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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following from the article as a possible hoax.
At the very least something should be cited for such a claim. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Unscientific superstition. You were right to remove it. Twilight Realm ( talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
This mostly depends upon ambient light. "invisible flames" are often easily visible in otherwise darkness. Mydogtrouble ( talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
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...
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)
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
I think we need different articles for fire as disaster and for fire as chemical reaction manifested in light and heat:
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)
hi fire is used in love and passion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.114.193 ( talk) 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
the main picture in the article is not so good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good stuff timmy ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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:
MrBell ( talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
fire is hot right ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.65.149 ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Serendi pod ous 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)
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)
Should the article about fire have this fact included in it? Winner 42 ( talk) 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
(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)
fire is light Thisisleonidas ( talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
I find that every fire releases sound too. 85.210.145.92 ( talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This has no place in this topic. Thoughts? Kortoso ( talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
FIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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)
References
(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))
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."
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
-- 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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 EMITTED 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:B 9 January 2015 (UTC)SARANGA,7B,AKSHARA SCHOOL,KAKINADA
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following from the article as a possible hoax.
At the very least something should be cited for such a claim. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Unscientific superstition. You were right to remove it. Twilight Realm ( talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
This mostly depends upon ambient light. "invisible flames" are often easily visible in otherwise darkness. Mydogtrouble ( talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
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...
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)
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
I think we need different articles for fire as disaster and for fire as chemical reaction manifested in light and heat:
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)
hi fire is used in love and passion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.114.193 ( talk) 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
the main picture in the article is not so good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good stuff timmy ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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:
MrBell ( talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
fire is hot right ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.65.149 ( talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Serendi pod ous 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)
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)
Should the article about fire have this fact included in it? Winner 42 ( talk) 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
(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)
fire is light Thisisleonidas ( talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
I find that every fire releases sound too. 85.210.145.92 ( talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This has no place in this topic. Thoughts? Kortoso ( talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
FIREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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)
References
(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))
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."
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
-- 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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 EMITTED 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 115.118.103.139 ( talk) 09:B 9 January 2015 (UTC)SARANGA,7B,AKSHARA SCHOOL,KAKINADA
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)