Posted on 12/08/2016 7:36:17 AM PST by knarf
While noodling around youtube, I came across this interesting video and I immediately thought of the fire in Tennessee.
Too expensive and wouldn’t be very effective as some of it would absorb into the ground.
Besides that, very cool.
Dumped from a plane it becomes nitrogen gas. About 80percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen. Save it for apple storage.
Forest fires tend to be a lot larger than swimming pools.
I think the main reason this method is not used to fight forest fires is the astronomical cost of generating and transporting a sufficient quantity of liquid nitrogen to effectively fight a large fire.
THEN I thought of all the water we drop that evaporates, if it had been dropped with a release of dry ice at the same time in some kind of kids inflatable swimming pool type of thingy, maybe the CO2 would create a pocket that could then be exploited and expanded
Thermal plume dissipation.
It would make most of the incoming liquid nitrogen turn to gas.
Forest fires have higher heat output.
Really enjoying this (perhaps short lived) thread.
Pretty cool. Two problems with this I immediately see. Logistics and costs of transporting subzero extinguishing material and the amount that could be applied. Water when it is dumped or sprayed also has this damping effect— and very similar after the heat of the fire create gaseous water vapor. And it can be scooped up in large amounts from nearby lakes and it doesn’t kill all life form if the dump or application not perfect (a tanker dumps some liquid Nitrogen in an area where firefighters are it will suffocate them. Water won’t.
That’s okay, some enviros were whining not too long ago about the clay slurry used for some airdrop firefighting applications.
Apparently it hurt some endangered critter more than being on fire would?
They suggested...dry ice.
Which has a ridiculously low concentration of CO2 for the application, would be hilariously ineffective.
Probably too heavy for airplanes with all the refrigeration equipment required. Also, it wouldn’t spread on land like it did on that pool. Wildfires don’t happen on water.
I’m a volunteer firefighter, BTW.
Cool video, though.
It would kill anyone near it.................
My interest has been sparked (convenient pun intentionally applied) and I'll probably mull this around for some hours today.
One thing they do use on structures in forest fires is the innards of disposable diapers. The beads/gel actually hold enough water to discourage ignition.
Nitrogen can be compressed, and even liquidified, solving the volume problem, and even in uncompressing the gas will cool the fire.
Screwing around with liquid nitrogen without safety equipment is a BAD idea.
Actually, Fires in some forests are a good thing for the stand. As in oak stands. Fires in softwood forest are a bad thing.
But, having said that, forest fires are one of the biggest polluters on the planet right behind volcanos.
A fire in the perma frost region and the result is a constant release of carbon from the ground for years after the initial release. Millions of acres are left to burn out each year in those areas worldwide.
Yet they wont let us log to prevent these fires.
I got about 50 year experience in the forest products industry and the number one preventor of sustainable forest practices are the watermellons.
Think of this. 20% of the gross reciepts from federal timber sale bids are to go to local schools in the area. How many schools could use this money in those poor areas?
Just install fire hydrants thru-out the millions of acres of forest. Then train bears to operate.
There would be no residual effect. And difficult to disperse over a wide area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.