[go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Fire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening paragraph

[edit]

This opening paragraph to the fire entry makes absolutely no sense. It states, "fire is an oxidation process that releases protein in varying intensities in the form of dark (with wavelengths also outside the visual spectrum) and cool and often creates steam."

My reaction is...HUH???

Protein has nothing to do with the combustion process. And "dark" and "cool" have nothing to do with fire. Further, fire can only create steam if there is water present during the combustion process. Beyond that, fire is not a prerequisit for creating steam.

Someone please rework this nonsensical entry. PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.201 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"fire can only create steam if there is water present during the combustion process" Not always you could have Hydrogen and Oxygen present, in hgh consentrations, together in there gasous states then and heat enough for the combustion prosses to begin. Although it would only be a little you'd still get steam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.161.169 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black fire?

[edit]

I read somewhere that it was supposedly discovered that the hottest flames are beyond white and are actually black or at least very dark. Is there some sort of source for this? 24.247.207.18 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a theory on that, and scientists haven't actually found sound'proof' of its existance though. The heat of the black fire is so intense it would melt titanium alloy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.183.63 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on google only revealed the use of the term as a trademark, a musical band and some pagan/mystical stuff. I've worked in fire protection most of my life and have never come across the term in any standards or literature. The most intense fire exposure test we know is the jet-fire test. The term is certainly counter-intuitive and counter-science as I know it. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just superstition, I think. Flames glow through blackbody radiation and emission spectra. I don't know if uber-hot stuff's emission spectrum would be too high-energy to see (UV, X-rays, and gamma rays), but blackbody will emit in the visible spectrum no matter how hot it gets. Twilight Realm (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare" fire

[edit]

I removed the following from the article as a possible hoax.

Certain types of fire (the rare Malchesian fire) can cause other objects to burn without even being anywhere near them. This can, and has, resulted in serious spread-fires in Japan and Afganistan.

At the very least something should be cited for such a claim. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

causing objects to burn without being near them? makes little sense. -Grim- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.182.10 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unscientific superstition. You were right to remove it. Twilight Realm (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived the talk page

[edit]

Talk page was getting a bit long so I've archived it. Link provided in archive box below the infoboxes above. PeterSymonds 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit vs. Celsius

[edit]

Choice of temperature unit changes during the article. As an encyclopidia should prefer the metric system, I believe that Celsius should be prefered over Fahrenheit. Scientifically, however, the Kelvin is the primary unit of temperature in the metric system which makes me doubt if the Celsius is better than the Fahrenheit. Either way, the choice of primary unit should be consistent. DVanDyck (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, Kelvin is the primary unit. But degrees Celsius is more closely related to Kelvin that Fahrenheit is. You only need to add 273.15 to the Kelvin temperature to get to Celsius, whereas Fahrenheit needs multiplication and addition. I suggest putting the whole article in Celsius with Fahrenheit between parentheses. If no objection is made, I'll change this soon. Wild Wizard (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the (low) amount of attention this article gets, I decided to make it consistent now. If somebody objects, post here. Wild Wizard (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Fireproeng (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i dont know,nor care, much about the kelvin celcius discussion buy im not sure candles burn at 1000 degrees celcius. or that cigarettes butn at 400 degrees celcius. i think you might want to reexamine the numbers listed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.114.189 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Fire vs Controlling Fire

[edit]

Does anyone know about this, there is a website here http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4467.sm#post4467 that says that humans up until only 10,000 BC were only able to control fire not make it (i.e until then human tribes had to keep embers going from forest fires or lightning strikes). I came to wikipedia to see if I could confirm this but there is no mention in either this article or the 'Making Fire' article. Would be a really interesting tidbit of info to add if anyone knows. (125.237.20.170 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds iffy and likley difficult to prove, either way.Rusober (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard this too. Sounds plausible enough to me, and disprovable. Need an expert. —76.22.141.17 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

§ on Fire protection and prevention

[edit]

I substituted United States with developed countries because the US is certainly not the only country that engages in fire testing, as you can see by the time/temperature curves shown in the fire-resistance rating article. The rest of the changes are but subject-related wiki-internal hyperlinks. --Achim (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double size, +100 degrees?

[edit]

I remember reading somehwere that for every time a fire doubles in size, the tempurature raises 100 degrees. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks, Javascap (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds unlikely, i may be wrong but with a wood fire dosent the heat depend on what type of wood you are using in the fire, rather then the size, although i imagine the size would some what effect it, and besides surely this would only work on a fire of a certain size, after all if you doubled a 2 degrees fire it would be a bit strange to end up with a 102 degrees one. Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always doubt any rule of thumb. Especially ones with even numbers, like 10, 100, 1%, and 10%. This is just another rumor. Twilight Realm (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire tetrahedron

[edit]

could someone change this to the fire triange? Nobody talks about the fire tetrahedron, because the forth bit(chain reaction) is the fire, its what happens when the three parts of a fire combine. Who ever added the forth bit, obviously thought they were being smart, but its a mistake. Come someone fix this. Also the picture is a bit hard to understand at a glance, try making it simplier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.129.92 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. In the land of UK Health and Safety, we always refer to the fire triangle as these are the three components you need to create a fire. The chain reaction is not an element that is part of the mix. It looks like someone was trying to make it sound more technical than it actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.189.44 (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations besides Science

[edit]

This article is severely biased towards mainstream science; it doesn't even mention other ideas except in the see also section. It should at least say what other beliefs there are, even if it treats the science as hard fact. Munci (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article mention Prometheus?

[edit]

In the greek myths, Prometheus is the god who bought fire down to mankind, so I was wondering if we should mention him in the article. Javascap (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sounds good, but I don't know what the policies are for mythology in primarily scientific articles. Maybe this article could use a history/mythology section. Judging by the state of this talk page, there's a lot of superstition about fire even today. And I'd like to know when our first guess is of humans controlling fire. Twilight Realm (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is room in the article for mythology. Prometheus is not "the" only god involved in fire, however. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with "heat transfer"

[edit]

There is absolutely no explanation how does the "fire" transfer from particle to particle - e.g. I put some few carbon atoms in an oxygen environment and lit one fire? The "fire" is transferred to other atoms. But how is it made? Is "fire" spread by some sort of radiation of the particles? The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer is pretty good, but still not very clear. Perhaps both should be merged somehow, or summarized at least. Agameofchess (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are ashes?

[edit]

No, seriously. What are ashes? The disambig page is no help. This article just says that they're the unburnable remains. What are the ashes of a wood fire made of? Ember says that they're mostly carbon, but that doesn't sound very unburnable to me. I've heard that they're good fertilizer, so maybe they're made of nitrogen, phosphorus, and all the other elements other than carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Is there anyone one Wikipedia with this knowledge? Twilight Realm (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unburnable is probably a bad way of putting it. I would say the partially combusted residue, as the carbon ashes left over will "burn away" completely if enough heat is applied, and the composition of the ashes is different from the composition of the starting material, so it has partially burned. There are often a higher concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. left in ashes not because they cannot burn, but because they require more energy to burn away completely than the carbon compounds require, which is why they are often more concentrated in the ashes than in the original material.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Page 9 has a detailed ash composition chart: www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1993/misra93a.pdf
A concise explanation: www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep2000/969811171.Ch.r.html
Ash as fertilizer: hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/bestwoodash.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.198.218 (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible flame

[edit]

How are invisible flames possible? Shouldn't there always be gases that are hot enough to be incandescent? --Doradus (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain types of fuels, methanol for example, have an invisible flame. It is not until the flame interacts with an additional fuel source that smoke and flame will become visible. (Osufyrman (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This mostly depends upon ambient light. "invisible flames" are often easily visible in otherwise darkness. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Fire

[edit]

I just recently had an incident in my apartment building where water from a plugged air conditioning drain leaked down into the access panel of my electric water heater, where it short-cirtuited the wiring and caught the wire insulation on fire. Luckily, this happened almost the same time I discovered the smell, so I was able to cut the power, and the fire went out -- although it could have been much worse. I'm on the 4th floor of a 16 floor apartment building.

My point is that this is commonly (although maybe not correctly) called an "electrical fire", and I was curious to look deeper into how this reaction starts. It doesn't seem to have all three elements, although the electricity must be hot enough to generate the heat. There is no mention about this topic on the "fire" page, and "electric fire" just redirects you to electric burners/heaters. This is common enough of an issue in this modern world that I would think there could be a section or an entire page with extra information about wiring and the many ways it can start a household fire where you wouldn't even think about it (i.e., my water heater basically caught fire). Just a suggestion for the discussion page...

It definitely has all three elements, as the fuel is supplied in the form of the insulation, the oxygen is atmospheric, and the heat is from the electricity as a result of the resistance of the wires...Lance Tyrell82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is partially a misnomer. Electrical insulation materials, if not made of mineral or glass fibres, are special polymers manufactured, usually, to at least somewhat resist oxidation in addition to providing high electrical resistance. Combustible cellulose has also been used but have in the past also been treated commonly with fire retardants. An "electical fire" as most often occurs, is an ignition of insulation material, releasing a foul smoke, possibly followed by ignition of other materials which then burn in a more standard fashion. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps strictly speaking, in a technical sense, it is a "misnomer", but practically speaking, it helps A LOT to distinguish electrical (or "electrical-related") fires from non-electrical ones (see my additional comments below on the "Let's Get This Party Started" section of this talk page). Shanoman (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

as of 6/6/2008; reference #2 & 3 hyperlinks result in 404 (Not Found) errors.

^ CFM-1 experiment results, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 2005. ^ LSP-1 experiment results, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 2005.

66.74.15.239 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) lurker[reply]

Should we divide this article into two?

[edit]

I think we need different articles for fire as disaster and for fire as chemical reaction manifested in light and heat:

  • Most other languages (except English) have different words for these phenomena.
  • Most non-English wikipedias have two different articles for them.
  • Both meanings are of big value.
  • Both articles will be big in future.
  • In English Wikipedia there are different articles for water and for flood.

I named the other article "Conflagration". It is possible that "Fire (disaster)" is the better name. But not "firestorm"! Firestorm is "violent convection caused by a continuous area of intense fire and characterized by destructively violent surface indrafts" (Britannica).

Of course, the parts "Fire protection and prevention" and "Fire classifications" should be moved into this article from "Fire".

What do you think about this? Ufim (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi fire is used in love and passion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.114.193 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What causes heat to burn things?

[edit]

Since this is an article that is primarily scientific in nature, I thought someone here might be able to answer it. What is it that causes fire and heat to burn other things. And I mean this on a molecular level. I really have no clue myself, yet it's the only question I've ever had about anything that I couldn't find on the internet. Does it have something to do with the speed that molecules of fire/heat are moving and when this hits say the molecules of something like wood or flesh it separates them or something? Another example would be lasers. Some lasers are fine to hit other objects, they have no visible effect. However a more intense/powerful laser will burn through very hard substances. What is the intense laser actually doing to the substance at a molecular level that the weaker laser isn't. Livingston 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Fire?

[edit]

Sounds like bogus; can anyone confirm this? (The 'fire during sex' part of the article.) --67.164.222.223 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

the main picture in the article is not so good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good stuff timmy (talkcontribs) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would suggest using Image:Large bonfire.jpg instead. --83.226.64.212 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some uses of fire

[edit]

From Karki, page 4-5:
"Many human activities trigger forest fires directly or indirectly. Fires are often used to clear forests for agricultural lands, settlements and paths (e.g. in Myanmar). They are also used to maintain grasslands by inhibiting succession. People also rely on fire as a land clearing and preparation tool in swidden agriculture, and to:

  • burn over-mature plantations to re-establish new plantations, such as rubber plantations in Indonesia;
  • improve access to facilitate the collection of honey, rattan and burnt fallen wood;
  • hide evidence of illegal logging (e.g. in Thailand) or to divert attention from such sites (e.g. in Indonesia);
  • increase production of resin (e.g. in Cambodia) and mushrooms (e.g. in Cambodia). Burning of undergrowth apparently improves certain mushroom production. Fire can also remove dried resin in dipterocaps and ensure better flow of resin;
  • flush animals from their hideouts or encourage growth of new shoots so that wild animals can be lured to the area and be hunted;
  • clear vegetation to increase visibility of snakes or other wild animals, and bandits; and
  • suppress weeds and pests (e.g. in Myanmar)."

MrBell (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fire is hot right ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.65.149 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the uses of fire section really necessary? I mean, that list could be enormous: fire is also used in some types of mass spectrometry, in pottery production, internal combustion engines, jet engines, furnaces, burn-off towers, as a means of removing ticks from the body, as a light source on 19th century roads, etc. I am going to boldy remove it, but won't revert without more discussion if somebody wants it back. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighters and match flares

[edit]

I just removed the following bit:

The development of lighters accelerated during World War I. Soldiers used matches to find their way in the dark, but the intense initial flare of matches revealed their position. From this need for fire without a large initial flare fostered the lighter industry. By War's end lighters were being mass produced. Lighters are now commonly used by smokers. as warfare has moved on.

Uncited here, but it does have a citation on Lighter. I removed it for the reasons discussed on Talk:Lighter. Probably best to centralize discussions there. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Protection

[edit]

I do feel a protection for this article might be useful, considering the massive amount of vandalism it has seen recently. NyuCloud (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Just made my first Wiki edit (ever) in an attempt to correct vandalism noted while conducting research. The phrase "I like boobies" still showed up in a basic google search, though by the time I made it here, it seems the phrase had been omitted—though the original content in the lede had not been re-inserted.

i.e., the lede began with the "</ref>" symbol. As a novice, I thought it best to note my edit in case it was miscalculated.

Best Regards, Wondering About Wiki (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, you did it correctly. All of the information was restored. Thank you. —Stephen (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of man's technological use of fire

[edit]

I removed a bit about fire's first use technologically for metals. In the anthropological sense technology also includes deliberate cooking of food, drying materials (or fire-hardening wood tools), and of course firing of pottery, all of which preceded metals technology almost certainly. (I will posit deliberate naïve addition of native ores to fires for silvery baubles that might be produced - but find evidence of it!) Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

This article's definition isn't really a definition of fire, but a definition of burning. There should be some explanation as to what a flame actually is. Serendipodous 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a difference between fire and burning, at least as far as the meaning that this article is about (except "fire" is a noun and "burn" is a verb). I see a difference between fire and flame. (And there's a separate article for flame, as well as a section within this article). I think one might even have fire without flame. I would agree, though, that flame could be mentioned a little more prominently in the lead, since it's such a well-known characteristic of fire. I've taken the liberty of inserting a sentence, "Visibly glowing hot gases, known as flame, are a feature of many fires." That sentence could probably stand to be improved. -- Why Not A Duck 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Thanks :) Serendipodous 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

[edit]

For performance reasons Wildfire and {{Origin of fire}} have switched to the {{vancite book}} citation template family, which uses Vancouver system format, and for consistency this page should switch to this citation format too. I'll volunteer to do it if nobody else wants to. Eubulides (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why, when this already has an established citation style, using the citation template, and the WP:CITE guidelines clearly state that "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.". We shouldn't be converting styles between templates, except where there is clear reason and logic to do so. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the switch from {{citation}} to the {{vancite book}} citation family was due to the long load time of Wildfire, as discussed here. The switch greatly improved the article. MrBell (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read the discussion on that, and have to say that the arguments don't seem to quite stack up for me. I would object to changing from the most recognised citation style to Vancouver. I also wonder if this argument is effectively self defeating - is the long load time on the citation tempalte simply because it is the most widely used? If we switched everything to vancite would that not experience the same time lag? I would like to find out more about that, but in either case, i would like to keep the citation style the same, but if there is another template doing the same job i would consider? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the argument is not self-defeating: the {{vcite journal}} etc. templates will be faster no matter how many articles use them. No other template does the same job. The Fire article uses a mixture of styles in its citations, and as far as I know has never been particularly consistent about citation style; if the preference is to continue to use eclectic styles then of course we'll just leave things be. Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i've done some background reading on this and can see the reasons given in the vcite and vancite templates, but to be honest some of this just looks like back reasoning by people who prefer the Vancouver style. The Harvard style citation template is clearly the main one in use here and I would suggest keeping it that way for consistency, although if you wish to use a different template to achieve the same referencing style i would be happy with that. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote the {{vcite journal}} and {{vancite journal}} templates I can assure you that I don't particularly like the Vancouver system style. I chose that style partly because it's the only one that's freely documented, partly because it's commonly used in science in medicine (areas where I edit), and partly because other Wikipedia editors like the style. I don't really care which style an article uses as long as it's consistent and contains the information readers need and it's reasonably easy to edit. The {{citation}} and {{cite journal}} templates have terrible performance, so bad that they make large articles hard to edit, but nobody wants to maintain those templates any more (this is a classic symptom of software rot). Anyway, as I said, I'll leave this article alone if there's no consensus to change its citation format. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this party started

[edit]

Come one, come all! Time to edit this article and at least make it GA-class. Over the next few weeks I'll try to do some research for this article. Please feel free to contribute and/or correct me if I'm wrong. As long as we can move the project forward, I'm game. Any thoughts?

IMO, there should be some sections regarding (not in any particular order):

  • World history of fire
  • Current use of fire
  • Ecology of Fire
  • Physical characteristics/properties of fire, including {{seealso}} sub-sections to combustion, flame, heat transfer (intensity), light, and reaction products
  • Suppression

Also, I'm not sure this article should be limited to wood burning. Maybe an additional section regarding some hard-core chemistry of burning in different atmospheres (e.g. sodium metal in chlorine gas).

So, what does everyone think? MrBell (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best definition yet: "A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance."[1] MrBell (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, June of 2010, and the English Wikipedia STILL does not have a decent article on such a basic, elementary word/concept as "fire"! It is one of the four ancient elements for crying out loud, this is really sad, people! I think what the gist of the problem is that nearly everyone who edits/controls this page wants it to be as eloquent (austere/minimalist) as possible, with strict pure science and speculative philosophical definitions, but very little that is of practical use to the average person. Now I love philosophy and science---and I believe that both should be included---but on something like fire, the main thrust of the article should be on the practical and technical aspects of it, say from the perspective of a firefighter, welder, or someone who really deals with it on a frequent, "hands-on" (excuse the analogy) basis. I remember learning in my junior high school industrial arts ("shop") class about different kinds of fire from a practical perspective, such as electrical, chemical, fires that burn underwater, etc., and I see none of that here. The average reader most likely does not need (or want) to know that "technically, there is no such thing as an electrical or chemical fire; all fires are chemical"; or if this fact needs to be mentioned, it should be done so in a better way so as to include the other, more practical aspects of how to understand and deal with all the different arrays (ways?) of fire. Shanoman (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is a vital article, but the challenge is that the information must be verifiable. If you're willing to add some stuff, I'm willing to help. However, no one seemed to be interested in editing this article when I first called for help. MrBell (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 13 does nothing.

[edit]

Reference 13 does nothing. It might if you have a account, but should every wiki user have a account on that site reference?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doi and PMID are standard document identifiers. See WP:V#Access to sources for more on validity.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire is not alive

[edit]

Should the article about fire have this fact included in it? Winner 42 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well is it a "fact" or just an opinion? Fire is stated to have a "voracious appetite"; arguably, a particular fire does have some of the characteristics of life: it starts (birth); it can grow or not depending on the conditions, it eventually dies; it can certaintly kill (people, animals, birds, plants, trees); it can be fought and extinguished (killed) if the conditions are right; it can "jump" across gaps/fire breaks; and it can cause other fires to start (breding). It depends on how "life" is defined. Pyrotec (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have some requirements of life but not all. Here is what the dictionary says about life:
  • the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
  • the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms (fire burns organic fuel, might meet criteria
  • being manifested by growth through metabolism (Yes)
  • reproduction (you could call it reproduction but it's more like growth, slightly meets critrea)
  • the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally (cannot adapt through evolution though it can increase and decrease it temperature. Meets criteria slightly but not completely.)
So we have a: might meet criteria, a yes, and two only slightly but not completely.
Or if we really want to we can use the biological definition.:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. (No, fire will change it's temperature in response to the enviroment, no regulation)
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. (No cells)
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components and decomposing organic matter. Living things require energy to maintain internal organization and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. (Mostly it does meet the first part of this requirment.)
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. (Yes fire will grow if possible)
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. (Somewhat, see dictionary definition)
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun and by chemotaxis.(Slightly)
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. (No, it doesn't create individual organisms plus there is no sex with fire, it's just a chemical reaction) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner 42 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there is no sexual reproduction, but thermal radiation from one fire can cause another fire to start nearby. That is the "gap-jumping" and secondary fires.
Fire will change its temperature in response to oxygen levels - Backdraft.
Returning to your original question, I'm happy to accept that it does not fully meet the biological definition of life; but your (rehashed) statement "Fire is not alive - fact" is controversial and needs quantification (which is what we have here). Pyrotec (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other exothermic reactions

[edit]

Don't we refer to any exothermic reaction that produces visable heat and light a flame? What about halogenation such as a this bromination of aluminium: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uryb9-TFJMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.89.79 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst

[edit]

The definition of catalyst in the article appears to be inaccurate. It states that the catalyst is not involved in the reaction. It should probably read that the catalyst remains unaltered instead. Could a chemist look at this? 199.89.175.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Flame as energy release

[edit]

I heard once that the light from the flame is some of the energy being released from the fuel. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The light and the heat are the energy being released. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes thats true but the purple ones do burn just like the original and orange flames do. It is this which Ganondorf used his Warlock Punch and does set anything on fire on this link:

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talkcontribs) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget the fire triangel wich includes air,fule and wood, That is the most improtant thing you need to remember when starting a fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.161.201 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) The strongest color would be clear flames since no energy is being output —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.176.238 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Though I know wikipedia is NOT a link list, I suggest to add a virtual exhibition about the history of fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcheuk (talkcontribs) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting link, but generally Wikipedia avoids links that require plugins like Flash Player. See Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, specifically #8. MrBell (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry section, fire extinguishing part 3

[edit]

Currently it is article states as Step 3 in the part about extinguishing a fire: "application of water, which removes heat from the fire faster than the fire can produce it (similarly, blowing hard on a flame will displace the heat of the currently burning gas from its fuel source, to the same end), or"

I think it is important to mention here that there are some circumstances hin which one would never want to put water on a fire. This information can be found in any lab safety textbook, but it is not common knowledge. There are still people who are attempting to put out grease fires with water (never do that!), and it ends up making the fire worse. Since the example used in the article is of a fire caused by a gas flame (like a kitchen fire), it seems very important to clarify this.

There are some other circumstances in which one should never pour water on a flame, as that will only make the fire get worse and spread faster. I hope someone has time to look this up and add it to the article. (I think the part about fire extinguishing is well-written, by the way, it just needs this one part clarified.) Thanks. Fallendarling (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm new to wikipedia talk, so please excuse any etiquette mistakes I make) I agree. There are indeed some cases in which pouring water on a fire is not a good idea, and can even make it worse. Take for example calcium oxide (quicklime). It may actually ignite other nearby flammable materials if water is poured on it. Alkali metals are explosive in water. Not all fires are safe to pour water on Cormac596 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Thisisleonidas, 1 April 2011

[edit]

fire is light Thisisleonidas (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to increase this article's comprehensiveness

[edit]

There is almost certainly a wide folklore surrounding fire, and this article's comprehensiveness would be increased if it referrred to that. At present, this article is biassed towards physics and chemistry and says little on humann issues, e.g. on fire safety. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Potentially, it's a very wide topic and a new daughter article, with little more than a linking {{Main}} template here, might be better as "future proof". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When someone who can edit it happens along, you might like to replace the dead link in the references with the following archived version: http://web.archive.org/web/20091028180012/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12may_1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.58.240 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for Darkness Fire.jpg

[edit]

Even though darkness is a fire type which is purple and not orange and red. I could believe there should be an image which contains a darkness fire on the article so may wanna put some fair use things on the description so that it can stay on the article.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree70.24.76.160 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darkness Fire.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Darkness Fire.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of fire under human control.

[edit]

In the "Human control" part, I think the paragraph on the use of fire for torture (with sadistic details) doesn't belong. Perhaps use of fire in signalling was much more important and widespread. -- In the section on uses of fire in wars, the "scorched earth" tactics (by Scythians, by Russians) would deserve to be mentioned.Svato (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound

[edit]

I find that every fire releases sound too.85.210.145.92 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Defined at the Straight Dope

[edit]

Fire is the rapid combination of oxygen with fuel in the presence of heat, typically characterized by flame, a body of incandescent gas that contains and sustains the reaction and emits light and heat.

I like this better than the current lede, which fails to mention that fire is a "body on incandescent gas" and is self-sustaining. 75.37.17.156 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen isn't necessary. Other gases such as chlorine will work instead. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If fire is defined as an oxidation-reduction reaction, involving the oxygen in ambient air and a "fuel", then that discounts chlorine. You could have added that fluorine will work as well, and that would also be true. Both of those processes would be oxidation-reduction reactions, involving chlorine (or fluorine) and a fuel; but neither of them are naturally occuring since we don't live in a world containing approximately 21% by volume of chlorine. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire : Only humans use it

[edit]

Need to discuss seriously, the reactions of of fire. Those are irreversible. Man is the only species to use the fire in direct & indirect manner. The oxygen is consumed during fire and the carbon dioxide with other gases is produced. The carbon is temporarily utilized by trees,ocean. The important aspect to consider is : When the wood is used or decomposes when tree is dead, the carbon is released again in the atmosphere.

Thus the use of fire should minimized. Life can be more comfortable. As fire destroys the valuable properties of the given substance,the quality is reduced. Reducing the use of fire seems to be the chief remedy to all man made maladies responsible for the current & impending evils on the living & non living on our planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkabra (talkcontribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what point you are trying to make. Please keep your discussion limited to specific thoughts on how to improve the article. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be intelligent information, only if we had more sources. OccultZone (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration?

[edit]

This has no place in this topic. Thoughts? Kortoso (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torture and execution

[edit]

The second paragraph of this section, on torture and execution, is completely irrelevant to the paragraphs above and below it. If there's any point in retaining it, it should probably be moved below the paragraph on fire in warfare. 140.247.0.117 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with you, on both points. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(issue resolved) cooked food

[edit]

In the first paragraph, the sentence "[...] Evidence of cooked food is found from 1.9 million years ago [...]" lacks citation. There is evidence of cooked food from 1 million years ago.[2] Request to make the appropriate edit and add a reference. The article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1603:C00C:15A9:269A:1337:C7DF (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "fire". Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. Retrieved 24 Feb 2010.
  2. ^ http://www.nature.com/news/million-year-old-ash-hints-at-origins-of-cooking-1.10372
Added your citation and removed [dubiousdiscuss] tag. User:liua97

Soil erosion and fire

[edit]

(The following text was posted on my Talk:User page in rssponse to an edit I made to the Fire page. I'm moving it here so everyone can see it, and comment if they wish. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there -- I have to say that I disagree with your reversion of my edit to the fire page.

As it now stands, the sentence reads "The negative effects of fire include water contamination, soil erosion, atmospheric pollution and hazard to life and property."

  • Hazard to life and property is obvious, and clearly is very serious and is applicable world-wide.
  • Atmospheric pollution is less obvious (needs some mention of particulates in my opinion) but is serious and world-wide.
  • Ditto water contamination: serious, world-wide but again needs some mention of the physical mechanism involved.
  • Now soil erosion (which is my research background, see David_Favis-Mortlock)... only in those areas of the world which are both relatively arid, and where rain (when it does fall) is intense, is fire an important trigger for soil erosion. In more temperate areas, the effects of accidental fire on erosion are both short-lived and minor: vegetation is not totally destroyed by fire in such areas (the heat does not penetrate so far into damp soils), also fire may well stimulate rapid post-fire new growth of vegetation by release of organic matter (hence slash-and-burn agriculture). Erosion may be increased temporarily and slightly, but it isn't a big deal. There is also deliberate burning: on intensively farmed agricultural areas in temperate regions, burning of crops used to be a regular tillage operation (less common now at least in NW Europe, due to smoke affecting nearby communities; burning of crops may still be practised in less crowded parts of the world). I'm not aware of any soil erosion resulting from deliberate agricultural burning.

So the list of four negative effects of fire consists of three apples and an orange, in my opinion. Soil erosion is the orange, I don't think it should remain in the list. (And other people might wish to say more about two of the apples: i.e. exactly how fire creates negative effects on atmosphere and water).

OK if I remove soil erosion from the list then? Ta!

Dave F-M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Favis-Mortlock (talkcontribs) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that erosion should be included in the list, but if you want to add a comment that it is less harmful than the others, that would be useful. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

[edit]

Under section 1.1 Chemistry, the 3rd paragraph contains a sentence that reads "Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish it." The last word, "it", is sufficiently separated from what it refers to, "a fire", that its meaning is unclear. It could be interpreted, for example, to refer to the noun immediately preceding it, "oxygen", which does not make sense. I suggest replacing "extinguish it" with "extinguish the fire". Adventurer61 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestion: Basic definition as phenomenon, not chemical reaction

[edit]

The current "introduction definition" of Fire is as such:

Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.

However, Fire does not typically refer to the oxidation reaction (that would be combustion, oxidation, redox, etc.), rather it refers to the phenomenon of heat, light, and reaction products. So I am suggesting a wording as such:

Fire is the phenomenon of heat, light, and various reaction products emitted by a material that is undergoing a rapid exothermic chemical process of combustion.

This would define the term Fire, and not the reaction behind the fire, which have their own pages

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wijowa (talkcontribs) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

I'm with you on this, partially because the emphasis on oxidation has evidently created a perceived need to point out that digestion and rust aren't fire. Changing it to your version would hopefully allow the deletion of the rust/digestion sentence entirely, but even as it stands it needs to be edited. The first sentence contains the definition *of fire*, as such the phrasing of the second sentence means "digestion and rust are not included by this definition (of fire)." I understand it is meant to suggest that slower oxidative processes "are not included in this definition (of oxidation)" but that is not how it reads, syntactically.
This is a bit of a double whammy as well, in that the written definition of fire already includes the phrases "rapid oxidation" and "the exothermic chemical process of combustion". These phrases already eliminate the possibility of rust and digestion; stating that they do so is redundant.99.244.230.178 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIRE

[edit]

FIRE IS NOTHING,WE SEE IT BECAUSE ,THE FUEL THAT BURNS IS ACTUALLY CONVERTED INTO GAS,THEN THE GAS STARTS EMITTING HEAT AFTER IT ABSORBS ENOUGH HEAT AND THEN IF IT EMITS ENOUGH HEAT,WE SEE IT AS A FLAME.WE SEE HEAT COLORS AND FLAME OUTLINE CURVED AS THE GAS TRAVELS IN A CURVED PATH AND COLORS AS AT ALTITUDES,THERE IS LESS HEAT FOR MORE HEAT BEING EMITTED115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)115.118.103.139 (talk) 09:B 9 January 2015 (UTC)SARANGA,7B,AKSHARA SCHOOL,KAKINADA[reply]

It's good to see your caps lock key works. Σούπερμαν (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Introductory Paragraph

[edit]

The third introductory paragraph is roughly four times as long as either of the preceding two, yet it primarily focuses on ecological issues. This seems like a severe misrepresentation of the topic at hand. Is nitrogen fixation really so central to the concept of fire that it deserves the better part of a paragraph that is four times longer than the definition of fire itself? If we want to talk about the exact details of ecology as it relates to fire, it seems that it would be better suited to a subsidiary section, and not the introduction itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toph620 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fire vs combustion vs burning

[edit]

It took me a while to figure out what the difference between the fire article and combustion article are supposed to be about because in normal usage they and burning are synonyms. The fire and combustion leads do not clearly define and the difference in scope of the two articles (burning redirects to combustion). Would anyone object to my editing this lead or adding a hatnote to say something like "fire and combustion are frequently used as synonyms but this article's scope is about fire as a phenomenon, an observation or experience, for technical aspects of the chemical reaction and physics see combustion. Jim Derby (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil record section.

[edit]

Hi. I believe the fossil record section should be reworded because the way it is currently worded may give a defence for someone who has done something bad, that being, a gardener who cuts down trees and plants for a reason other than food purposes, by allowing them to claim that if they didn't cut down the trees and plants then a chance of wildfire might occur. Let me be quite clear, such a gardener is guilty of indirectly killing another human being. I suggest someone other than myself edit the section and the appropriate main article. Jondeanmack (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing referenced picture of Canadian forest fire

[edit]

Under section "Flame", second paragraph, the article states, "The photo of the forest fire in Canada is an excellent example of this variation." It then goes on to describe the color/heat variation in that photo. There's no photo of a forest fire in Canada though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.117.13 (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]