That's what killed the idea for me,when I thought of it years ago.
Originally Posted by KG4RRH
If you could cover the fire with really deep down earth,it would possibly work,but that would be impractical,so that leaves the topsoil,& as you say,a lot of the stuff in that is flammable,& as I noted in my original posting,may (would) make things worse.
Oh well,it seemed like a good idea!
At least on this planet, hydrogen isn't really a fuel. It's an energy storage method at best.
Originally Posted by G0GQK
This is because hydrogen doesn't occur naturally on earth by itself. It's always part of something else, such as water (H2O), methane (CH4), other hydrocarbons, etc.
There are two ways to obtain hydrogen by itself on earth, but both have big problems.
The first way is to take a hydrocarbon (say, methane) and process it to split off the hydrogens. This process works - but if you've got methane already, why not use it as-is?
The second way is to take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen in an electrolytic cell. This process works too - but it takes a lot of energy. In fact, it takes more energy than you'll get back when the hydrogen is burned!
Sorry, but the physics and chemistry are against it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Maybe rocks could be separated from the ground dirt, and then the separated rocks pulverized into dust clouds that would smother the wildfires out.