Bruce Schubert
|
Posted: January 08, 2010 17:17 by Bruce Schubert
|
|
Doug Campbell, the author of the Campbell Prediction System book, wrote in another thread: ".... I am thinking how to explain the design of BEHAVE and CPS so that folks looking at both systems understand the differences in use and design. The design of BEHAVE is to enable the user to calculate the fire behavior from the input list provided. It is general thinking that observing the actual fire behavior one should calibrate the model so that it agrees with the observation. I question the value of the thinking. Why chase the fire with a model?
Doug and I are working together on the development of this CPS software application. One of my primary objectives in this project is to associate the observed fire signatures with the computed BEHAVE outputs, and in a way, I would argue, "calibrate the existing fire". It is my intent to use Knowledge Discovery in Data (KDD) and Data Mining (DM) to analyze the combinations of fire signatures and BEHAVE outputs to identify when and where trigger points occur. A trigger point is a place on the terrain where a change the fire behavior will create either an opportunity for control or a fire danger. Trigger points affect the tactics that change the placement of resources -- to assure firefighter safety and the effective use of suppression resources. Thanks Doug for your insights and comments. -- Bruce Emxsys.com |
CPS vs BEHAVE
Replies: 0 - Last Post: January 08, 2010 17:17
by: Bruce Schubert
by: Bruce Schubert
showing 1 - 1 of 1
Replies: 0 - Last Post: January 08, 2010 17:17
by: Bruce Schubert
by: Bruce Schubert






