Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Experiment With Explosives To Fight Wildfires

Posted by Soulskill on from the my-kind-of-stupid dept.

aesoteric writes: "Australian researchers are a step closer to demonstrating whether explosives — rather than water — can be used to extinguish an out-of-control wildfire. The research uses a blast of air to knock the flame off its fuel source — a technique used in the oil & gas industry for decades. The latest tests were conducted in New Mexico. Firefighters are reported to be quietly optimistic about the research's potential."

16 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason it works with oil fires is that the oil cools rather FAST once the flame is out.

    Wood... not so much. It is a good insulator and will preserve the heat - thus the vapor from wood will still be there - and HOT. Once the oxygen gets to it, it will flame again.

    1. Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In NM, as in Oz, a lot of fires start as brushfires -- no wood, no particular heat retention -- stop it even briefly and it doesn't get into the forests.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    2. Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. by budgenator · · Score: 2

      Clearing fire breaks with explosive is likely to be disappointing, to drop a tree you want to place a 1 pound block of TNT or C4 on the side of the tree you want it to fall in then wrap Det cord around the tree and TNT 10 times, then run the det cord up the tree about 8 feet to a 1 pound kicker charge on the side away from where you want the tree to fall. While I love blowing shit up, a chainsaw is faster and easier.
      Something like a Bangalore torpedo would knock out a short section of brush to 3 or 4 m wide.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. by radtea · · Score: 2

      In NM, as in Oz, a lot of fires start as brushfires -- no wood, no particular heat retention -- stop it even briefly and it doesn't get into the forests.

      Reading between the lines of TFA this appears an extremely optimistic reading of the research, which so far involves blowing a flame off a propane source, and appears in the long term to be directed at separating flame from tree-tops, with the idea that this will slow down the rate of spread, not put the fire out. It will give emergency services more time to respond by quenching the fast-moving tree-top phase of the fire.

      The problem is that there will still be glowing coals on the woody stems, even if they are just brush (unless it is a pure grass fire, which is pretty rare, and even then there are usually bushes with woody stems involved.) Those coals will have the potential to re-ignite the fire, although the goal of slowing things down may be achieved, and it may well be enough to both save lives and to allow firefighters to get things under control.

      This is an interference measure, not an extinguisher.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  2. Finally. I have been saying this for years. by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    I have always wondered why this is not standard practice. If you want to extinguish a candle, the established method is to blow it out. After all, we used explosives to put out the Iraqi oil fires. Carpet bomb it, massively. If the fire is already to big for that to be practical, carpet bomb as wide and as much of a perimeter as you can and let it burn itself out.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Finally. I have been saying this for years. by AdamThor · · Score: 2

      I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    2. Re:Finally. I have been saying this for years. by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      brill, if there is no forest, there is no fire :)

  3. Back fires by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    Right now the main way fire fighters fight large forest fires is by setting other small fires destroying fuel. (There is never enough water or similar substance to put out a real forest fire.)

    This is basically just a faster way to do that - by removing the oxygen as opposed to the carbon from the carbon+oxygen+heat equation.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Back fires by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      I'm not so sure this is as good an idea as it sounds. In a controlled situation sure but a wild fire in a heavily wooded area you may end up just spreading it around.

  4. Oh, man by overshoot · · Score: 2

    Do I know some people in NM who are going to love this! And the fact that theyr'e next door to the NM firefighters' training academy ain't gonna hurt, either.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  5. Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... by overshoot · · Score: 2

    Could it possibly be because fire season is starting in New Mexico, and ending in Oz?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  6. This was tried in San Fran in 1906 by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "After the flames were extinguished, the explosives did nothing but create an avenue for the fires to spread during those first critical hours: Buildings and walls that might have served as firebreaks had been demolished.

    The explosives also raised a dust that choked the lungs and impaired visibility. But perhaps the worst damage was the creation of even more fires as flaming debris ignited ruptured gas lines. Unwilling to admit responsibility for their collective mistakes, the Mayor, the Army, and the Fire Department all pointed fingers at each other, adding fuel to the administrative confusion that reigned during the fire."

    http://mceer.buffalo.edu/1906_...

    1. Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Most wildfires aren't in urban areas. Unless you just had a 500-year earthquake, incendiary bombing, or Godzilla attack.

      But, as others have pointed out, this works better for oil well fires because oil won't sit and smoulder for hours, then reignite.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  7. Nuclear bomb tests prove it by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Watch an old nuclear weapon test footage with trees in it. First you see the flash of light, and instantaneously the trees erupt in flames due to the intense radiation. Then a few seconds later, the shockwave (basically a strong air current) arrives and it puts the fire out.

    You can substitute nuclear with a fuel-air bomb, which has the added benefit of sucking away all the oxygen in the area.

  8. sounds good by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 2, Funny

    what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  9. I wonder if "Big Wind" would work on wildfires by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the movie Fires of Kuwait, my favorite part showed a modified tank called "Big Wind".

    Instead of a cannon, "Big Wind" has two jet engines from a MiG fighter plane, and it uses those to blow out fires the same way you might blow out a candle on a birthday cake, only at epic scale.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/stilling-the-fires-of-war

    It's probably more practical, for wildfires, to use a helicopter to deliver explosive devices rather than drive a tank around. Setting up the water reservoirs in advance would be a problem also. The tank worked very well in Kuwait, though!

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely