My city is on fire again... can someone send a water mage?
Thanks,
Az
Just give me some vodka and you will be sure plenty of water soon enough I can summon from the ground itsself
sounds like a job for katara.
Yours too, Az? It must be catching.
Only, it's the city I work in that's caught fire. (last I heard, the leading edge was about 5-6 miles north east of our office)
vodka with fire? That's GENIOUS!!
*ahem*
But seriously, fire is just matter making bonds with oxygen, so what you need to do is to create a space around the fire without 0² and it will consume it's fuel.
-☺
Fire needs oxygen to burn... I know, take away all the oxygen! :3 That should do it.
Mind you, I was never very good at science. :B
*Wonders if RJ actually read Omega's post.* :lol
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 23, 2007, 08:13:36 AM
*Wonders if RJ actually read Omega's post.* :lol
:3 It was too science-y for my liking.
Quote from: RJ on October 23, 2007, 10:01:21 AM
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 23, 2007, 08:13:36 AM
*Wonders if RJ actually read Omega's post.* :lol
:3 It was too science-y for my liking.
Omegas post was alittle TL;DR
I don't like where all this sciency mumbo jumbo is going. :C
Quote from: Kenji on October 23, 2007, 11:03:48 AM
I don't like where all this sciency mumbo jumbo is going. :C
/me packs Kenji into llearch and ships the two to Azlan.
How about a Pyromaniac Pony?
You can't get rid of O2... you CAN, however, get rid of the carbon fuel.
It's called a fire-line. Make a wide-enough band of dirt, and let the fire consume up to that line but no further. It'll contain the fire if you can make it wide enough and long enough to halt advancement worth a damn.
Damn it, my bad. Double posted.
I got the terminology wrong but the idea right; it's a firebreak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak).
Well, you can get rid of the oxygen, it's possible, but I don't know where'd you'd get a container big enough or a pump strong enough to do it. :P
Your best bet might be to replace it with a different gas, but then the question would be where would you get that gas, and where would it go once you're done?
Replace it with dark matter. There's lots of that around! :3
We used to have fire problems in the NJ Pine Barrens, but then after one absolutely massive fire several decades ago that burned I believe 1.8 million acres, they decided to use annual controlled burns to keep brush from building up.
We've never had a major fire since. There's just not enough undergrowth to get out of control.
Quote from: Azlan on October 23, 2007, 12:52:33 AM
My city is on fire again... can someone send a water mage?
Thanks,
Az
Ok :)
*Summons waterfall*
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i100/shadrok1/other/waterfall.jpg)
Is that water or a fire retardant? :P
Quote from: Alondro on October 23, 2007, 10:24:44 PM
Replace it with dark matter. There's lots of that around! :3
We used to have fire problems in the NJ Pine Barrens, but then after one absolutely massive fire several decades ago that burned I believe 1.8 million acres, they decided to use annual controlled burns to keep brush from building up.
We've never had a major fire since. There's just not enough undergrowth to get out of control.
:B
California USED to do controlled burns until extreme eco-freaks got them banned for 'harming' nature.
Harming my butt! fire is natural, and it'll ahppen by lightning eventually if not be human intervention; it's going to burn eventually, do it in a controlled manner, ^&%^*%!
We don't do controlled fires, anymore? Since when? :O
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 24, 2007, 12:16:06 AM
Is that water or a fire retardant? :P
It's water.
I believe fire retardant is usually red. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hercules_C130_bombardier_d_eau_Californie.jpg)
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 24, 2007, 12:32:46 AM
We don't do controlled fires, anymore? Since when? :O
Since eco-freaks like Greenpeace and Sierra club decided that fires caused by Humans were "bad things."
We are having a similar problems out here where I am with eco-freaks getting in the way. A major city near me has a levee on the river front, in one state. The state on the other side of the river has no levee and is building on the riverfront. The Major city wants to take down the levee, since it hasn't been needed for decades. Actually, the last time the city flooded, it was because the canal flooded behind the levee, not the river itself over the levee.
Yet, the Corps Of Engineers, mostly made up of Sierra Club members around here, refuses to allow the levee to come down.
***
Another incident I am personally involved with involves a 48-acre plot of land, and a 12-acre plot of land separated by a city road. The land on both sides of the road is listed as navigable waters, which means you could put a boat down into the water. However, trust me, when I can walk on pinestraw and around 1 foot diameter trees, the land does not qualify as navigable. The Corps Of Engineers won't let us burn the undergrowth away either. We can gut it with lawn-mowers, tractors, and other tools, but no controlled fires.
***
Basically, I always used to the think the Corps Of Engineers were supposed to be the
good guys. I've found out personally that is far from the case, and that many of the natural fires that occur in the US today could have been avoided if Eco-Freaks were not in the way. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should trash the enviroment, not by any stretch of anybodies imagination, but there needs to be a balance struck between what we can do now, and what Nature can do if we don't do anything. As I see it, a lot of Eco-Freaks simply do not understand that concept.
My Sympathy is with you, Azlan...I do hope the feds stop that fire before we lose every piece of housing, property and shelter there in the State of California (and by we, I mean the United States).
Such devastation is going to cause so much anarchy or disorder...I can feel it.
But the radical Environmentalist really would like all humans dead, that is their preferred outcome.
Everything prevented is just one more step towards the final solution.
Quote from: Zorro on October 24, 2007, 01:16:15 AM
But the radical Environmentalist really would like all humans dead, that is their preferred outcome.
Everything prevented is just one more step towards the final solution.
think about it, isn't it better for everybody?
Quote from: Zorro on October 24, 2007, 01:16:15 AM
But the radical Environmentalist really would like all humans dead, that is their preferred outcome.
Everything prevented is just one more step towards the final solution.
They don't want every human dead. They just want to keep everything completely frozen in time since clearly the environment has never changed on its own :rolleyes.
Ironically enough, when I first saw the footage of the fires on tv, I thought 'hm... by the looks of it, they don't do any back-burning of the area around them'.
Quote from: RJ on October 23, 2007, 10:01:21 AM
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 23, 2007, 08:13:36 AM
*Wonders if RJ actually read Omega's post.* :lol
:3 It was too science-y for my liking.
Well, I
am a scientist, mind you. I didn't even used my native tongue.
Well, just look at this as a slightly uncontrolled burn, getting rid of all that undergrowth and the hippies that were breeding beneath it.
*Cartman* Goddamn hippies! >:O
Make a wish, and start blowing.
Quote from: Netrogo on October 24, 2007, 06:13:44 PM
Make a wish, and start blowing.
Quote
"You'll need," said Pig, "A lot of puff, and I don't think you've got enough."
Wolf huffed and puffed and blew and blew, the house stayed up as good as new.
"If I can't blow it down," Wolf said, "I'll have to blow it up, instead!
"I'll come back in the dead of night and blow it up with dynamite!"
Your rhymes blow. D:
Quote from: Kenji on October 24, 2007, 07:06:19 PM
Your rhymes blow. D:
Kid's got a point. It's true. *makes upward pointing gesture*
Quote from: Tapewolf on October 25, 2007, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: Kenji on October 24, 2007, 07:06:19 PM
Your rhymes blow. D:
I think it may be Roald Dahl.
I don't think Kenji was really worried about llearch's ego getting puffed up. Rather than taking the wind out of the box, I think he was blowing a little hot air of his own. >:3
Now if only someone could take the wind out of the weather for a day or two, we might be able to get those fires under control. That's one of the reasons we've been having a lot of trouble with some of the fires over here, there's been some strong Santa Ana winds. (for non SoCal residents, all of southern California is technically a desert; Santa Ana winds are hot, dry winds from the north east (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_wind).
Quote from: Tapewolf on October 25, 2007, 04:03:21 AM
Quote from: Kenji on October 24, 2007, 07:06:19 PM
Your rhymes blow. D:
I think it may be Roald Dahl.
Not only is it Roald Dahl, but it's two rhymes to a line. Which is not the way it was originally printed.
"You'll need," said Pig, "a lot of puff,
"and I don't think you've got enough."
Wolf huffed and puffed and blew and blew,
the house stayed up as good as new.
etc.
Of course, it might help if I had a copy of the book handy, as I haven't seen it in, oh, 3-4 years...
Ok, even though magic is supposed to be evil and stuff, I'll do it anyway!
I'm not sure about which spell to use, but here we go anyway!
:wizfire
*and the forest fires spread to Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho*
Uhm... oopsie? :eek *flees!*
Quote from: Alondro on October 25, 2007, 12:09:58 PM
*and the forest fires spread to Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho*
If it totals Redmond, it may be a price worth paying.
Nevada? There's nothing there to burn. :P
... I think this is probably bad that part of me is hoping Utah gets some fires...
(die SCO... DIE)
ehehe... scuse me... I seem to be having nervous fits here.
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on October 25, 2007, 07:07:29 PM
Nevada? There's nothing there to burn. :P
Unless you use a nuclear match.
that fire is even making news here in NZ. And, to add to the irony, we had a local greenie talk scathingly about how their lack of preparedness and foresight (i.e. not performing controlled burns) Has put vast tracts of wildlife at risk.
gofigure.
Quote from: Feroluce on October 26, 2007, 12:33:37 AM
that fire is even making news here in NZ. And, to add to the irony, we had a local greenie talk scathingly about how their lack of preparedness and foresight (i.e. not performing controlled burns) Has put vast tracts of wildlife at risk.
gofigure.
Oh yeah because naturally everyone should prepare for the stuff that rarely happens, like widespread fires and meteor strikes. Seriously preparing is good but if stuff like this is gonna happen it's going to happen, and the guy who lives in new york with the volcano insurance plan is not going to be laughing when it happens, he'll be dead like everyone else.
Actually, this sort of stuff does happen quite a bit. :/ The fires, that is.
Quote from: Netrogo on October 26, 2007, 01:47:39 AM
Quote from: Feroluce on October 26, 2007, 12:33:37 AM
that fire is even making news here in NZ. And, to add to the irony, we had a local greenie talk scathingly about how their lack of preparedness and foresight (i.e. not performing controlled burns) Has put vast tracts of wildlife at risk.
gofigure.
Oh yeah because naturally everyone should prepare for the stuff that rarely happens, like widespread fires and meteor strikes. Seriously preparing is good but if stuff like this is gonna happen it's going to happen, and the guy who lives in new york with the volcano insurance plan is not going to be laughing when it happens, he'll be dead like everyone else.
Yeah, because large scale fires taht occur every five years or so aren't anything to worry about.
1997, 2003, 2007, and those are just major fires.
Wildfires are a natural occurance,a nd they are good for the environment over the long run. They clear away old, dead material, making room for new growth. They are required for the seeds of some trees to germinate.
The material burning out there is dry and easily flamable. It's not a question of if, but of when, and it's simply not feasible to clear it by hand.
Controlled burning is just that, a controlled wildfire, and it consumes the material that would otherwise feed a raging inferno. It gives the ecological benifits of wildfires, deprives uncontrolled fires of fuel, and it's
controlled.
Interestingly, the Ash Wednesday fires in Australia in 1983 (ah... picture a fire that moves faster than a running fire-truck, burns the ground into ash to a depth of a foot or more, throws chunks of burning material 2km ahead of the fire front, vaporises swimming pools, and explodes trees. And that's just a brief overview.) brought this somewhat to the forefront of scientific enquiry.
They figured out that much of the life cycle of the gum tree depends on being burnt off every so often. And, as I understand it, that's pretty much most of the bush in South Australia. Part of the reason that the fires were so bad was that they'd stopped doing controlled burnoffs some years previously, and the undergrowth, some of which could hardly be designed to be more burnable, had a chance to build up.
(rough figures: 82,500 hectares of public land, 120,000 hectares of private land. In ONE DAY. That's a -big- fire.)
I remember the 1983 Ash Wednesday fire... the flames got very close to our house. As in RIGHT OUTSIDE MY BEDROOM WINDOW.
No, I am not exaggerating.