h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Instead of underground, I propose that a city's fire-fighting
water pipes be installed high up, like electrical lines. When
a fire is detected in a house, a pre-emptive heavy shower
on and around the house will keep it from spreading to
other buildings. It would also help keep down the smoke
and maybe help burned people leaving the building. Heavy
fines for spoofing the system for free lawn-watering.
To those who misunderstood: Please read the idea again. I
never said it would put out house fires, only prevent more
of them, keep down the smoke.. oh just read the thing. Its
up ^--there.
Fire hydrants
http://www.ccmr.cor...index.html?quid=396
[leinypoo13, Aug 15 2008]
[link]
|
| |
The source of the water to the pipes would have to be buried underground and activated in case of a fire or else they would freeze. Uh right? |
|
| |
Plus I read that fire fighting pipes are the same as municipal pipes so the pressure would be to low without a pump. |
|
| |
By the time that the outside of the house is engulfed, it's usually too late, which is why all buildings should have mandated sprinker systems, including houses. |
|
| |
Sprinking water on the house will pretty much be usesless, which is why firefighters are usually directing the water inside the house through a window, at the core of the fire. |
|
| |
//Sprinking water on the house will pretty much be usesless,// |
|
| |
- except in case of bush fires, which do attack houses from the outside, not the inside (and can sometimes reach cities). Though, even then, you'd want to detect a fire approaching a house, not a fire *in* the house. |
|
| |