Thanks,
MIT. Why don't you just make the rest of the world feel a little more useless. Every week or so, we're forced to stare at yet another
amazing invention
coming from your
doors; to be frank, it's just downright unfair. All childish angst aside, the latest idea to come from the institution is one that could certainly be put to good use: a self-sustaining sensor network that taps into trees for power in order to continuously monitor forests for threats of fire. Moreover, the concept could be applied in other scenarios as well -- to detect potential threats such as smuggled contraband along a nation's borders, perhaps. Testing of the wireless sensor network (developed by the appropriately named Voltree Power) is scheduled to begin next spring, and we're hearing that
pot-sniffing turtles may even be brought in to create a completely natural self-policing environment.
[Via
Inhabitat]
posted Sep 26th 2008 11:22AM
the problem with forest fires isn't that they happen, it's that they get out of control.
I would have to assume that it is easier to control a forest fire when you know it is burning and can get there before it is too big to control.
But I am no rocket..... MIT scientist.
No the problem with forest fires is that people try to build in the naturally forested area. If it weren't for buildings in the paths of forest fires who would really care if or how much they burned? Its the same thing with living in a flood plain, not body would care if it flooded if people didn't try to build and live there. Try as you might but mother nature will hand humanity its ass in about any contest of man versus nature.
Forrest fires clear up old dead wood, excess brush, and are essential so that new generations of trees can take root. They are an important part of forrest ecosystems.
The only reason forest fires are a huge deal is because all of these intelligent people like to build their houses in the middle of a huge woods (and build them WITH wood), and then expect their homes and posessions to be safe. If I were to build a home in the woods, I'd probably build an ICF (insulated concrete forms) home, at least then my walls would just crack and I could patch them up when I got back home after the fire. Even if they were cracked beyond repair, at least my pictures, files and other things of mine would still be there, even though Bob the goldfish may have been boiled from the heat.
Doh, sorry kal326, didn't read your post. 1000% agree with you. A flood plain is called a flood plain for a reason. I just can't seem to figure out why though.
@Saad
Perhaps, but when forest fires are erroneously caused by humans doing stupid, unnecessary things, it causes more harm than good -- just because there *is* a fire doesn't mean that there *should* have been, and there is an enormous difference between the two. As someone who has lived in Montana for the majority of his life, I've probably seen what forest fires can do probably better than most. It is true that they are important to keeping the ecosystem in check, but they can also be extremely harmful in certain cases, and the vast majority of the time the fires are caused be someone doing something they shouldn't have been. It's important, then, to know which areas are at risk.
I very much doubt that these sensors are intended to *prevent* forest fires; rather, they're probably there so that the danger of fires in the area can be monitored to alert people who live nearby. There are always people watching to make sure that we're not all going to die in some kind of horrible fire, but it can be difficult to know just how close a certain area is to lighting up, and this kind of technology would prove invaluable to keeping safe.
Also, to everyone who seems to think that the only reason forest fires are dangerous is because people stupidly build their houses where they shouldn't, you really should do a little more research. When you live someone like Montana, what is "in the paths of forest fires" changes dramatically over time. What is safe today could be dangerous tomorrow, and visa-versa. It's not as though people just walk into the middle of a forest and build a house... Forests change more than you would think. They shrink, they expand, they nudge a little this way or that way -- and it is impossible to know if a house will or will not always be safe. "The wilderness" doesn't stay in one spot, people; it moves. Not to mention the fact that forest fires are just as random: I'm in a safe area, but if for some reason there was a fire that got out of control on the mountainside closeby (which is extremely unlikely), I'd probably be in trouble. It's not because we made a bad decision by choosing to live here, though; it's just that nature can be a cruel, cruel mistress sometimes, and accepting that there are risks (however slight) all around us is just a part of living.
When there's finally a killer earthquake in California, will the people who live there now be remembered as stupid?
@SaaD
In 1988, Eco-nuts were crying that Yellowstone was the greatest natural disaster of all time and the forest would never recover from such a devastating blow. Well, 20 years later: the forest is healthier today than it was in 1987, trees have sprouted, animals have returned, and the eco-system is lively and vibrant.
When firefighters tried to intervene in the 1953 Yellowstone fire, cutting a large fire line across the park it left permanent scarring that is stil visible to this day, where no trees have yet to grow back.
The guys at MIT should listen to NPR just a little bit more.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94534548
Why would you want to prevent forest fires? Forest fires are part of the natural life cycle of a forest and are good for it.
Exactly. This is one of many cases where technology will not save us and infact will take us a step back.
Some would argue you could use that argument about the resent economic situation we find our selfs in. Some times the forest just has to burn all the old wood down and start over.
@ Nutz
So what youre saying is, corporate bailouts are not always the right thing to do :)
@ Nutz...
Uh... I believe you are confused. We are talking about nature here. An economy is different than nature. Bad argument. Economy, ecosystem. I know they both start with "eco," but there's a difference.
I thought random fires not set by humans are good for the forrest.... circle of life sort of thing
Certainly not good to set ME on fire :P But yeah...from what I've heard the current problems we're having with wild fires is due to forest management policies over the last century or so. I think the problem is understood, but solving it may not be so easy. At any rate, *knowing* about a fire and how it's moving could help make controlled burns safer. That in turn could help prevent unanticipated, out of control wild fires.
Wrong. According to Smokey, only *I* can prevent forest fires.
I, apparently, lack sufficient motivation.
No, you just lack an MIT doctorate.
Don't be fooled. Smokey (the slut) says that same line to everybody..
I went to Africa (Zambia) about a year ago and I remember seeing many fires that were started by people. The reason, I found, was to keep the bush at a certain level to prevent fires from becoming too large and uncontrollable when nature did strike and start a brush fire.
i hope one of these sensors doesn't short-circuit and cause a fire.
haha
Pot sniffing turtles would work well I suspect. They may be slow, but have you ever seen a pot head try to run anywhere?
Umm..this idea was used in Timothy Zahn's book The Last Command in the Star Wars series
Soooo... What's your point? Anybody can write about a "cool tool," but until someone makes it, it's just sci-fi and sounds cool.
Nice. I didnt think that people are still bothered about these issues. Nice to see the development. !
Obviously the use of such sensors would indicate when conditions are right for a controlled burn.
Until they come up with an actual working Arc Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man%27s_armor#Arc_reactor), I won't really be impressed. I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Only you can prevent forest fires.
MIT makes products to be sold for profit. Forest management is a billion dollar industry. The Goal is not only to “save trees” it is to sell new products in diverse markets.
Used to "monitor" borders? Gives a whole new meaning to the "trees are listening!"
The real genius is figuring out what electrochemical mechanism creates electricity within trees, and then harnessing it for useful power. It's based on a pH difference between soil and tree. I think there may be other approaches. Tapping into the xylem and evaporating liquid at an external surface and using the temperature difference across a thermoelectric to drive current... for example.
You don't have to be from MIT (yes, I went there) to come up with great ideas -- they come easily. It's implementing them in a practical and useful way that is invention.
I thought that ONLY I could prevent forest fires!!
Why is a tiny amount of power coming from a tree better than using a tiny solar cell for power?
in some circumstances bushfires are a necessary part of a forrest's growth / rejuvenation... correct me if i'm wrong
@SanFrancisco R - Implementing great ideas is not inventing, it is grunt work. Granted, some of the best ideas require really really smart grunts for implementation. Once the high level details get worked out, it is all about filling the black box with magic smoke.