'd all be living in outer space, where no 'natural disasters' can happen.
Case in point: the tsunami that wrecked Southeast Asia a few years ago. Coastal based communities in 3rd world countries usually rake in the largest portion of a country's GDP, and provide the backbone of a oceanic trade based economy. So to say that they shouldn't be living there, or prop up housing in this areas because they are prone to disasters is kind of a long shot, don't you think?
it, every country should invest in these lol:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/08/20...ty-x-seed-4000/ |
|
|
| RJT |
You really need to go back and reread my posts. You just said exactly what I've already said several times in this thread, and I really don't understand how you're somehow insinuating that I'm claiming we can control the environment, because again, I've repeatedly made the claim that we cannot.
And I don't think that saying people shouldn't live in areas where they are essentially waiting for an inevitable disaster is a "long shot."
It is not my opinion that we should expect the environment to conform to our desires (economic or otherwise), and in that sense, once we see how clearly foolish it is to build cities like NOLA (the "textbook" example), what's the point in "rebuilding" when we know we're essentially building failure?
:conf:
And again, as I said previously - I do not think this kind of situation can be distilled down to "blaming" those individuals who live in high risk areas, but rather the greater social issue that essentially amounts to denial of the massive risk certain communities take by sole virtue of their geographic location. |
|
|
| LiquidNitrogen |
| quote: | Originally posted by gwrmarines
I only been here 2 months too. I wanna get evacuated in a chopper so i can scream GET IN DA CHOPPA!!! UUHHHAAAGGG!!! |
:haha: :haha: - Predator - one of my favorite favorite movie |
|
|
| DigitalPhoenix |
need moar water
 |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
BUSH IS SENDING AID TO WHITEY
BUSH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE |
|
|
| L.E.N. |
My throat and head are hurting from all the crap in the air.
I guess the fires in OC are arson. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
 |
|
|
| stren |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
|
lOl! |
|
|
| CGRumler |
| quote: | Originally posted by gwrmarines
No ! That's crazy. I'm from Ohio, all this is pretty extreem/awesome for me. I only been here 2 months too. I wanna get evacuated in a chopper so i can scream GET IN DA CHOPPA!!! UUHHHAAAGGG!!! |
hehe....
Someone in another one of my forums posted something similar to this, yesterday.
He was commenting about another person's post which consisted of the official statement about the evacuation that Arnold posted.
The guy said, "So basically, Arnold here is saying: "CALIFORNEEEEAAAA! GET IN DA CHOPPAAAAA!!!!"
lawl |
|
|
|
|
