geo-engineering experts since 2002,Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention , Solar radiation management,geoengineers,Marine Cloud Brightening, ocean acidification, stratospheric sulfate aerosols, Carbon dioxide removal,Greenhouse gas remediation & Carbon sequestration,climate change, runaway global warming, desertification,desertification mediation,rain maker,ground based cloud enhancement,atmospheric heat control,wind management,rain farming,transborder humidity management,precipitation sheds,watershed modification,Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum,UNFCCC,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),Arctic geoengineering,Carbon negative fuel,Convention on Biological Diversity,Earth systems engineering & management,biorecharge,wildfire control,drought mitigation,Five Ways to Save the World,Haida Gwaii geoengineering controversy,climate control,climate management,climate evolution,atmospheric evolution,atmospheric management,air pollution control,air polution mitigation,hail cannons,weather control,weather modification,gare hypothesis,regional geoengineering,local geoengineering,regional weater modifiction,List of geoengineering topics,Macro-engineering,Planetary engineering,Project,Stormfury,Terraforming,Virgin Earth Challenge,Weather control,Hurricane modification,Convention on Biological Diversity

GSE Gravitational Systems Engineering, Inc.   geo-engineering experts since 2002,Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention , Solar radiation management,geoengineers,Marine Cloud Brightening, ocean acidification, stratospheric sulfate aerosols, Carbon dioxide removal,Greenhouse gas remediation & Carbon sequestration,climate change, runaway global warming, desertification,desertification mediation,rain maker,ground based cloud enhancement,atmospheric heat control,wind management,rain farming,transborder humidity management,precipitation sheds,watershed modification,Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum,UNFCCC,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),Arctic geoengineering,Carbon negative fuel,Convention on Biological Diversity,Earth systems engineering & management,biorecharge,wildfire control,drought mitigation,Five Ways to Save the World,Haida Gwaii geoengineering controversy,climate control,climate management,climate evolution,atmospheric evolution,atmospheric management,air pollution control,air polution mitigation,hail cannons,weather control,weather modification,gare hypothesis,regional geoengineering,local geoengineering,regional weater modifiction,List of geoengineering topics,Macro-engineering,Planetary engineering,Project,Stormfury,Terraforming,Virgin Earth Challenge,Weather control,Hurricane modification,Convention on Biological Diversity
   

 

User Comments: (Curated)
     
  Comments  
Products
Applications
Drought Mitigation
Order Form
Prices
Engineering RFQ
Publications
Services
Brochures  

Home
About
Contact
FAQ
Society
Jobs
Investors
Henry J:  Australian Fire Prevention :

This seems like it could be useful in protecting communities, but I don't think it can be of much use in a large natural fire.   The environment is so hot that the mist will simply be eaten by the fire.


   
Bill G: Wildfire  today magazine:

Is this a joke or fraud?

Please explain exactly what it does and how it works. Does it somehow extract water from the atmosphere, or does it use an existing water source and add it to the atmosphere, or apply it to the fuel? 

How does it work with 20 to 40 mph winds, which is frequently the condition that causes small fires to become large?

   
Response: Bob Al, Ph.D.

Thanks for your question.   The system is quite simple.  A WMS devices, mounted on the back of a flat bed truck, is brought near a good water source, such as a lake or river or municipal water supply, hoses are run to that supply,   The water is pumped into the base of the WMS device by a large pump (100-200 hp).  The water is pressurized and turned into a heavy mist.  The mist is then elevated by one or more installed sections, based upon vortex separation and positive air flow (from a fan, if installed), and exits the system as heavy mist.

The units are steerable by about 15%, so the mist can be matched with prevailing winds to deliver the bulk of the mist to some target.   The target can be the fire itself, or a community that needs protection.  The trucks are fitted with stability arms, much like a heavy crane, so although wind can never be underestimated, the device will stand up to winds up to 40 mph.

A single unit will have some effect, but suppression depends on many of the units being employed  simultaneously from strategic point to maximize its effects.

The design is based upon our research into ground based cloud seeding, and is a common effect of industrial cooling towers.   However, in industrial cooling tower design, the misted water flows are minimized.  The WMS system maximizes this effect instead.   If you take the time to research our site, you will see that concept papers were published through the CTI (cooling tower industry) association back in 2013.

Our engineering division, Alacrity engineering services, has for years executed various parts of the technology for military contracts.  

If you have any additional questions, we welcome them.  


   
Response:  Bob Al, Ph.D.

Thanks for your comment.  It's axiomatic that in a large natural wildfire the mist generated by WMS systems will be quickly dissipated.  However, there are two significant consequences to the use of a strategically distributed array of WMS systems.   The first is that fire growth, in the immediate area will be suppressed by lack of oxygen.  However, the most important impact of the dissipation, will be to, combined with seed nuclei from the wildfire, increase cloud cover and rain frequency.


   
Sabrina T: Oregon State University graduate student :

The wildfire generates its own winds, which are very hot, which flow towards cooler areas.  This aids in the spread of the fire, usually until it encounters some natural topographical feature, such as a mountain or large body of water.  This would seem to mean that the mist generated by these devices will be driven away from the fire, dramatically minimizing the effectiveness of the system.


   
Response: Gare Henderson, Ph.D.:

Although I don't completely agree of the fire wind physics that your question is based upon, it simply begs the question of strategic placement, number of units employed, time of deployment, and a host of other logistical factors.    Another important factor is the height of the units, which can be scaled up to 120 feet, as well as the thrust introduced into the mists by the device.   A dual engine configuration can provide enough aero-dynamic thrust to deliver the mist to many levels, including the extent of the local PBL.  It can also be directed, with the optional tilt package, to deliver the mist at an optimum height and  location within the PBL, to support fire breaks, and to protect built-up areas.


   
Dan T: USGS wildfire mitigation official:

This seems quite viable for regions with particularly predictable fire seasons.  However, logistics and costs appear to be quite challenging.  Any solution must be competitive with current methods to be considered for support, including funding.


   
Response: Bob Al, Ph.D.

While only time and a monitored testing regime will establish a base line for costs, our simulations indicate a significant savings in actual costs, reduced insurance costs, fewer injuries to firefighters, and reductions in that most critical of factors, "how long before we can go back home".  

There is a simple and inescapable logic to the WMS system, in that even if its not superman who can solve problems with super strength, WMS is a mitigation system, based upon mature technology, and incontrovertible research an analysis.  WMS provides resources similar to nature's greatest fire manager rain and cloud cover.


   
Comments    
 


     
(855) 865-7368 312-224-8152 -   571-281-4387 Skype Webmaster  Contacts