h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
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,
|
|
|
Every year there are massive wildfires that destroy huge amounts of forests and in some cases whole neighborhoods. I'm thinking of the western US in particular. I propose that strategery placed walls made of Kevlar reinforced fireproof material be put in place. These would be laid out in an accordion
like fashion between cement pylons. I'm thinking huge, tall enough that if pulled straight up a large fire couldn't get past. These Walls would be pulled up by balloons, the top of the wall would be anchored every so many feet by cables making an inverted V this will keep the wall from blowing down. This of course will be expensive but if it was used first in these million+ dollar home areas insurance companies could pick up the tab . And yes I have thought about covering a house with this material and filling it with inert gas but the wall method has more utility. Once the pylons are in place sections of walls could be moved as needed.
Butane-powered firewall for PC modders
Butane-powered_20fi...0for_20PC_20modders
Another "real firewall" idea [hippo, Oct 13 2006]
[link]
|
| |
How many miles of horrifically expensive kevlar-reinforced firewall are you proposing? |
|
| |
I'd think even mile-wide firebreaks would be cheaper. Couple of D-11's with chains on, and wey-ho, three or four passes and you're done. It's the passive-aggressive approach: knock down trees so they can't burn down. |
|
| |
I'm sure this would be faster than a traditional fire break, also if traditional breaks worked so well wouldn't these fires cease to be a problem? As far as cost once the pylons are in place and the first couple of miles are paid for the cost is only for moving and erecting them. |
|
| |
The fires are only a problem when people build houses of flammable materials in stupid places. |
|
| |
Your fire fences are just going to serve to trap wildlife in the fire. (-) |
|
| |
New Orleans was not "built below sea level". It was above sea level when the city was founded. The soil in that area tends to subside and be regenerated with silt during annual floods. Of course the first thing people do in these sort of areas is build levees to keep the floods from getting in their houses and fields. Over the past 500 years New Orleans has continued to settle and the levees have been built higher and higher. |
|
| |
Oh, and building a city where New Orleans (or pretty nearby) was pretty much inevitable. Coastal ships coming up from Spanish Mexico, or across from the English Gulf Coast, or across the ocean from the Caribbean and Europe, plus boats from the Interior, some from as far away as French Canada. There was going to be a city there, even if the place was under water and on fire simultaneously. |
|
| |
"I have thought about covering a house with this material and filling it with inert gas " What the f*ck for? The assertion that "the wall method has more utility" might hold true in the Land of Make Believe, but here on Planet Earth, we use "utility" to express and element of usefulness, possibly coupled with practicality of implementation and application. I think you meant "futility".
;) |
|
| |
"I have thought about covering a house with this material and filling it with inert gas " What the f*ck for? The assertion that "the wall method has more utility" might hold true in the Land of Make Believe, but here on Planet Earth, we use "utility" to express the concept of an element of usefulness, possibly coupled with practicality of implementation and application. I think you meant "futility".
;) |
|
| |
<i> but what do you do if the fire starts inside the wall?</i> |
|
| |
Just take the end of the fence and twist it 180 degrees to topographically exchange the inside and outside. |
|
| |
You'd have to have something that would stop airbourne embers too, some of which can reach a fair height when carried by the intenses winds generated by these fires. |
|
| |
The walls themselves would also have to withstand the often hurricane force winds generated by fire storms. |
|
| |
Allot of negative feedback, sorry I didn't complete my economic feasibility study or get an ecological assessment from the EPA but i didn't know that was required to submit an idea. Your right I guess I should have made the wealthy people move out of their hazardous living areas and stop making a profit off of the rest of our insurance premiums every time their houses burn down. By the way I forgot to mention this wall also functions as a 'Umbrage-ella'. |
|
| |
Another point for consideration is that forest fires are actually beneficial, in the long run, to the wellbeing of the forest. Helps to clear stifling undergrowth and promote soil fertility if I remember the National Geo article correctly.
Nice use of "umbrage" by the way [pydor] but try not to take the criticism personally. Experience shows that bakers aren't generally anti-newb, just anti-bad idea, and this one isn't great. |
|
| |
Just thought it was worth noting that these firewalls would have to be colossally tall as to prevent smoking firey embers from floating over the top and catching alight the pleasant tranquil countryside beyond. Which is how these fires spread so quickly. |
|
| |
//The fires are only a problem when people build houses of flammable materials in stupid places. Your fire fences are just going to serve to trap wildlife in the fire. // |
|
| |