Jump to content

Southern CA Fires- Extreme Santa Ana Winds


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I think analysis of the various public policy decisions that led to this point will be quite interesting, which is why I posted what I thought was a pretty fair article. As someone whose family and friends lost their houses in the Palisades fire, my antenna were raised to any bs. I also provided what I thought was a very neutral description. I'm skeptical of NIMBYs in as general a sense that can possibly be framed though so perhaps I missed seeing a bias that you see. 

If anything it seems like less density and more fire breaks would have only increased the price of housing in that area, while also cutting against public support for additional infrastructure. 

 

I too have family, friends, and employees who lost their homes or have been displaced during this mess.  It's a tragedy. 

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for lower density, just pointing out that the only thing that can potentially contain a wildfire like that is fire breaks, and when housing is piled up that becomes nearly impossible unless they're built into development plans.  

Edited by Samson's Wig
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I too have family, friends, and employees who lost their homes or have been displaced during this mess.  It's a tragedy. 

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for lower density, just pointing out that the only thing that can potentially contain a wildfire like that is fire breaks, and when housing is piled up that becomes nearly impossible unless they're built into development plans.  

Correct.  If you were to give anyone with any expertise in wildfires a map of these areas pre-development, and said "now, build me a neighborhood that isn't vulnerable to wildfire," the FIRST thing they'd tell you is "that can't be done."  If you dialed back your request to "okay, build me a neighborhood that is defensible and much less likely to all burn up in a wildfire," then the #1 and #2 moves would be lower density and firebreaks.  Then some things with lesser returns, like no wooden fences and sealed attics, and a higher density of hydrants fed by larger water storage.  And regular vegetation management activities and budget (to maintain firebreaks and limit fuel in areas that aren't firebreaks).

Shit can be done.  None of it makes anything mother nature-proof.  But those things can mitigate the harm.  But then, those things are incompatible with 1) supplier demand for profit, and 2) consumer demand for more houses in the nice neighborhood.  And, they cost money.

We don't do planning.

Just reacting and fingerpointing.  Those are our things.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I too have family, friends, and employees who lost their homes or have been displaced during this mess.  It's a tragedy. 

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for lower density, just pointing out that the only thing that can potentially contain a wildfire like that is fire breaks, and when housing is piled up that becomes nearly impossible unless they're built into development plans.  

Yes, exactly, I've seen to word "fortifications" used over the past couple weeks. 

Having read a couple of weeks ago that the native oak trees help slow or resist fire, I'll be especially interested to learn the impact of non-native vegetation and whether there's any related recommended policy changes. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  If you were to give anyone with any expertise in wildfires a map of these areas pre-development, and said "now, build me a neighborhood that isn't vulnerable to wildfire," the FIRST thing they'd tell you is "that can't be done."  If you dialed back your request to "okay, build me a neighborhood that is defensible and much less likely to all burn up in a wildfire," then the #1 and #2 moves would be lower density and firebreaks.  Then some things with lesser returns, like no wooden fences and sealed attics, and a higher density of hydrants fed by larger water storage.  And regular vegetation management activities and budget (to maintain firebreaks and limit fuel in areas that aren't firebreaks).

Shit can be done.  None of it makes anything mother nature-proof.  But those things can mitigate the harm.  But then, those things are incompatible with 1) supplier demand for profit, and 2) consumer demand for more houses in the nice neighborhood.  And, they cost money.

We don't do planning.

Just reacting and fingerpointing.  Those are our things.

You're not wrong in principle, but in Altadena, we're talking neighborhoods that were over 100 years old. This wasn't some recent, ill-advised development.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

You're not wrong in principle, but in Altadena, we're talking neighborhoods that were over 100 years old. This wasn't some recent, ill-advised development.

Oh, definitely a fair point re Altadena, and plenty of other areas.  In plenty of cases, we built/developed without being fully aware of/preparing for the risks.  Shit happens, that's no small part of things.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

You're not wrong in principle, but in Altadena, we're talking neighborhoods that were over 100 years old. This wasn't some recent, ill-advised development.

Yep, someone posted a video from what looked to be the 50's or 60's showing how deadly and unpredictable the Santa Ana winds are and how they threaten all the surrounding communities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houses in California fire zones need to be rebuilt out of concrete - there are numerous products from cinder blocks to insulated concrete forms. The land is already so expensive it can be economically viable. And you really can’t tell except at doors and windows where the exterior walls are 15-18 inches deep. Reduce the use of flammable materials, full stop. Not sure the impact from earth quakes. Energy efficiency would soar. 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Hydrants are not designed to battle widescale wildfires burning through neighborhoods.  The winds and the speed of spread was just way to much to battle.  And air drops weren't possible in those winds

Yeah, this seems obvious.  A single house, maybe an adjacent house or two, but at some point the water flow just isn't enough when an entire neighborhood is burning.  People WANT that level of protection but they sure don't want to pay for it.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, troph said:

Houses in California fire zones need to be rebuilt out of concrete - there are numerous products from cinder blocks to insulated concrete forms. The land is already so expensive it can be economically viable. And you really can’t tell except at doors and windows where the exterior walls are 15-18 inches deep. Reduce the use of flammable materials, full stop. Not sure the impact from earth quakes. Energy efficiency would soar. 

I was thinking about that and wondered how fire resistant the 3D printed concrete houses are.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, troph said:

Houses in California fire zones need to be rebuilt out of concrete - there are numerous products from cinder blocks to insulated concrete forms. The land is already so expensive it can be economically viable. And you really can’t tell except at doors and windows where the exterior walls are 15-18 inches deep. Reduce the use of flammable materials, full stop. Not sure the impact from earth quakes. Energy efficiency would soar. 

 

I was going to post something similar, but wasn't sure how it would go over. 100 year old homes on small lots is a recipe for disaster in fire prone regions. ICF, steel construction, or even polyurethane SIPs with fiber cement board siding and non-wood shingles would perform better.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

I was going to post something similar, but wasn't sure how it would go over. 100 year old homes on small lots is a recipe for disaster in fire prone regions. ICF, steel construction, or even polyurethane SIPs with fiber cement board siding and non-wood shingles would perform better.

No fault re what was there, compassion and sorrow for what was lost, but we have to build back with more resilience.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, troph said:

Our house is ICF and stucco exterior with a metal roof and we were denied coverage by all but one insurer and rates went up 70-80% year over year. Nothing is insurable anymore.

My parents had to resort to the CA Fair Plan for their all stucco exterior with clay tile roof. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a ton of fire-resistant building materials and claddings out there - anything suitable for type I or II construction (and even heavy and mass timber due to the fire protection obtained through char rate). Don't use insulated metal panels for external cladding even though they're allowed; that shit burns. Any exterior insulation - a good idea - should be mineral wool ("fluffy rocks") or other non-combustible material. Avoid having attics and soffits that need venting - again, this can be accomplished by exterior insulation or otherwise keeping them within the building envelope as conditioned (heated) space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, troph said:

Houses in California fire zones need to be rebuilt out of concrete - there are numerous products from cinder blocks to insulated concrete forms. The land is already so expensive it can be economically viable. And you really can’t tell except at doors and windows where the exterior walls are 15-18 inches deep. Reduce the use of flammable materials, full stop. Not sure the impact from earth quakes. Energy efficiency would soar. 

That sounds reasonable but that is not going to happen. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UTGrad98 said:

My wife's parent's house in Mexico is built entirely out of concrete, including the roof. I think only the front door is wood. Sliding glass doors in the back. Built almost 40 years ago.

Yep. About the only place you'd see a wooden building in Mexico-- and rare at that-- is in a border town.

I got to see a ton of house building in Colima in 2003 right after an earthquake. They'd build square pillars (castillos) out of brick, put cinder block walls between them, and do the roof in concrete as well. Leave a little "garden" thingy with a separate roof on it, you have some kids and pop that off, garden becomes the staircase for the new second story.

Top it all off with some heavy plastic Moorish trimmings, you're in business.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked into the amount of water required to put out a house fire.  It turns out the National Fire Academy has developed a simple rule of thumb:  gallons = square footage divided by 3.  So, a typical 1800 sf house would require 600 gallons to extinguish a fire.  Obviously, there is a lot of variability there.

Stick a 1K gallon tank on everyone's lot, with a pump and some long hose runs.  The government could potentially subsidize the cost for the homeowner, it would be akin to buying a backup generator to guard against long power outages (ahem).  Let the homeowner or even firefighters deal with fighting fires, but at least there would be some infrastructure in place.  Such a tank is ~ 5 ft dia and less than 7 feet tall.  It's not exactly offensive looking, especially behind a fence.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I looked into the amount of water required to put out a house fire.  It turns out the National Fire Academy has developed a simple rule of thumb:  gallons = square footage divided by 3.  So, a typical 1800 sf house would require 600 gallons to extinguish a fire.  Obviously, there is a lot of variability there.

Stick a 1K gallon tank on everyone's lot, with a pump and some long hose runs.  The government could potentially subsidize the cost for the homeowner, it would be akin to buying a backup generator to guard against long power outages (ahem).  Let the homeowner or even firefighters deal with fighting fires, but at least there would be some infrastructure in place.  Such a tank is ~ 5 ft dia and less than 7 feet tall.  It's not exactly offensive looking, especially behind a fence.

 

A residential fire sprinkler system uses between 10 and 26 gallons of water per minute. The amount of water used depends on the size and type of sprinkler head. The goal is to spray at least 0.05 gallons of water per minute per square foot of floor area. Fire hoses use much more water than fire sprinklers, with an average flow of 95 to 200 gallons per minute.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bevo said:

A residential fire sprinkler system uses between 10 and 26 gallons of water per minute. The amount of water used depends on the size and type of sprinkler head. The goal is to spray at least 0.05 gallons of water per minute per square foot of floor area. Fire hoses use much more water than fire sprinklers, with an average flow of 95 to 200 gallons per minute.

I'm well aware.  I'm just citing the rule of thumb proposed by the National Fire Academy.  Take it up with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, flatdawgs said:

There are a ton of fire-resistant building materials and claddings out there - anything suitable for type I or II construction (and even heavy and mass timber due to the fire protection obtained through char rate). Don't use insulated metal panels for external cladding even though they're allowed; that shit burns. Any exterior insulation - a good idea - should be mineral wool ("fluffy rocks") or other non-combustible material. Avoid having attics and soffits that need venting - again, this can be accomplished by exterior insulation or otherwise keeping them within the building envelope as conditioned (heated) space.

Being a well-known idiot here, I will ask my idiot question: if a big threat is embers entering an attic via attic ventilation (and assuming that embers have a brief lifespan when small and are more of a threat when larger and will stay lit long enough to touch something else off), is there a screen - or maybe two consecutive screens - of sufficiently small diameter that would not let in embers large enough to successfully land in your attic and start a fire, while allowing hot air to escape.  

Or there be some sort of sliding or drop-down shutter that will completely cover the ventilated section of your attic when some sensor notices a change in temperature or brightness from nearby fires - or receive some code via your security system from government official saying you are now in an evacuation warning zone.

I guess with modern technology, I’m wondering why attic vents can’t be designed in a way to drastically limit the access of embers of sufficient size and duration entering a home to cause a fire in your attic?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Or there be some sort of sliding or drop-down shutter that will completely cover the ventilated section of your attic

I'm a mechanical engineer but I don't do HVAC.  It seems to me this is the right angle of pursuit.  Vents are incorporated for a variety of reasons, but energy efficiency (keeping the attic cool, etc.) are a big part of that.  Personally, I feel like my not-quite-as-cool attic is a better choice than attic-on-fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Being a well-known idiot here, I will ask my idiot question: if a big threat is embers entering an attic via attic ventilation (and assuming that embers have a brief lifespan when small and are more of a threat when larger and will stay lit long enough to touch something else off), is there a screen - or maybe two consecutive screens - of sufficiently small diameter that would not let in embers large enough to successfully land in your attic and start a fire, while allowing hot air to escape.  

Or there be some sort of sliding or drop-down shutter that will completely cover the ventilated section of your attic when some sensor notices a change in temperature or brightness from nearby fires - or receive some code via your security system from government official saying you are now in an evacuation warning zone.

I guess with modern technology, I’m wondering why attic vents can’t be designed in a way to drastically limit the access of embers of sufficient size and duration entering a home to cause a fire in your attic?

 

 

https://flash.org/mitigation/protect-your-eaves-soffits-vents-and-gutters-from-wildfire/

 

Remove debris from your gutters, soffits, and vents, such as leaves, twigs, and branches.
Install fine mesh screens over your vents, gutters, soffits, fireplace chimneys, and the underside of above-ground decks to keep embers out. Use non-combustible mesh no larger than 1/8 inch in size.
Enclose eaves, fascia, and soffits with noncombustible materials to reduce the size of the vents or openings to prevent firebrands from entering the structure.
Do not use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or vinyl siding; they can melt in a wildfire and allow embers to enter the attic space.
Consider a home design without or with minimal overhangs to avoid the potential fire risks with soffits and the potential for trapping embers and hot gases. If you have a roof overhang or large overhang, take the following steps:
Use soffits rated for minimum one-hour fire resistance. This will help stop embers and hot gases from making contact with the joists, rafters, trusses, or the underside of the roof decking.
Use flat, horizontal soffits instead of attaching the soffits to the sloped joists.
Use noncombustible or fire-resistant fascia materials.
Seal any gaps or cracks around your eaves, soffits, and vents with a fire-resistant sealant. This will prevent embers from entering your home through these openings.
Use fire-resistant materials for eaves, soffits, and vents. Metal, cement, or stucco can be good choices.
Use noncombustible materials for gutters and downspouts, as those fabricated from galvanized steel, copper, and aluminum will not ignite.
Install non-combustible leaf guards over gutters, including metal-mesh screens and hood types. As debris can still accumulate on top of the leaf guards, clean them regularly and remove all debris.
Never plant trees under your roof overhangs. Trim back any existing trees and branches that drape over your roof and eaves.
Keep a defensible space around your home by clearing any ignitable materials, such as dry leaves or branches, within 30 feet of your home.
Take all these steps to protect your eaves, gutters, soffits, and vents, and you will reduce the risk of your home igniting during a wildfire.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

https://flash.org/mitigation/protect-your-eaves-soffits-vents-and-gutters-from-wildfire/

 

Remove debris from your gutters, soffits, and vents, such as leaves, twigs, and branches.
Install fine mesh screens over your vents, gutters, soffits, fireplace chimneys, and the underside of above-ground decks to keep embers out. Use non-combustible mesh no larger than 1/8 inch in size.
Enclose eaves, fascia, and soffits with noncombustible materials to reduce the size of the vents or openings to prevent firebrands from entering the structure.
Do not use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or vinyl siding; they can melt in a wildfire and allow embers to enter the attic space.
Consider a home design without or with minimal overhangs to avoid the potential fire risks with soffits and the potential for trapping embers and hot gases. If you have a roof overhang or large overhang, take the following steps:
Use soffits rated for minimum one-hour fire resistance. This will help stop embers and hot gases from making contact with the joists, rafters, trusses, or the underside of the roof decking.
Use flat, horizontal soffits instead of attaching the soffits to the sloped joists.
Use noncombustible or fire-resistant fascia materials.
Seal any gaps or cracks around your eaves, soffits, and vents with a fire-resistant sealant. This will prevent embers from entering your home through these openings.
Use fire-resistant materials for eaves, soffits, and vents. Metal, cement, or stucco can be good choices.
Use noncombustible materials for gutters and downspouts, as those fabricated from galvanized steel, copper, and aluminum will not ignite.
Install non-combustible leaf guards over gutters, including metal-mesh screens and hood types. As debris can still accumulate on top of the leaf guards, clean them regularly and remove all debris.
Never plant trees under your roof overhangs. Trim back any existing trees and branches that drape over your roof and eaves.
Keep a defensible space around your home by clearing any ignitable materials, such as dry leaves or branches, within 30 feet of your home.
Take all these steps to protect your eaves, gutters, soffits, and vents, and you will reduce the risk of your home igniting during a wildfire.

 

Thanks for the reply.  I would assume in the destroyed areas we will see a future wildfire version of Miami-Dade hurricane building code requirements for areas prone to wildfire. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Being a well-known idiot here, I will ask my idiot question: if a big threat is embers entering an attic via attic ventilation (and assuming that embers have a brief lifespan when small and are more of a threat when larger and will stay lit long enough to touch something else off), is there a screen - or maybe two consecutive screens - of sufficiently small diameter that would not let in embers large enough to successfully land in your attic and start a fire, while allowing hot air to escape.  

Or there be some sort of sliding or drop-down shutter that will completely cover the ventilated section of your attic when some sensor notices a change in temperature or brightness from nearby fires - or receive some code via your security system from government official saying you are now in an evacuation warning zone.

I guess with modern technology, I’m wondering why attic vents can’t be designed in a way to drastically limit the access of embers of sufficient size and duration entering a home to cause a fire in your attic?

 

I'm not an HVAC engineer either, just a lowly architect (more towers than homes) and former building science guy, but the short answer is yes, these vents exist and aren't terribly expensive. Title 24 (California building code) requires them in new/renovated construction IIRC. Even if you don't use them, wire mesh with openings no greater than 1/8 to 1/16 inch will do. You need baffles in addition for soffit and cornice vents.

There are fire rated vent dampers with fusible links that close the damper when the temperature reaches a certain point; these are quite common for other reasons in commercial and multifamily construction, but wouldn't really prevent stray embers from entering.

While embers certainly can cause fires very quickly if they enter, most structures are destroyed by the fire itself - and that's where non-combustible materials and "defensible space" around the home becomes very important.

To @Sbbruin and all the others affected, my heart goes out to all of you. I know Altadena well - an ex-gf lives there and bought when we were still together; her house on the south side of town was spared by three homes. We're with you as you build your beautiful community back - my firm is already looking for ways we might be able to help.

edit - good info, @Bevo  - thanks! 

Edited by flatdawgs
I'm slower than Bevo, much like UGA.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, flatdawgs said:

I'm not an HVAC engineer either, just a lowly architect (more towers than homes) and former building science guy, but the short answer is yes, these vents exist and aren't terribly expensive. Title 24 (California building code) requires them in new/renovated construction IIRC.

I have no idea how many homes that would have saved (given all the other factors like flammable vegetation near the home and plastic vinyl/components on homes, etc.) - but it seems a damn shame that a cheap screen over everyone’s ventilation vents is something that was  been mandated regardless of new or renovated status.     It’s not like folks who owned those seven figure homes couldn’t afford some minor code upgrade.

OTOH, 70-100mph Santa Anna winds behind the oncoming conflagration might have negated all of that shit.

If what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, then after Bruin’s cancer and wildfire experiences, all of my future communications with him will be passive and respectful.  He’s probably some kind of cross between King Kong and Gamera right now. 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, even in places like California or Washington state, where I am, it's difficult to pass laws mandating people do something to their property ex post facto - certainly without funding it (not disagreeing that it would be the smart thing to do, just that it's a tough political lift especially when most people are "yeah, that won't happen to me"). Hopefully something good like that will come out of this tragedy, but it didn't after the terrible East Bay fires several years ago. In most if not all fire-prone areas, at least up here and I'm sure in CA as well, this info is readily available but it's up to you to do it. I fully agree with you that it would be far better if it were required on all structures, but without getting too CR, pandemic out front shoulda told ya how well simple mandates can go over.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I have no idea how many homes that would have saved (given all the other factors like flammable vegetation near the home and plastic vinyl/components on homes, etc.) - but it seems a damn shame that a cheap screen over everyShareone’s ventilation vents is something that was  been mandated regardless of new or renovated status.     It’s not like folks who owned those seven figure homes couldn’t afford some minor code upgrade.

OTOH, 70-100mph Santa Anna winds behind the oncoming conflagration might have negated all of that shit.

If what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, then after Bruin’s cancer and wildfire experiences, all of my future communications with him will be passive and respectful.  He’s probably some kind of cross between King Kong and Gamera right now. 

You're right, not sure if any of those houses were lost due to (solely) flying embers. (edit - in the sense of what was normal before - embers can fly for miles and if they land in the wrong spot on your house, you're fucked.) OTOH after a couple of homes in my parents neighborhood were lost to fire in 2021 they put mesh over all the vents. They've also been battling with their HOA to be able to trim a couple of oak trees on HOA property that come close to their roof. 

This article doesn't appear to be behind a paywall

This next article is absolutely sickening...private equity groups and billionaires are such a scourge.

 

Edited by Chopper
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

My wife and I drove through upper Altadena west of Lake this afternoon.  The destruction is complete there.  I mean blocks and blocks and blocks of utter and complete devastation, with not one house standing.  And then drove through other areas closer to us and still just mass destruction.  It is incomprehensible how bad it is.  I can’t absorb it.  It’s surreal.  Whatever people in Texas think it is, it’s a million times worse.  

It’s like what a year or two after Katrina people who I met out of state would ask me, “Is the city back to normal now?”

It was always difficult not to punch a motherfucker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I looked into the amount of water required to put out a house fire.  It turns out the National Fire Academy has developed a simple rule of thumb:  gallons = square footage divided by 3.  So, a typical 1800 sf house would require 600 gallons to extinguish a fire.  Obviously, there is a lot of variability there.

Stick a 1K gallon tank on everyone's lot, with a pump and some long hose runs.  The government could potentially subsidize the cost for the homeowner, it would be akin to buying a backup generator to guard against long power outages (ahem).  Let the homeowner or even firefighters deal with fighting fires, but at least there would be some infrastructure in place.  Such a tank is ~ 5 ft dia and less than 7 feet tall.  It's not exactly offensive looking, especially behind a fence.

 

Personally I'd want that tank raised above roof level so I do my water pumping before a major catastrophe, not during it. People will get used to the appearance. Hell, gussy it up like an upstairs room if sensitivities are delicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Personally I'd want that tank raised above roof level so I do my water pumping before a major catastrophe, not during it. People will get used to the appearance. Hell, gussy it up like an upstairs room if sensitivities are delicate.

not sure what you mean but if you mean rely on gravity that won't work, you need pressure. not even a pump will suffice, you need a pump and a pressure tank plus the storage.  we have up to 60,000 gallons of rain water collection capacity and have the pump, pressure tank and filters for the house. we considered a fire hose attachment to the exterior of the house but without a significant amount of pressure it's worthless for fighting a fire unless it's a small fire and a garden hose (1/2 - 3/4 inch diameter hose) connected to the house system is sufficient.

Edited by troph
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, troph said:

not sure what you mean but if you mean rely on gravity that won't work, you need pressure. not even a pump will suffice, you need a pump and a pressure tank plus the storage.  we have up to 60,000 gallons of rain water collection capacity and have the pump, pressure tank and filters for the house. we considered a fire hose attachment to the exterior of the house but without a significant amount of pressure it's worthless for fighting a fire unless it's a small fire and a garden hose (1/2 - 3/4 inch diameter hose) connected to the house system is sufficient.

Build a very very very tall tank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're in Austin, I would strongly recommend you sign up for AFD's SIZE program.  Two firefighters from the wildfire division will come review your property and provide guidance to make it more defensible in case of a wildfire.  Won't cost you a penny.

Now... I have a question.  I've heard about putting 1/8" mesh over soffits to prevent embers from coming in the holes.  We have Hardie soffits (and siding) and while I understand the need for mesh, it feels like our vents/holes are very small.  Any thoughts?

Here's a picture... 

PXL_20250126_224605146.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the audio track on the video on Jennifer Aniston's house AI generated? It seems like a huge percentage of the YouTube videos that a watch these days have monotone/robotic voices.

 

Also, the water holding tank could just as easily be a cistern with a battery powered pump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...