This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Obstacles to outdoor testing environments with partners?
For our Proposed Prize (click "show" below), we are proposing finding a testing partner that would allow us to ignite fires in an outdoor environment.
Proposed Prize (click "show" to view):
We understand there are problems with variability and replicability in testing outdoors, but for the competition we are hoping to replicate real world conditions and the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability involved in fighting fires.
Is this approach justifiable? Why or why not? Do you have any suggestions?
Share any thoughts, experiences, ideas, or examples you might have!
Proposed Prize (click "show" to view):
Wildfire XPRIZE - Rapid, precise and autonomous detection and suppression of wildfires to prevent the loss of life and assets
The Winning Team will autonomously detect and extinguish a spreading wildfire in a large, controlled area in 10 minutes or less.
The prize design:
Each finalist team will be assigned a 1,000 km2 (20X20 mile) grid. On test day, in that grid, XPRIZE will create several small, decoy stationary fires and one hazardous target fire. Once the fire is moving, or reaches 2 meters in diameter, the team will have 10 minutes to autonomously extinguish the target fire and any spot fires, while leaving the decoy fires untouched.
The Winning Team will autonomously detect and extinguish a spreading wildfire in a large, controlled area in 10 minutes or less.
The prize design:
Each finalist team will be assigned a 1,000 km2 (20X20 mile) grid. On test day, in that grid, XPRIZE will create several small, decoy stationary fires and one hazardous target fire. Once the fire is moving, or reaches 2 meters in diameter, the team will have 10 minutes to autonomously extinguish the target fire and any spot fires, while leaving the decoy fires untouched.
We understand there are problems with variability and replicability in testing outdoors, but for the competition we are hoping to replicate real world conditions and the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability involved in fighting fires.
Is this approach justifiable? Why or why not? Do you have any suggestions?
Share any thoughts, experiences, ideas, or examples you might have!
2
Comments
One case was the Swedish putting out a natural wildfire on military lands by exploding a bomb on it as a kind of test. I'm not advocating bombs be used for this - just that the kind of land lent itself to a test of a fire suppression approach that could not be done anywhere else. See: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22395/a-swedish-air-force-gripen-fighter-jet-just-literally-bombed-a-forest-fire
1) Our current thinking is that we DO need to test in "extreme" conditions, as most fires (we've read about 97%) are actually already suppressed before doing significant damage. Thus, really this prize is about increasing rapid detection and suppression to cover the 3% of fires that aren't put out quickly enough--and that 3% seems to happen overwhelmingly in extreme conditions with respect to wind, humidity, etc.
2) Another interesting point that's come up here is the issue of embers spreading and causing more fires (spotting). We've also come across this in our research and definitely seems like a significant issue. Our current thinking, based on some conversations we've had with practitioners in the field, is that if we can put the fire out extremely quickly, we might be able to prevent embers from spreading.
3) Speaking of, we have a new discussion thread specifically how long we should give teams in testing once the fire crosses the threshold into "dangerous, must extinguish" territory. Click here to participate!
*not that forest land needs to be 'used' for anything other than the ecosystem services that it readily supplies in its natural state...but, you know, Capitalism.
Interaction of Shock Waves with Tree Crowns and the Front of Crown Forest Fires
see www.RoboticVectorControl.com New concept to fight wildland fire.