Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..

Yes the seasons have changed a bit but the 7:30 reports angle was that its all due to climate change thats why they chose Mullins as there go to expert.

Really? That's a fact, is it? How well do you know the staff from the 7:30 report? Which one of them told you this fact, and when and why did they do so?

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

kato said..

The last three years have been this
August to April wildfires

Since there are facts we have to go over that and instead of back burning do try another methods of fuel reduction.I firefighters in the time where is quiet could jump into Posi track , they could clean that area mechanically instead of just burning. The point to provide adequate equipment to do so comfortably , with air con and safety etc. Eventually when things are done correctly bush firefighters could remain without any job left.Eventually job in posi track is healthier then breathing/inhaling smoke.Another interesting option for government to consider could be : big planes vs small.
To use effectively bit fire fighting water bombing planes like Boeing 737 we need big fires. But if we could effectively extinguish quickly those small. will never becomes big in first place. So my advice for government bodies could be - invest more into mechanical cleaning , logging because that could be done whole year long, unlike back burning that could happen sporadically and always carry risk.Additional advantage for the rest of the public is such that councils do sell theri equipment quickly on auctions after few years of use.Then public has a chance to buy something at reasonable price.

Okay, since it's so easy, let's see the maths.

At a speed of about 2 kmh, how long will it take these machines to reduce the fuel in, say, 25% of the million hectares that have burned so far in NSW this spring? How many operators are needed? How many hours per day will they spend travelling to their worksite, and how will they do it? How will you get those operators?

What gradient do these vehicles operate on? How much of the critical area is within that gradient?

How do you get the vehicles into the relevant areas? For example, how do you get them into the country around (say) Carrai Creek? Create cranes on the edges of the gorges? Hand clear an area where they can be lowered by chopper? What choppers? What cost?

Where is your proof that you can take machines into the important areas "all year long" as you say? Would you be happy working in (say) Oxley Rivers National Park next week, knowing that there are huge fires upwind?

What sort of cross wind can tanker aircraft take on water in? What angles do you propose to put your trenches?

Where do you propose to put these trenches? What areas are flat enough and near enough to the operational area?Where is the water to fill these trenches going to come from?

And the big question - what objective evidence do you have that makes you think you know more about these things than the people who have been working on the same issues for years? Do you really worship yourself that much?

I hope some of the above questions are multiple choice.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..

southace said..
It's never concrete suburbin burning

400 houses burning in Canberra's suburbs 16 years ago.

Houses on the suburban fringes, in proximity to bushland, can burn but suburbs themselves don't constitute a sufficiently continuous fuel bed to carry a fire any distance.

The fire of London in 1666 however did propagate through the tightly packed wooden structures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London

Places like Hughes in Canberra, 6km or more inside the edge of the suburbs, lost houses in 1993. In 1967, the Hobart fires got within 2km of the CBD.

When fires can spot 12km or more and land in suburban parks (as in Sydney 1994) and ignite fires, then suburbs can burn.

You're being political, you've re-interpreted Southace's meaning of "suburbia". (do you come from Canberra?) The odd house within a suburb, mostly next to a bushland reserve, and the odd insurance job. But suburbia, as Southace was referring to doesn't burn. He was making the point that If you choose to live on a rural "lifestyle" block you know the risk. 99% of suburbia is very low risk.

No, I'm not being political. I'm pointing out the reality, which is that houses in suburbs can burn. People who ignore that can die, as they found out in Jannali. Hughes is the same distance from Parliament House as it was from the bush when it partly burned. The houses that burned 2km from the centre of Hobart were in the 'burbs when they burned. In many country towns even the 'burbs are very close to the bush and there's no way around that.

Yes, people on rural lifestyle blocks know the risk. That doesn't mean that we should use a smiley emoji when referring to a risk that has just seen people burn to death. Next time a sailor, surfer or fisho dies, will we all just write comments saying "my conclusion is these people choose or decide they want to go on the water" and put in a smilie face?

Just a few months ago, Southace objected to someone putting up a thread about boats capsizing a while after a capsize had caused some deaths. www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Sailing/General/Scary--boats-capsizing-compilation?page=1 If he objects to people raising an issue that has caused sailors to die, surely he should not use a smilie when referring to an issue that has just caused other people to die.

Oh, and the risks have changed since many people moved into those areas. Living there would scare me, but surely we owe them the same compassion that we give to the people who we share the sea with.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
I hope some of the above questions are multiple choice.

Macro must know the answers, since he knows everything.

As an example of reality, Macro reckoned there should be " channels stretching 1000 -1500 meter should be build 50 m wide, not too deep" for firefighting aircraft to scoop from. The reality is that the water has to be 2000-1000 metres long and even for a small scoooper, 500-300 metres wide. That is a tight fit, and reduces the volume that can be scooped up. So Macro is out by about 12 times, even for a small plane.

So - where are these locations that Macro reckons must exist close to major fire grounds? How are they going to build these waterways? How many billions is going to go into the construction of the dam walls? Where is the water to fill them coming from? When towns are running out of drinking water, how can we justify putting in more shallow lakes in areas where evaporation will consume up to 75% of the water each year?

Gee..... maybe the real world isn't as easy to fix as fantasyland.

I think you hit a nerve macro lol.....snap

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
As an example of reality, Macro reckoned there should be " channels stretching 1000 -1500 meter should be build 50 m wide, not too deep" for firefighting aircraft to scoop from. The reality is that the water has to be 2000-1000 metres long and even for a small scoooper, 500-300 metres wide. That is a tight fit, and reduces the volume that can be scooped up. So Macro is out by about 12 times, even for a small plane.

So - where are these locations that Macro reckons must exist close to major fire grounds? How are they going to build these waterways? How many billions is going to go into the construction of the dam walls? Where is the water to fill them coming from? When towns are running out of drinking water, how can we justify putting in more shallow lakes in areas where evaporation will consume up to 75% of the water each year?

Gee..... maybe the real world isn't as easy to fix as fantasyland.

Ithink Macro is very optimistic when it comes to his own ideas, and very pessimistic when it comes to the ideas of others, and in some cases, reality.

'Cheaper than the NBN' is no doubt the answer for the question of how much is this going to cost. No idea of the cost of the NBN, no back of the envelope costs, no nothing, but surely 'it will be cheaper than the NBN'.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Macro must

When we present a problem it is wise to present also solution. Constant complaining about weather, winds, temperatures and rain or lack of such doesn't lead us anywhere. Right, people do burn Australia for ten thousand years and land is still burning , not less but possibly more now then ever. Most of the people will shout on government for not doing enough , but what exactly, nobody knows.If everything we do now doesn't work well and bushfires are lighten up every year then we need to change something , be innovative.We could not expect the problem to resolve itself.I did show also source of funds for this innovative ideas, drones, blimps , helicopters. If whole world will switch from defence budget from 2% to 0.1% of GDP world becomes safer instantly. Then we could funds many more or less useful projects.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

'Cheaper than the NBN' is no doubt the answer for the question of how much is this going to cost. No idea of the cost of the NBN, no back of the envelope costs, no nothing, but surely 'it will be cheaper than the NBN'.

OPTUS is now willing to provide you 5G at $70 per month for faster internet service then NBN , and at no cost to taxpayers.
But this is just beginning of 5G because Australia refused to accept HUAWEI the is actually world leader in this technology. Possibly that same scenario will be with our bushfires. None of my ideas , presented here works for you , but in few years time,
USA will try this drone system in their California region and then we will be more then happy to purchase technology .Obviously nobody will ever comes to idea that firefighting drones could be manufactured in Australia. We could build submarines in Perth, but we no longer afford to assemble anything more ambitious like cars for example. Drones already behind our technological horizons. Kiwi could build space rocket, but they been always more innovative.

Israel Folau has discovered the cause. Three hail Mary's nationally, repeal same sex marriage and criminalize abortion and we are safe again! Thanks Izzy!!

www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/israel-folau-preaches-bushfires-and-drought-are-gods-punishment-for-samesex-marriage-and-abortion/news-story/1342cc45c7bdd686d99e56e97b608fcf

TH...

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..

Macro must

When we present a problem it is wise to present also solution. Constant complaining about weather, winds, temperatures and rain or lack of such doesn't lead us anywhere. Right, people do burn Australia for ten thousand years and land is still burning , not less but possibly more now then ever. Most of the people will shout on government for not doing enough , but what exactly, nobody knows.If everything we do now doesn't work well and bushfires are lighten up every year then we need to change something , be innovative.We could not expect the problem to resolve itself.I did show also source of funds for this innovative ideas, drones, blimps , helicopters. If whole world will switch from defence budget from 2% to 0.1% of GDP world becomes safer instantly. Then we could funds many more or less useful projects.

Throwing around ideas that bear no relation to reality is not "presenting a solution". Saying we should build massive lakes on land that does not exist, and fill them with water that does not exist, is not "presenting a solution". Ignoring geography and topography is not "presenting a solution".

Let's look at it this way; people involved in running fire services at high level would have probably 20 years of full-time experience in the field, including a lot of contact with other people with similar levels of experience. Every such person would have about 40,000 hours of thinking about this subject. And you reckon that within a couple of hours or even just a few minutes, you can work out ideas that they didn't come up with in all that time?

Fair go, why not respect other people? Why do you have such virulent contempt for other people, and such a bizarelly conceited view of your own brillance, that you reckon you can just dream up solutions that they haven't thought of, when you haven't done the most basic research? Perhaps you could actually respect the people who have been working in the field for years, and the people who have made learning about this stuff their life's work. Maybe you could conceive that they are not as stupid as you obviously think they are.

As Isaac Newton and the Wright Brothers found out, you create great ideas by respecting those who have already studied the field and learning from them, not by imagining that you are so much smarter that you can out-think them on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Sometimes the wild ideas from outsiders provide the spark that's needed to get the experts thinking outside the box. Macro's a thinker, good on him. The stretch of water needed for a CL215 is probably for Canadian lakes that are generally surrounded by steep terrain and tall trees. What about those dams the cotton farmers produce in the plains and pump full of water from the Murray Darling. Can you scoop out of them you reckon Macro?

The info about the water scoopers use came more from Victoria than from Canada, so it's not all about tall timbers and steep terrain (not that all of the Canadian lakes have steep terrain AFAIK).

Macro's scheme is to create new lakes near areas where they can be practically used for firefighting aircraft. Around where I live, there are firies spending hour after hour spotting water sources and assessing them. The one I know is a damn smart guy. Where practical waterways exist, we can be pretty sure the firies have checked them out. That does not mean that it's practical to build new ones in areas that do not exist and fill them with water that does not exist.

After all, if it's wild ideas that we're after, why not just breed, out of dust and thin air, a billion pixies, each powered by angel dust and weighing 1 gramme, which can each spontaneously (but gently) create 1 ton of water on top of any fire they are told to think about? Why not genetically engineer sparkly pink rainbow fairy unicorns that graze gently on weed and fart fire suppressant? If we are going to think of things that are impossible, why not think of things that are totally impossible?

Well don't be surprised if the sums work out and they do one day construct water scooping dams. Who'd have thought you could build and fill dams on the plains like the cotton farmers do. They're called ring dams. You can construct a 50 hectare one with 3 metres walls about 1.5 -2 metres water depth for $370,000. That's about 2.5 km of dam wall. If you stretch it out only 50 metres wide that's 1.2 km long. (yes gotta be flat country. ) And if we cut back on cotton farming. Wearing your T shirts for a week between washes will save a lot of wear and tear and hence our cotton consumption. There'll be more water to pump into a dam during hazardous periods. In flat country it's probably not too energy intensive for a scooper to do two passes of a short dam.

"The aircraft requires 1,340 m (4,400 ft) of flyable area to descend from 15 m (49 ft) altitude, scoop 6,137 l (1,350 imp gal; 1,621 US gal) of water during a twelve-second 410-metre-long (1,350 ft) run on the water at 70 knots (130 km/h; 81 mph), then climb back to 15 m (49 ft) altitude. The aircraft can also pick up partial loads in smaller areas and can turn while scooping, if necessary.[9]"


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-415


www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/206/Ring_Tank_Guidelines.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Sometimes the wild ideas from outsiders provide the spark that's needed to get the experts thinking outside the box.

Yeah., sure. Sometimes they do provide the spark. Sometimes they even provide great solutions in themselves that others haven't thought of. Sometimes technology catches up and things that weren't feasible in the past become feasible. Sometimes they are just thought bubbles that don't have much substance behind them.

In this case, proposing artificial lakes in areas that are most likely very dry, has an obvious problem.

Sometimes the best solutions are incremental solutions where there are no giant leaps, just evolution of ideas.

Well, obviously in dry periods you use the water bombers to scoop up the dust out of the trenches and dump that on the fires. Should work just as well as fire retardant chemicals. And its natural, not like perfluoroalkyl substances or whatever has been put in the pink stuff. Won't look as good on the telly though.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Well, obviously in dry periods you use the water bombers to scoop up the dust out of the trenches and dump that on the fires. Should work just as well as fire retardant chemicals. And its natural, not like perfluoroalkyl substances or whatever has been put in the pink stuff. Won't look as good on the telly though.

No you truck in the water and land regular wheeled bombers in the trench. Then you can also truck in that pink stuff which retains a lot of its fire suppression qualities after the water has evaporated. Sums probably still don't work out any better than they did in the 80's. You're better off building fire breaks out there with the plentiful bulldozers.

Get on google earth and zoom in on Canada, the home of the CL415.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Well, obviously in dry periods you use the water bombers to scoop up the dust out of the trenches and dump that on the fires. Should work just as well as fire retardant chemicals. And its natural, not like perfluoroalkyl substances or whatever has been put in the pink stuff. Won't look as good on the telly though.

Ah yes, the gelatinous thick mud or hard-caked crust on the bottom of a dried-out dam would be lots of fun to scoop up at 80 knots. The aircrew that die in the crashes caused by trying to use the scoop on a dried-out trench will probably be luckier than those who may be a miracle survive, only to lynched by the firefighters who survive that crap being dropped near them.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Ian K said..
Sometimes the wild ideas from outsiders provide the spark that's needed to get the experts thinking outside the box.

Yeah., sure. Sometimes they do provide the spark. Sometimes they even provide great solutions in themselves that others haven't thought of. Sometimes technology catches up and things that weren't feasible in the past become feasible. Sometimes they are just thought bubbles that don't have much substance behind them.

In this case, proposing artificial lakes in areas that are most likely very dry, has an obvious problem.

Sometimes the best solutions are incremental solutions where there are no giant leaps, just evolution of ideas.

The history of invention is a fascinating area, but I can't remember when a wild idea that ignores reality has really led to a great solution. As you say, evolution is often better.

Sometime there are new solutions to old problems. Lets have a looks for example at Murray Basin massive fish extermination.Government hired university expert that come to obvious conclusion that fish die due to lack of oxygen. But unfortunately government didn't hired those universities to find solution to the problem. So bureaucratic clerks must have their own naive idea that throwing money on the problem will solve it.So let take millions of taxpayer money and give them to water right owners ( on paper only) so the WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the money. Give them money for not irrigating, regulation, abandoning planned agri production. Most water rights owner don't need even live in are as you could live in comfortable Sydney or Canberra apartment and have rights to all water flowing in our rivers. So apartment owner is now paid for this water free flowing in the river. What I would do, or advice for free : Lets provide more air to our rivers. In the same manner every aquarium owner or fish tank passionate aerate water in their tanks.Lets put air compressors , for them money wasted and aerated water in rivers artificially. If you aerate that water, cause mixing bottom layers with upper - suddenly all life return to our rivers without the need of extra flow. Aerobic bacteria will clean the water to become crystal clear as in mountain creeks. Equipment is already invented, for treatment plants efficient turbo air compressors that could be powered by solar panel to create sustainable infrastructure along our rivers at risk.Now there are benefit for both sides: farmers could utilize more water for irrigation, fisheries could capture more healthy fishes. We need to capture and sustain as much water and rain falling onto our Australian land, not to send the lot down the rivers as quickly as possible. We need not only irrigate but create artificial lakes, wetlands and channels across outback Australia.Humidity from those wetlands will prevent bushfires and will create additional rain falls.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Well don't be surprised if the sums work

There is now new ally that could help us to collect , store water inland.Energy.We obviously need to store energy produced in wind farms and solar farms. Since battery storage is far away to be economical at the scale requires we could go back to old proven technology. Pumping water storage. Recent study shown that topography of the country like USA or Australia allow to theoretically create such artificial storage at the amount the 100x exceed our actual energy production.!!!By investing in artificial water storage inland Australia we kill four kanguru with one stone/ resolve the problem: 1) prevent the flooding 2) minimize bushfires 3) contribute to new argi food production : fish farmings 4) give the jobs to people inland

energy.anu.edu.au/research/highlights/anu-finds-22000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-australia


At this moment in history we employ thousand of people , spend millions to fight bushfires and then restore lost property.
One day people could find everyday employment ( without that need for urgency or risk ) at national scale building works inland to build not only new solar farms but also water works projects. Those thousand of people could replace their firefighting trucks with buldozeds and diggers to do everyday work more enjoyable and predictive.
Families of the farmers inland complain about lack of employment , work opportunities beside their not so much effective farming .

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Fair go, why not respect other people?

You sound like a slave of any authority , dogmatism and superstitious thinking.I have only one master : it is LOGIC.If something is logically consistent that must exist somewhere in Universe, On the scale big or small. From distant border of Universe and remote galaxies to tiny quantum physics the LOGIC always wins. Even people like Albert Einstein could be sometimes wrong if their concept fail internal logic test.So my proposed solution are not even based on knowledge, because many people as your rightly observed has more comprehensive database encoded in brains already. But on the the logic presenting intuitive path how things may works ( or why they could not in another case)>

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..

Fair go, why not respect other people?

You sound like a slave of any authority , dogmatism and superstitious thinking.I have only one master : it is LOGIC.If something is logically consistent that must exist somewhere in Universe, On the scale big or small. From distant border of Universe and remote galaxies to tiny quantum physics the LOGIC always wins. Even people like Albert Einstein could be sometimes wrong if their concept fail internal logic test.So my proposed solution are not even based on knowledge, because many people as your rightly observed has more comprehensive database encoded in brains already. But on the the logic presenting intuitive path how things may works ( or why they could not in another case)>

No, I just don't think I'm better than everyone else, and I don't have such vicious contempt for other people as to think they are morons who have spent years ignoring the obvious.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
You sound like a slave of any authority , dogmatism and superstitious thinking.I have only one master : it is LOGIC.

Really?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Well don't be surprised if the sums work out and they do one day construct water scooping dams. Who'd have thought you could build and fill dams on the plains like the cotton farmers do. They're called ring dams. You can construct a 50 hectare one with 3 metres walls about 1.5 -2 metres water depth for $370,000. That's about 2.5 km of dam wall. If you stretch it out only 50 metres wide that's 1.2 km long. (yes gotta be flat country. )

Interesting idea. I am afraid that in our Australian conditions most of the water will escape through the ground even if you stand up 3 meters tall walls. But that present us with another opportunity to resolve another problem at same time.
We could use all plastic waste to create waterproof linings for those massive open water tanks.
Possibly most of the material to build those tanks could be sourced from waste. If we don't have enough our we could even allow to import those and get even paid for doing so. I imagine melted plastic bottles, reinforced with fibreglass matt. This way we could utilize plastic waste and mountains of unwanted glass.Round shape will be the obvious most economical to create. If we use smartly those rings , by utilizing local topography we could double or triple storage when our ring encircle natural land immersion.


Most of Australian land looks like that . Completely flat, waterless and useless. Greens may object that flooding those deserted areas could drown unique local cockroaches and scorpions.
Lets imagine Australia becoming leading world fish farming community. Properly utilized fish farm do produce more healthy food then cattle farm and even vegans could happier to consume those or just grow algea instead.
BTW I love people like Ian approach when instead of criticising everything , rather try to improve upon and may things works even better. To make things happen we need people it ingest, digest idea and spew improved workable plans, that another massive effort of masses to make this happen.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Really?

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Ian K said..
Well don't be surprised if the sums work

There is now new ally that could help us to collect , store water inland.Energy.We obviously need to store energy produced in wind farms and solar farms. Since battery storage is far away to be economical at the scale requires we could go back to old proven technology. Pumping water storage. Recent study shown that topography of the country like USA or Australia allow to theoretically create such artificial storage at the amount the 100x exceed our actual energy production.!!!By investing in artificial water storage inland Australia we kill four kanguru with one stone/ resolve the problem: 1) prevent the flooding 2) minimize bushfires 3) contribute to new argi food production : fish farmings 4) give the jobs to people inland

energy.anu.edu.au/research/highlights/anu-finds-22000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-australia


At this moment in history we employ thousand of people , spend millions to fight bushfires and then restore lost property.
One day people could find everyday employment ( without that need for urgency or risk ) at national scale building works inland to build not only new solar farms but also water works projects. Those thousand of people could replace their firefighting trucks with buldozeds and diggers to do everyday work more enjoyable and predictive.
Families of the farmers inland complain about lack of employment , work opportunities beside their not so much effective farming .

As the ANU says, that "22000 sites" map ignores many of the critical practical aspects like geology, commercial practicality, hydrology and other critical aspects. It is also an assessment for a completely different purpose.

I am looking at six of those "potential" sites out of my window as I sit here. The nearest one, two doors down, would need a dam wall of up to about 20m high from what I can see. That is a 5 gig storage. A nearby proposal involving far less construction is estimated at $40 to $60 mill. That dam would still be far too small for a scooper.

And spending all that cash on that spot would do nothing, because the same property has a waterhole that has already been assessed, and trialled, by the RFS. If it's not suitable for choppers then they can come up to my place, 600 metres away, which has already been assessed by the RFS as being suitable for choppers. That's because the RFS are not a bunch of morons who you can out-think on a lazy Sunday as you seem to think, but a knowledgeable bunch of smart guys who have spent years learning their stuff.

But you are ignoring the point that the pumped hydro map is irrelevant. We DO have dams - there are dams in the areas where pumped hydro is feasible. What we don't have is enough water. Your idea of long skinny trenches is impractical in many different ways.

Oh, and your earlier post where you said how easy it was to fix the rivers...... I've just spent part of my morning down along my creek talking with Water NSW staff about our battle with anabaena circularis. If it's so easy, I invite you to come up here now and show us all how it's done.

The reason the anabaena is running riot is because the creeks stopped running months ago. We can't release any water from the dam to flush the creek, because the dam is dry and full of hard-caked dirt. It's no use having storage if there is nothing to put in it. We can't just chuck more water in dams because that has other environmental side effects. Go tell the people downstream of the Snowy Mountains Scheme or Cubby Station that there's no problem in putting more water in dams.

I'm not sure of farmers complaining about lack of employment; as one guy put it in the irrigation shop on Sunday, the problem is that the fires will come before the rain does. But hey, their only problem is that they are morons and you are a god who knows everything.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..

Really?

So, Macro, what are your amazing feats in life?

There are people involved in bushfires who already take risks - far greater risk that Zuckerberg and you have ever taken, probably. They don't need your preaching and contempt.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

There are people involved in bushfires who already take risks - far greater risk that Zuckerberg

This is part of the problem. Those thousand of people do risk their life ( that is maybe/hypothetical) than sacrifice their health by inhaling smoke ( that is for sure).
But if we could do experiment and take two similar bush plots.
1.One piece - handle to one hundred and fifty brave sacrifices, chopping the wood with axes, burning then stopping fire with garden hoses
2. Give another plot to one of those three to manage entrepreneurs heroes . He will come with innovative solution. Each one may be different. a) Elon will blast fire with Falcon Raptor rocket carrying 150 tones of water b)Steve will plant apple trees that do not burn easyc) Mark will divide plot into 10,000 pieces with each one observed and manager remotely by webcams and managed by virtual players around the world. New virtual game online called Go Australia Bushfire. Each participant in the game will invest $1,000 into VR controlled drone and manage sector of the bush land. Small Phantom IV like drone operated from India remotely could superwise plot of land, spray weedkillers, seeds or water.You could even invent a game where one time is going to burn and another to save experimental plot of bush using those remotely operated VR drones flying or crowing, driving , robotic vehicles. People around the world then could subscribe to the team they like the most : savers or destructors. Fund them adequately or participate.This is important gama and skills because today people could manage the land remotely but tomorrow do the same on the surface or Moon or Mars. I have webcams already overlooking my farm 24h with access on the phone or computer anyplace in the world, Now I am looking at remotely operated switches and robotic devices to do something onsite while being 300 km away. To start with opening gates for paddocks, closing and opening water for though and irrigation, serving food grain from silos if needed. I am testing now solar powered tracker is SIM card and GPS to know exactly where leader cattle is exactly on Google maps. Device cost at this moment $100 each and require mobile data plan subscription, so I could not afford to equip whole herd, just a steer leader.