(02-25-2022, 10:44 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Yep. I just picked up my food from Barleycorn's in Lakeside Park and on the way home i thought, "hmm. if it could be built, how many places could it be used", so i spent the whole drive home looking at houses and apartments and i did not see one single  structure that could have been completely sealed by any kind of enclosure. 

And don't forget. Electric power lines run from the street to every building as well as satellite/cable wires and in some places, phone lines. 

Even if something could be built, which would be very hard and cost mounds of money on the part alone, it could not be used anywhere.

Should have stopped by my place to chat or it's only a short roll from my place 



I think it would work on my house and most houses on my street.

Maybe they could even make it adjustable to fit sizes of different houses.

Even if you got the dome over the fire it would still burn until all oxygen under the dome was consumed. If somehow you could seal it and the fire runs out of oxygen you still risk an explosion when you lift the dome off and introduce all of that oxygen to unburned gasses and fuel.

Also, you would still need firefighters to go in and try to check for/rescue people who may be trapped inside before dropping the dome.

Giant sheet of shrink wrap that can be spread over the burning building with inexpensive drones.  It falls over the structure and shrinks around it forming an airtight seal.  Smothers the flames in minutes.

This technology already exists, but the firemens unions are so powerful they are keeping it off the market.

(02-25-2022, 03:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1. Outside of the fire house or wherever a helicopter is kept.

2. The shape of the houses don't matter as long as you have case big enough.

3. It wouldn't work on every house, so does that mean you shouldn't use it on the houses it does work on?

4. Construction companies? Not sure on cost but the money it could save would make it worth it.

5. See 3.

6. See 3 and 5.

7. The government. A normal helicopter would hopefully be able to carry it.

8. The glass case could be kept near the helicopter and even hooked up at all times. Even if it's not connected at all times, a few clamps and it's ready to go. Also, helicopters can fly at 120+ miles per hour. If it's a small house fire, obviously it wouldn't be needed, but it sometimes takes firefighters hours to put out house fires, so this would cut down on time by a great deal.

9. They'd obviously have to get people out first.

10. Like what? Unless there's a tornado or hurricane, why would weather matter.

You wouldn't need to fly around helicopters all the time because how often is there a house fire that would require it?

Not hauling a big arse giant glass dome they can't. You would have to have perfectly flat ground around the house to get an airtight seal. Not going to happen. And you have to have special pilots to haul loads like that, the regular helicopter pilot won't have that rating=big money. 

You're dreaming about an outrageously expensive proposition since houses are hardly all one size fits all. It's FAR less expensive to let it burn down and rebuild than the expense of custom sized glass domes not to mention the expense of transporting the glass in the first place and one small crack? All bets are off.. Water is far cheaper than glass.. Not to mention who wants a bunch of HUMONGOUS glass domes all over town? Are you trying to make millions of unemployed carpenters? 

Quote:1. Outside of the fire house or wherever a helicopter is kept.

2. The shape of the houses don't matter as long as you have case big enough.

3. It wouldn't work on every house, so does that mean you shouldn't use it on the houses it does work on?

4. Construction companies? Not sure on cost but the money it could save would make it worth it.

5. See 3.

6. See 3 and 5.

7. The government. A normal helicopter would hopefully be able to carry it.

8. The glass case could be kept near the helicopter and even hooked up at all times. Even if it's not connected at all times, a few clamps and it's ready to go. Also, helicopters can fly at 120+ miles per hour. If it's a small house fire, obviously it wouldn't be needed, but it sometimes takes firefighters hours to put out house fires, so this would cut down on time by a great deal.

9. They'd obviously have to get people out first.

10. Like what? Unless there's a tornado or hurricane, why would weather matter.

Quote:(02-25-2022, 10:43 am)TecmoBengals Wrote:It's all about the Benjamins baby. Innovative ideas often cost money and a public service couldn't keep up with the costs of flying around helicopters and everything else you proposed.

You wouldn't need to fly around helicopters all the time because how often is there a house fire that would require it?

1. About the only possible efficient location would be a rural area. Large cities usually have multi floor buildings You gonna build cases for an 80 story building?
2. Shape definitely matters If the building(s) have just one section far taller you run into the problem of not enough oxygen burning off in time. You might put out fire in top floors while lower floors continue to burn long after you think the rest if has to burn off efficiently otherwise you're wasting your time. This could also lead to super hot spots. Perhaps pumping water in with the case,dome or whatever, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the case. There are just way too many unknown variables not taken into account.
3. There is already a proven method for putting out fires. In most places they call it water, aqua, etc.. Why fix what ain't broken?
4 I'm sure construction companies would love the loss of revenue so much they would probably stop building anything entirely..
5-?.. At this point I'm losing track of numbers, but it sure is mighty convenient to ignore all exterior items such as landscaping, trees especially. We have a lot of yellow pines here that would have to be cut down before the place even catches on fire not to mention brush here grows like weeds. A crape myrtle can grow up to and over 10 feet in one season. Suppose you have several fires all on the same day..That's happening more and more often.. Power lines? Houses built on the sides of hills and mountains? What do you tell those residents? Sorry? We no longer put out fires on hilly landscape?

?..





Even so, with that many fires, it seems like this would be a great idea if it works. That's quite an assumption. As a tax payer, and we have quite a few around the nation I wouldn't settle for IF IT WORKS. There are already more reasons against this stroke of genius so in my book you would have to put up all the money upfront out of your own pocket to prove it works first and assume all risk and lawsuits if it doesn't work.. Can you buy SEVERAL THOUSAND helicopters and all the glass cases. Thinking something is a great idea and it actually being a great idea are not mutually exclusive.I know this because i nearly went into bankruptcy a few times as a young, dumb and full of cum 20 something year old myself and creditors are not particularly sympathetic when your idea fails. As my father often told me sympathy is between shit and syphilis in dictionaries,,











Once again aqua is a proven method. A giant glass case is not..







10. just a mildly strong wind would make it very difficult to land such a case

You're really great as vastly underestimating several environmental considerations.





In conclusion go back to the old drawing board and keep trying. I have nothing against you having new ideas. The very majority of new ideas by a HUGE margin are simply failures. Nothing to be ashamed of, but unless you can fund your new ideas or just catch lightning in a thimble the odds of success are not as good as you think.. Bankruptcy court is often full of great failures..  Something else Brad..There is no shame to being wrong, however refusing to admit to being wrong when you clearly are wrong can often carry a lot of shame. It would serve you well to learn the difference. 

(02-25-2022, 03:27 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's late so let me know if that's a stupid idea but tell me why it wouldn't work if you think it's stupid.

It's a stupid idea. Not because it wouldn't work in theory, but because it's not feasible. 

(03-08-2022, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's a stupid idea. Not because it wouldn't work in theory, but because it's not feasible.

Think its time to start the definitive 'what makes an idea stupid' thread so it can be stickied and referred to in the future.

(03-08-2022, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's a stupid idea. Not because it wouldn't work in theory, but because it's not feasible. 

It would not work because most yards around a house are not totally flat thus no way to make a seal.  So even if said glass bubble was large enough and dropped over a house there would be no real air seal to cut off oxygen supply.  I'm not an engineer and know little about thermodynamics but I wonder if the air was not totally sealed off due to uneven terrain maybe leaks would increase airflow from the unsealed areas and that might indeed fuel the fire sort of like many furnaces while the fire sucked in air from said leaks to fuel the fire. Thus making the fire more intense and possibly worse.  Fires suck in air and if it can't be totally sealed off then they are going to find a source to fuel the furnace and I wonder if it might actually make the fire more intense.

Anyway I am bored so made this bad picture:



Either way it would never work. It would probably take a helicopter with a carrying capacity close to a Chinook to not only carry said glass container but also deal with the drag the huge glass container imposed on the aircraft.

So let's review shall we? 
A. Really bad idea from jump
B.. OP will likely never become your local fire chief and if so MOVE QUICKLY as far away as possible..

I think I covered everything..