Discussion in 'Wildfires' started by Mick West, Oct 16, 2017.
Do you mean this?
Fire doesn't video well. It doesn't photograph in any way well, but a still shot can use HDR or other settings to compensate. Video cameras have a lot fewer options that help with rapidly moving luminous nonsolids next to dark stationary solids.
And all the options in both cases depend on how well the camera operator know and utilize those settings. The video that picture came from is lower quality in almost every way than the other two pictures.
Edit: Also, weren't all three pictures the same tree?
It's not really clear what you mean by "really burning". But it certainly seems to be really burning in the video:
The different colored flames are just different camera settings. It's just a burning tree.
Yes....that's what I'm referring to. The object looks to be an item with geometric qualities. There are 'corners' on the item, straight lines as well. If that item was laid onto a dark paper, I don't think anyone would identify it as a flame.I don't see anything similar to a flame. The 'flames' are not within the tree, rather, 'painted' on the outside by computer program.
here are 3 pictures, 2 of which are identical therefore the same tree. The tree in the remaining picture is a different tree then in the other 2 pitures. It can be identified by the yellow flames versus the orangish/reddish flames associated with the other tree. Tlowest hole in the tree with yellow flames shows that the space is about half filled with what appears to be fire. Close inspection shows that this yellow color we see in that hole is not a fire. It a solid looking objectfrom the other 3rd picture shows a
No, it’s fire. Look at the video.
If I'm reading you right you believe that the flames inside a tree that DJC thought were hard to explain are actually CGI and the tree isn't on fire at all? Someone faked a tree burning in an unusual way?
I'm not sure I'm understanding their motivation for doing that
I'M sorry,......I tried to answer a while ago but had an issue. Yes, that's it. Look at that 'object', I hear what you're saying re: fire and pictures, but even then I can't believe that's a picture of fire. Did you zoom in and take a good look? Give it a try, see if anything there is a bit surprising to you.
The 3 pictures depict only 2 trees. There's 2 identical pictures of the same tree. The other tree doesn't look right either. The flames fill the space completely in all 6 holes,.......I'm not sure a fire can do that. A roaring blaze couldn't fill those spaces from top to bottom like that, where's the air for it to breathe? IMO it's not plausible for fire to be that dense, not a tooth pick sized gap anywhere? Seems it would choke itself out if nothing else, because it would be starving for oxygen, eating it up before it could enter to feed the heart of the fire.
The flames in that tree ( darker flames )appear to be outside of the tree. Some of the flames appear to have girth, adding width to the tree in those spots. You can see some from a bit of an angle, they look thick and bulging, making the tree appear to be swollen there. If the flames were escaping the hole, that wouldn't account for girth the length of the flame. Flames could escape upward but wouldn't present a solid look, and the lower half or more wouldn't show any protrusion from the tree. I don't think this can be dead ended, so opinions they'll remain,........Thank you.
No, they are all the same tree. You can see that the holes are exactly the same, just viewed from different angles.
Two of them appear to be screengrabs from the same video, in fact (although one has a caption overlaid onto it from a different broadcast), and one is a photo very similar to the second screengrab.
This matches approx 0:05 in the video:
This matches about 0:25, after the person videoing has moved around to the right side of the tree:
And this doesn't seem to exactly match a frame of the video, but is a photo from a very similar angle to the second screengrab (note the resolution appears higher too, which is consistent with being a still photo rather than a video frame).
Here's the exact tree (the one on the left), on Google Street View, pinpointed from the video where Matthew McDermott is driving past and spots it on fire:
thats all been already explainend in this thread:
this question of yours just baffles me:
all around it?!? its a hollow tree, the oxygen comes right through the holes where the branches were before, as mick said; a hollow tree acts like a chimney, nothing strange or mysterious about it at all.
Strange? Yes...., in the sense that it isn't something that you see every day and it needs a few specific circumstances to happen, but not unexplainable... As proven in this thread.
As expected (predicted ?) this year's summer 2018 California area fires are well under way, due to dry and hot conditions + wind.
They are predicted because they have a pattern of timely instance...during the warm dry summer/fall months.... a repeated history spanning over decades and even centuries.
The recent phenomena of created conspiracies, are again being used to help explain their idea to "prove" the destruction.....that this is another gov't conspiracy where fires are being created, by way of various "claimed" dastardly reasons for the fires.
The usual culprits surface again to help their YouTube popularity (I won't link to them... >> see last years proponents).
I don't see any new conspiracy ideas, only re-boots of prior ideas.
The prior ideas are:
Agenda 21 (forcing people to move to large cities).
DEW (directed energy weapons).
Trees don't burn.
....basically, there is no more evidence of these "causes", than there was last year.
The same claims are circulating on Facebook about the Greek fires earlier this week. Rather than realising that such behaviour is normal with forest fires, the conspiracy theorists have to claim that all fires are suspicious. It’s just like the 9/11 – Plasco connection. When “unusual” behaviour is repeated in another place, instead of being evidence against the behaviour being unusual, it is taken as being evidence that the conspiracy is bigger than ever!
There appear to be untouched trees next to destroyed buildings in this picture from the Great Chicago Fire. I guess we had clandestine space lasers in 1871?
RE: Geece fires...
This video proposes reasons for these fires, similar to the conspiracy theories claimed last year in the Californa fires.
Here is my comment...
The video poster does not engage in replies or discussion. But hopefully others will read it, and consider the problems with the extreme suggestions stated in the video..
One of the "best" examples of how car fires spread must be the Liverpool Arena car park fire from early this year. A fire which started in a single car spread rapidly through the multi-storey car park destroying over a thousand cars, collapsing part of the building and damaging the structure beyond repair. Like most car parks it was basically just a concrete structure, so the only "fuel" was the cars and their contents.
Photos of Liverpool Echo Arena car park
BTW, Mick......do you live near any of the fires ?
I think you are somewhere in the area. (??)
Have you been affected ?
Just smoke. The Carr fire in Redding, about 150 miles away as the crow flies, and there the Ferguson fire 90 miles to the south, by Yosemite.
The latest episode on the 99% Invisible podcast, "Built to Burn", interviews a former forest service fire scientist who conducted experiments setting forested areas on fire and studying factors that determined whether buildings within the forest burnt or survived:
Confirms what others in this thread have already said about embers.
It's an interesting episode (as are most 99% PI shows). Worth a listen (or read), especially if you live in a fire-prone area: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/
Listening to this episode reminded me of when I drove from Santa Rosa to Calistoga earlier this year through the burn area of the Santa Rosa Tubb's fire. Miles and miles of devastation. Yet, in the middle of it all was a completely unscathed ranch home with landscaping and a white picket fence. At the time I probably thought that they were extremely lucky, but after listening to "Built to Burn", I realize it was probably more a matter of smart landscaping and good design.
That's a great article. I've added it to the OP.
I've suggested to several on-line fire-conspiracy believers - to walk around their own (fire-prone) neighborhood, and look at the homes and buildings, trying to spot potential fire hazards.
I did this one day in my former neighborhood, when I lived close the the San Gabriel mountains, California. I was surprised at the hazards I saw.
Uncleared brush, untrimmed trees, unused items stored against the exterior walls, stacks of firewood against walls, trash bins stored next to walls (often uncovered), visible gaps under garage doors, etc...
Unfortunately, this seemed to fall on deaf-ears, or they pushed harder on the conspiracy issues, or I was accused of "trolling".
Not all residents are home "owners". Many are lower-income renters, who tend to rely on their landlords for brush clearance, tree trimming, and roof gutter cleaning. Many low-income landlords are well-known for preforming the minimal maintenance of the units they rent, and only do-so when required by their local municipalities. My rental, would receive inspections from city officials once every couple of years, and the focus of the inspection was on the interior......primarily - working smoke alarms and exit egress. Not once did the inspector tour the exterior of the structure for fire hazards.
I don't mean to generalize these situations too much... only from my experience and what I spotted around my neighborhood.
I agree, people are way too reliant of the Fire Departments to "put out a fire" after it has begun, rather than preventing the initiation or spread of fire, in the first place.
I think one under-mentioned fact about a large structure fire, is that the hot/active fire tends to "suck" the surrounding oxygenated air .....up into the active burning structure.
In other words... a hot and burning structure (like a bon fire), will pull available air "into" the fire, as that is what fire needs...it "consumes as much oxygen (air) as is available or needed" and this available air usually comes from outside the fire, moving in toward the fire.....potentially sparing many local and adjacent flammable sources. (trees and bushes, etc)
It's like an upside-down funnel, where the surrounding air is gathered from outside the fire center, and funneled to the heated center and up to the top.
The second and complementary reason.... is that heat rises, and as it does, sucks cooler ambient air past nearby potentially flammable sources....cooling them somewhat....even when faced within the hot proximity of a close fire.
Two of 6 people who stayed to help save their homes, Carr fire.
One a retired firefighter.
Said that fire came with embers and wind. They were there.
"Your Home Can Survive a Wildfire" ...video.
Here is a video (2015) explaining how to help make a home defensible from the woodland/urban intersect (interface)....
But some problems can occur "just before the fire", such as a windstorm during or immediately preceding a local woodland fire. Windblown tree debris of leaves and pine needles can "re-fill" your rain gutters in less than an hour.....even if you are diligent on cleaning them 12 hours prior.
Dry leaf litter can accumulate around your home, in the same time and manner.
Some relevant research into the temperatures in car fires:
I've added the melting point of aluminum to the graphs. Note graph (b) Tire temperature shows temperature well above that needed to melt aluminum.
Also of great relevance is the temperature measurements taken some distance from the car. Firstly in the smoke and hot air plume above the fire:
Here we see the peak temperatures of around 500°C reduced to under 200°C at the top of the plume (8.5m). Still hot enough to ignite dry wood, but also a large drop in a short distance. Remember here the primary mechanism for the heat movement is hot air.
More relevant in terms of "why did that tree not burn", consider the temperatures on thermocouples 17-23
These were 10m (32ft) from the center of the car. The lower one, T17, did not get above 100°C, so would not have burnt anything (though would have certainly wilted some leaves).
Temperature is in some ways an indirect way of measuring what's going on. More direct is the Heat Flux, which is the flow of heat
So 5 meters (16 feet) away, the heat flow radiating from the car peaked around 2.0 kW/m2 (smoothed). That's about twice the value of the energy in direct sunlight at noon. Hot, but obviously not enough to burn anything.
Regarding the Santa Rosa / Napa / Sonoma fires in 2017, keep in mind that the first night had winds acting as a furnace. There were gusts up to 70mph and areas of sustained wind of 40 - 50 mph.
That's what the resident's say. They said it was spread by wind-blown fire embers.
Residents never reported their homes burning from "lasers", or their Smart Meters flaming-up....as claimed so often, on YouTube.
I choose to believe the reports from people that were there.... not the theories online from people that were not there.
(I was not there)
Posting this to explain some of the psychology behind how we watch fires. Very relevant.
Summary: we expect the ignition to come from the heat of the flames (the radiant heat, which we feel on our skin, however, with houses it usually comes from firebrands (windblown bits of burning wood)
Nearby wall of fire:
Wooden house did not burn
Firebrands ignite patio furniture
Firebrands ignite roof
House burns down, even though no nearby trees are on fire
This video explains wildfires from an investigative angle. Again, very helpful to dispel the myths about how wildfires work according to the common population.
"Wildfire! Preventing Home Ignitions is based on the research of Jack Cohen, Physical Research Scientist, of the U.S. Forest Service. It explains the combustion process and wildfire behavior, what you can do to create survivable space, and why some homes are destroyed while others survive. It also discusses how to identify your home's Ignition Zone -- the area that includes the home and its immediate surroundings, which, if properly conditioned, can save the home during a wildfire".
It may not be possible to build (or regulate) absolute fire-proof homes, especially in fire-prone neighborhoods.
The same way that flood-proof homes are unlikely.
The reality is, that fire is an overwhelming force, and while some defence from it is possible, it can never be guaranteed.
Based on the NFPA videos you can get pretty close. You just need as a base:
100 foot vegetation clearing or fire resisting.
"Shelter in Place" works:
Fire-proof homes as SIP refuge:
Seems to work when there is "enough defensable space" surrounding the property, but not in compact closely-spaced home tracts. If one home is susceptible to fire or breaks the rules, adjacent homes become vulnerable.
The past devastating neighborhood fires had nowhere near 100ft clearances.....and there are hundreds-of-thousands of CA homes waiting to be tested, in the dry wildland-urban intersects.
Fire season this year (as of 11/09/2019)
Cal Fire reports about 6 times less acreage burned, than last year (2018).
I'm not sure what the "Cal Fire and US Forest Service" include. Even still it's a lot less than our previous year.
(note: with nearly the same amount of fires)
There is not a lot of new "Dew" stories. Those have diminished greatly from Youtube. There are lots of re-posts from years earlier. But sometimes this is the recent "smoking gun" video.... "there are flashes". But that's because the video is sped-up....it's.a timelapse.
Dane Wigington is still talking about the fires as "California is burning", even though they are not that bad.
"Why Everything They Say About California Fires — Including That Climate Matters Most — Is Wrong"
I think that the urban/forest intersect has a lot to do with how or why fires begin or devastate homes and property.
Separate names with a comma.