Lately we have seen a few open-ended questions presenting ideas that the poster thinks is a novel concept, but which are clearly impractical to people with modest backgrounds in engineering. The latest is a question about a concept for a perpetual motion machine, and before that we had one about storing houseboats in floodplanes.
Sometimes these questions are malformed and already violate one of our existing rules. That said, as long as the question is well-formed (with a clear question like "is this feasible?") it would be possible for us to answer and walk the questioner through the reasons their concept isn't already implemented and wouldn't be practical or possible. As a policy, should we try to answer these questions in a way that is clear to the questioner?
On one hand, it's an opportunity to present a concept that we probably haven't explained in a Q&A, and there is potential to recruit a new member with a positive experience. On the other hand, these kinds of relatively outlandish questions might prevent engineers with more to contribute from joining our community, and these questions tend to decrease the signal to noise ratio. Another problem is that sometimes the people who ask these questions are very argumentative about their ideas, so answers may become less about explaining a concept, and more about convincing people that the basic rules of physics apply.
Hopefully we can develop a community guideline for how to handle these questions, and if we don't accept them, a clear test for what defines these misguided novel ideas.