Talk:Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] History

I was looking for which human-like species invented fire and it's not here. how bout a history of fire section.

I'd just like to point out that fire was never invented. In the opening paragraph also the article states the humans 'discovered' fire - surely fire has always been arround (for example forsest fires) and what humans did is discover how to create fire at will?

[edit] Objectivity

I think that the first sentence itself is overly biased; who is to decide what is the most beautiful chemical phenomenon? Perhaps a section relating the theories that fire is alive (and the arguments against)? Anybody?

I agree. Objectivity may be impossible for anything with perception, but this is informational cross referancing. I am here to find out what we know, not what we feel. -Stormy Fairweather

Get over it dudes! This is a valuable resource for knowledge. As long as it is accurate, it shouldn't matter if there is a small suggestive oppinion inserted. - Yakult

'NO NEW PAGES!!!'NO NEW PAGES!!!

[edit] Merge with Flame?

I just cleaned up the Flame section after some "hacker" decided to trash it. After doing those edits I think that section doesnt really have much information and I think it should be merged here into Fire and have a redirect created appropriately. Theres never really a fire where there isn't a flame, or vise versa. Or at least i've never heard of any exception so if someone has any further information please let me know before I choose to merge it. Thanks! RobertDahlstrom 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea. Charlie 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If this artice retains specific information on flame itself, then it sounds like a good idea User:Sennacherib 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge Make sure to point out the difference between "fire" and "flame" but otherwise they look like the same article. Kerowyn 04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
keep separate — A flame is just a component of a fire. The article "flame" should discuss things such as the chemical reactions involved and properties of flames, whereas "fire" should be an overview of all the different aspects relating to fire. And besides, since the merge-request, the article "flame" has been expanded and several interwiki links have been added. Ae-a 10:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate. As a subject, fire is a phenomenon of nature, which also has cultural and religious implications. (Zoros for example consider fire a sacred manifestation of God and do not practice cremation as "dirty" human flash cannot be touched by fire). A flame on the other hand is nothing more than a chemical reaction, the mechanics of which may only be entertaining for those, myself included, who use a duct tape to fix their eye glasses. Keep it separate. (Sorry...forgot to sign earlier.) Asknine 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Separate ::: The flame article may need some work in order to separate it from the fire article, but they are two different, albeit closely related, topics. --Scorpios 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire with no flame? At one time I worked in a lab. that was investigating rick fires. In a small garden compost heap, decaying vegetable matter gets hot enough to sterilise seeds. In large hayrick that has not been properly dried, or has an excess of sugars, that heat and the insulating properties of the straw can lead to the hay getting completely charred, like charcoal without a flame, unless the rick is broken open and extra O2 gets in. How about a charcoal burner's clamp for that matter? JOhn PS It's "viCe versa" J.

The sun has a flame, it's not on fire. Depending on whats being burned the flame may not even be visible.

Oh my god, peoples. Let's get this straight: the sun is plasma.Freddie 23:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge --Phoenix Hacker 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge, but add flame as a distinct subsection.

keep seperate. Flame and fire are two different things. Some fires have flames, other do not (a smouldering fire does not have flames). A flame attained in a laboratory (or even with my ligher) is not a fire. Grein Grein 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
disambiguate. A flame, to me, is a fragment of a fire, but can be used for different descriptions. just disambiguate the two. - RED Nova


KEEP SEPARATE — Strongly so. I agree with the anonymous poster — BTW, please remember to sign comments with four tildes (~) — that fire is a phenomenon, while a flame is a chemical reaction. [[Briguy52748 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)]]

KEEP SEPARATE - I believe that flame and fire are differnt things, as a fire is a state, process, or instance of combustion in which fuel or other material is ignited and combined with oxygen, giving off light, heat, and flame, while flame is burning gas or vapor, as from wood or coal, that is undergoing combustion; a portion of ignited gas or vapor. Therefore, something can be on fire, that is it is in the stae of cumbustion, while, flame is just ignited gas, or such. DIFFERENT THINGS! --Robin63 06:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halon

Does Halon work on the fourth component of fire or it just cut off two of the original three components?

No fire extinguishers work on the fourth component of fire (ignition source), as a fire can continue burning even once it's removed. Halon works to eliminate the oxygen component of fire (and in to some extent I suppose the heat). Removing the fuel or the heat are two other common ways of putting out a fire. -Lommer | talk 05:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Might as well merge

[edit] Flame Glow

What mechanism causes flames to glow? I assume the wood, etc. glows because of blackbody radiation.

Shouldn't flame be a disambiguation page?

Omegatron

I would think it would all be blackbody radiation. Anthony DiPierro 17:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

of what? gases i guess? hmm Omegatron 19:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
You are correct that blackbody radiation is the mechanism, but it is (primarily) liberated carbon molecules in the flame which are emmitting the light. As they spread and cool down, they stop glowing. It doesn't take many carbon molecules to produce this effect, which is why it happens even with no visible smoke. On the other hand, incomplete comustion releases more unbonded carbon than complete combustion, which is why those flames burn a brighter, cooler, orange whereas complete combustion usually produces a hotter blue flame. -Lommer 23:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


(I really think someone should put this explanation into the main article. This is exactly the information I was looking for! I'm not bold enough to do it myself however... - Meekohi)

[edit] Question

Why can't we move the bottom of the page to Fire (disambiguation)?? 66.245.74.77 01:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does the world a great service by allowing Professionals across disciplines to brainstorm. Thanks.

What is the physics of fire? That is, how can thermodynamics be explained through the lens of physics? We have a tendency to think in compartmented fields of focus, but in reality, it is all the same lens at different levels of magnification, different levels of integration [and in the bigger picture, different levels of embedded context]. Is fire a waveform? Is thermodynamics the changing of the resonant frequency of quark field states? Is combustion or flash point, the threshold at which an integrated atomic structure changes states due to acceleration of the resonant frequency of an integrated whole?

If quarks of atomic structure generate a field with the accumulation of mass, every integrated structure would have a different resonant frequency depending upon the density of the nucleuses and the geometric angles at which the atoms or compounds intersected -the angles at which the individual quark fields crossed, when they integrated.

All matter is really dynamic mass. All chemistry is really integrated physics. Tesla theorized the earth had a resonant frequency of 7.83 hertz and if we could interfere with that frequency at a given point, we could create an earthquake. Uncle Sam took his theories seriously and confisicated his patents under the National Security Act and now has a 10 Gigawatt Variable Frequency Beaming Platform on the North Slopes of Alaska that can reportedly do that very thing called HAARP [part of Star Wars]. There are two Websites for it-official and unofficial.

Physics and Chemistry Researchers [along with Geneticists, Molecular Biologists and the like] are very intelligent and very knowledgeable in a narrow field of focus. But they need the Engineers to help them put it together. They aren't taught to think to the integrated whole.

An Engineer would think like a diagnostic technician when viewing a given known in operation and trying to extract the hidden unknowns that enable the given known. They would integrate the whole and start extracting the interdependencies that enable it, staying anchored to the given known at all times to insure the conceptual thesis matches what is seen in operation. Reliability of data is the only governing criteria. Pure Science is pure logic. The Engineer wants to build a better mousetrap, so he/she wants to know exactly how this one works. [They don't care if their dead uncle, whom they didn't like, built it, only what interdependencies did he have to satisfy to do it? :-}]

This is just a point to ponder. Thermodynamics can be explained through the lens of Physics. The only thing that can't be explained through the lens of Physics is the context that drives the integrated whole. That has to be another paper. Have a great day!

  • wtf? Dan100 23:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • dude, I just finished a degree in Physics and I still only half get what he's talking about SpitValve 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that's pretty sad then. A senior in High School should be able to comprehend that paragraph.

Anyways, While you have posed several questions that relate to the physics of fire, none of these can be included until proven by scientific analysis. I have looked and cannot find a cohesive theory that would easily condense to a wiki article. Wng z3r0 18:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National fire code?

Moved from the article: These recommendations are usually developed into Government standards and codes, like the National Fire Code, which have drastically reduced the incidence of serious building fires since they were introduced over 400 years ago.

I couldn't find more information about this. What country does it refer to? Wmahan. 19:36, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)


[edit] grease fires

Would we/Where would we add material on the importance of NOT attempting to put out a grease fire with water? Grease floats so water will not extinguish it, but the fire will boil the water which can aerosolize the grease resulting in a fireball.

There's a comment about not using water on petroleum fires but doesn't directly state the above hazard. RJFJR 02:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos

I think some program on VH1 or MTV mentioned that 80+% of music videos feature fire in them. Not sure if this is true, but would be a fun factoid. —User:Mulad (talk) 01:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of fire?

When did man master fire? Something like this seems like a shoe-in for an article about fire. What early uses were made of fire? How did early man generate fire? - Vague | Rant 11:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Its already there: "Prometheus is the Titan chiefly honored for stealing fire from the gods in the stalk of a fennel plant and giving it to mortals for their use." --67.172.10.82 09:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hand made fire stoker.jpg

I noticed that Image:Hand made fire stoker.jpg has been re-added to the article after I removed it. It doesn't show fire in any way, and belongs more appropriately at Fireplace poker. Why do people feel it should be included here? I find this page already picture-heavy, so I've removed it again for now. -Lommer | talk 20:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed external links

I removed the following links:

kmccoy (talk) 11:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ya i agree it makes no sense...

[edit] Burninate

When does a fire related term, such as burninate become notable enough to warrant mention on this page? When does transient popular culture become an accepted descriptive term? ttogreh 27 Jul 2005

Hrm. Its hard to provide a concrete definition (though that would be very desirable). I removed burninate because I'd never heard of it and the only source was homestar runner which is not at all related to fire. I reasoned that an uncommon term used only in an unrelated fictional series doesn't warrant a mention on the fire page. If enough people think I'm wrong it should definitely be reinserted. -Lommer | talk 05:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man (and burninate by extension)

Seeing as Popular Culture is somewhat taboo on this page, could the Burning Man festival be placed in the "see also" section, or is that section overlong, or is Burning Man not significant enough? ttogreh 29 Jul 2005

I hope I haven't come across as anti-popular culture. I just find that an excessively long list under See Also tends to dilute its value too much. Perhaps the subsection "fire and religion" could be reworked into "fire and culture" and a reference to burning man could be incorporated there. As it stands right now I'd prefer it if >50% of the "See Also" items were either left unlinked or worked into article text. In the end though, it's important to remember that I alone do not dictate the shape of this page and if you feel strongly that burning man should be in "See Also", then put it there. -Lommer | talk 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the "Fire and Culture" section an appropriate place to put Burninate? Apparently an IP disagrees. Really now, I am being sincere; I believe burninate is worthy of mention on this page. If you disagree, say so, just don't excise it while anonymous and without explanation... --ttogreh 22:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, edits should be explained at least in the edit summary. For something like burninate which has already been discussed here, a note on the talk page is neccesary too. As for its placement on the page, I can't really think of a more appropriate place than fire and culture. -Lommer | talk 21:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is the second time I have had to reinsert burninate after an unexplained, anonymous excision. I am a reasonable man, if you feel strongly that burninate does not belong here, explain why, and if you convince me, I will allow its excision. However, if you continue to remove it without explanation, I will continue to put it back.

--ttogreh 07:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

One Gene Nygaard Has decided that Burninate is unworthy. While I commend his decision to put a name to the edit, he has not explained his actions. Come on, now... --ttogreh 17:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Look, this is getting a little out of hand here. The article is beginning to resemble a revert-war, and that means it could get protected. As an admin, I'd protect at a version which includes burninate, as ttogreh is the only person who has commented on the talk page besides me. I personally don't believe that burninate should be on the page (though I don't care strongly enough to remove it), but I agree that at this stage, reverts without explanation are not on. -Lommer | talk 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the song was a little over the top.--ttogreh 22:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The song was way over the top. I'm still not thoroughly convinced that burninate has a place in this article. A recent reinsertion stated that it was no less worthy than the zoroastrians, prometheus, or the burning man festival, but I would strongly disagree. Zoroastrianism is an ancient religion (older than christianity) with hundreds of thousands of living followers around the world. Prometheus in a very prominent figure in greek mythology and an important part of the classical texts that are foundation of any literature study for the simple reason that almost the entirety of western literature can trace a relation to them. The Burning man festival, while perhaps less notable, draws tens of thousands of people annually (has run for 20 years) and is internationally known from extensive media coverage. There is simply no argument to be made that homestarrunner is as significant as the above subjects, even if it has been casually viewed casually by perhaps thousands of people in the english-speaking world for ten years. Homestar runner is indeed notable, but burninating is only one small facet of it that isn't central to it in any sense, so I would agrue that it's place on the fire page is tenuous at best. For comparison, fire is a/the principal tenet of promethues, the zoroastrian religion, and the burning man festival. Anyways, sorry if this has sounded rantish, please comment. -Lommer | talk 00:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does one draw the line? Bugs Bunny is a cultural icon, and he is sixty years old, or so. Scooby Doo is thirty years old. Homer Simpson is fifteen years old. All of these icons have significant episodes or gimmicks that involve fire. Indeed, I doubt there would be great hemming and hawing if I were to bring to light Bugs' use of lit matches under a foot, which he has done on a few occasions. Scooby Doo's encounter with fire related dragons or fire monsters would not cause an issue. Homer's odd habit of setting himself, his property, or his place of work on fire would not elicit much of a response.
Why then, does a dragon dedicated to burninating raise your ire? I sincerely suspect intellectual snobbery. --ttogreh 07:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
It's not meant as intellectual snobbery in any way, and actually yes, I would object to bugs bunny, Homer, and Scooby Doo. All are extremely notable, sure, but none of them have fire as a central theme. This page can only be so big and still be usable, there's no way we can include every object, concept, show, or cultural item that contains fire in the smallest way. Without fire, the burning man festival and the prometheus story would mean almost nothing. Without fire, Homestarrunner would go on and so would bugs bunny, Scooby Doo, and Homer Simpson. -Lommer | talk 22:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Captain Planet? Apparently some one is a big fan. I swear, some people have no concept of propriety. Say what you will about Trogdor, but his fans ADD things to this page... --ttogreh 07:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Sorry but I'm completely missing the captain planet reference - I don't see him mentioned anywhere on the fire page. -Lommer | talk 01:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
That foolish IP who excised the entire Article, he (I always think of vandals as male, sue me) also did the same for wind, water, earth, and heart. Those elements with fire combined are Captain Planet! You know, he's a hero. He is going to take pollution down to zero. Can anyone tell that I watch too many cartoons?--ttogreh 11:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, here we go again. I've finally gone ahead and reverted out the burninate/animation stuff, and I'll openly do so because my arguments against it have not been satisfactorily answered here (see 4 para's up). Beyond that, there is only one user (ttogreh) who inserts it, and by my count at least 5 or 6 people who make it clear they don't approve. So, that's why I've taken it out for now. -Lommer | talk 21:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You stuffed shirt. Hopefully, I have adequately elucidated the reasons why fire and fiction should be mentioned together in the same article with my latest edits. --ttogreh 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well that's a first (being called a stuffed shirt). Anyways, your edit summary said: "Film, animation, and computer animation are all important aspects of contemporary culture. Fire is an important aspect of film, animation, and computer animation." I don't think that fire is "an important aspect of film...", and even if it is, that's two links away from the original concept. How many gazillion things could we put on this page if we relied on such tenuous links as a criteria to merit inclusion? -Lommer | talk 05:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I highly doubt that the two of us will resolve this issue if we're the only ones who ever post here, so I've submitted an RFC. Hopefully we'll get some more opinions. -Lommer | talk 05:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've come via RfC. I agree with what Lommer said. I would also suggest that the "fire and religion" material shows a more significant intersection than the "fire and pop culture" material. The postmodern nature of pop culture makes it all-inclusive; generally the pop-culture element of a thing is most significant when the thing owes much of its significance to pop culture (like Spam). I recommend restoring the section as "Fire and religion." -- Alan McBeth 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I still feel that disdain for popular culture is an emotion that limits the acquisition of knowledge. Fire is a nearly ubiquitous phenomenon on this planet. We use it to power our cities, to clear our fields, and to fill our lungs with nicotine. I do not understand the line of thought that allows religion but not fiction. Everyone can get burned; why should we pretend that fire does not play a role in popular culture, or that popular culture has no place in an encyclopedia?--ttogreh 20:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Pop culture is very important. So is fire. They simply aren't of particular importance to each other. At least, this is my estimation. -- Alan McBeth 00:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Via RfC: I'm going to fall on the side of Lommer on this one. Ttogreth, not wanting an article to get swamped with more and more oblique references in popular culture is not distain; it is a practical mater of making a readable entry on a topic. I have moved several of these sections out of physics articles to ones of their own and they have florished there, by in large I believe, because the focus is now on that aspect rather than just an addendum to a science topic. I would concider moving Fire and culture to its own space with a link from here so that it may be expanded upon properly. DV8 2XL 22:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Via RfC: Including burninate is hilarious! Please include it. Kidding aside, it should not be in the article. It's pretty ridiculous to include it. I like the idea of a separate "fire and culture" article, but sadly, even then I don't think burninate would make it into that article, but maybe someone could sneak it in hehe. There's lots of things to talk about in a fire and culture article too. The burning bush, burning man, burnination, explosions (people's love of), firecrackers, trogdor, that Greek (or Roman?) myth about man been given fire from the gods, etc. --Ben 09:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Via RfC: Just zap the second paragraph of 'Fire, culture and religion'. I would hate to write an article on 'Fire and culture', but if such a thing were possible, cartoons would proportionally be a very small part. Just think how often fire has been used in film, literature, poetry, music and painting. And that is just Western culture. If you tried to summarise this mega-article into a paragraph for this general article on 'Fire', cartoons would merit something the size of a comma. JMcC 17:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Via RfC: Though I'm a big homestarrunner fan, I don't think burninating is important enough to put in the fire article. It would get too long if we included all important pop culture references to fire. For example, Seanbaby has said many very important and insightful things about making your own fireworks and blowing up Barbie and ET dolls. Sadly, though, Seanbaby just won't make the cut into an article as general as fire :) Why not make the fire and culture page? That sounds interesting. delldot | talk 17:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's now five new opionions, so I'll move forward with this article. I'll follow JMcC's suggestion and completely zap the 2nd paragraph of 'Fire, culture and religion'. Lets consider this material gone (don't look at the history for ideas of how to expand that section) and just see where the wikipedia method takes us. -Lommer | talk 23:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ugh. You are all philistines. While I am in the minority here, I must insist that while this article may not be the best place to put popular culture references, they are not, NOT inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps a "see also" link to a page dedicated to popular culture and fire? --ttogreh 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fire as a weapon?

There's no real note in here on fire as a weapon -- perhaps it is worth incorporating? It is a pretty common use of the stuff -- from arson to Greek fire to napalm etc. Or maybe not. Anyway, just a thought I had when reading it. --Fastfission 23:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be incorporated here. Care to do it? :-) -Lommer | talk 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Should such an incorporation be better suited under "Controlling Fire" or as its own section?--ttogreh 20:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, for now. One of things that puzzles me about this page is that I'm sure, deep down, that there is a MUCH better way to organize the content we have in this article, and I know there's so much that's missing. The only problem is that I have almost no idea what I think it should look like. -Lommer | talk 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I placed a couple of sentences on fire as a weapon, mostly about Troy, Greek Fire, and napalm. If you think I left something out (which I did), add to it, please. --ttogreh 07:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

What about flamethrowers?

^^ That was me, and was my first discussion post. :D --Pelipar 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire as land management.

An IP was so kind as to add several long sentences on the use of fire in land management. I made some stylistic changes, but editor, I am not. I would hope that those of you that pay attention to this page could look at the IP's sentences, and change them as you see fit. Oh, and if you could do the same with my sentences on fire as a weapon, I would appreciate it. --ttogreh 02:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroastrianism & Fire

I edited the information concerning Zoroastrianism. Kudos to whoever put it there, but there were some minor inaccuracies and an unintentional POV problem. It is not possible to objectively ascertain the age of the fire at Yazd (not Yazda), though roughly a millennium would be more accurate than two. Also, there are two other fires which are more holy than Yazd in Zoroastrianism anyway, so it was uneeded I thought. I capitalized 'god'. I'm fine with it being left uncapitalized, but it could be considered offensive considering Holy Ghost is capitalized and Ahura Mazda is denegrated to just 'a god'. Interestingly they're similar in concept (every living thing has a "spark" of the divine within them in Zoroastrianism, GBd. 18:2[1]). As to details like the aforementioned I decided to abstain from adding it here, and instead created a link to Fire Temple. Nobody, of course, needs my permission to change anything back and I will admit the wording leaves something to be desired. But feel free to consult with me regarding anything Zoroastrian if you aren't sure about something. KhiradTalk

On the issue of whether to capitalize "God" or not, I think the capitalized form of the word generally refers to the Judeo/Christian god whereas the lowercase version refers more to the general form of being, that is a diety. I don't think I explained that very well so I'll rephrase; God is generally the name of the Judeo/Christian diety; a god is a diety. I'm not sure how widely accepted this is, or how followers of Zoroastrianism prefer to have their diety refered to, so I leave it to you.--CallmeNiel 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Blaze" for a non-controlled fire

Should the word "blaze" be used for a non-controlled fire?

The answer is probably "no" since the word "blaze" describes only a (minor) characteristic of the burning process, i.e. the sudden bursting of the flame. Asknine 17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is fire plasma?

  • Fire is plasma as the electrons are 'free' in the flame with ions, which is why the flame may be deflected by a charged rod. Lightening is a plasma as the air is ionised to enable the passage of electricity, as the electrons return to a lower energy state the emmit light( usually blue,[ high energy]) A flame is caused by the electrons being excited by the heat energy of the (exothermic) combustion recation returning to a (lower) energy shell and emmiting a photon, the basis of a flame test is that as certain things' electrons are ecited and return to the lower sheel they emmit specific frequency light photon's (depenatnt on the energy difference of the electron shells, and therefore the energy of the photon)82.138.217.145 10:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Wolfmankurd



There seems to be some back and forth arguing in the article on whether fire is a plasma. Let's see if we can figure it out once and write it down here.

Is it? Or is fire a combusting mixture of air and fuel? RJFJR 21:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be both, as they are not mutually exclusive. As per Plasma (physics), a body of gas can be considered a plasma if any "significant" fraction of the gas molecules are ionized, even if that fraction is very low (1% or less).
A self-proclaimed plasma physicist (Art Carlson) wrote a comment in Talk:Plasma (physics) with several links showing that flame exhibits the characteristics of plasma, including the conduction of electricity:
--Bk0 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to solve the "what the heck is fire anyway?" question anytime soon :P. I'd leave it alone, but mention the plasma bit as an aside if it can be verified better. --Ben 09:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC) And I just re-read the introduction. It seems ok to me, but I can see the problem. I always thought plasma was just a special kind of fire anyway, not the other way around, so I would just leave out the part about plasma in the sentence "Due to being plasma, flames can conduct electricity" and just say that "flames can conduct electricity." I might even venture to say "Plasma is a special kind of fire." It's much easier to relate that way than the other way around. If my kid asked me "What's fire?" I don't think I would say "fire is like the gigantic chemical reaction in sector ZG of the delta quadrant." I think rather than referring to fire as special plasma it is way easier to refer to plasma as special fire. I don't think this contradicts anything and then you don't have to answer what fire is, you just treat it as the base phenomenon, instead of moving the base phenomenon to "plasma". Fire is relatable, since people know what it is, plasma is not, because plasma is weird.--Ben 09:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)



errr... I mean "combusting plasma" is special fire. Regular plasma to me is just a special kind of gas. --Ben 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Ummm... I pondered this myself years ago. The thing was plasma is magnetic and can be controlled by magnets. Magnetism has no effect on fire--if it does it is too negligable to notice. And it's more flame is plasma. In a sense, acid can be considered a liquid fire--does anyone agree? DyslexicEditor 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Magnetism does have an effect on a flame, you just need magnets of MRI calibre (Google practical' plasma lightsabre' for lots of ideas about controlling flames with magnets). Daniel (☎) 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire is a plasma according to Wikipedia's article on plasma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 so I think someone should delete the sentence that says fire is not a plasma.

[edit] Controlled fire

The following paragraph is quoted from the article:

By the time of the Neolithic introduction of grain based agriculture, people the world over used fire as a tool in landscape management. These fires were typically controlled "cool fires," as opposed to uncontrolled "hot fires" that damage the soil. Such hot fires destroy plants and animals, and endanger communities. All too often this is a problem in the forests of today where traditional burning is prevented in order to encourage the growth of timber crops.

By using the phrase "all too often there is a problem in the forests of today", IMHO the paragraph suggests that human controlled fire in forests was a relevant factor in the management of forest wildfires in pre-historic times (e.g. in climate contexts). Given the number of people who existed then, and the amount of forest, I find that very hard to believe. I would revise it, but I'd rather that someone who worked on the article did, also because I could of course be totally wrong. TH 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think prescribed forest fires have been neglected in the article, and the picture in the section gives the impression that all forest fires are uncontrollable and are in turn detrimental to forest flora and fauna. This in not necessarily the case. This negative connotation is incorrect and misleading, since forest fires are a very natural and beneficial part of the forest ecosystem. I think there should be a little bit more on this, just to make readers aware of that fact.

[edit] Basic article

I am concerned that this article, although nice and technically correct in its definition, will scare off younger wikipedians. Perhaps we can rephrase or precede sentences like "[fire is a] self-sustaining exothermic oxidation process of combustible gases ejected from a fuel" with something like "fire is a chemical reaction involving oxygen that produces energy"?

- sYndicate talk 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to rewrite that section in language that's a bit simpler you're welcome to go ahead. Keep in mind though that there is a simple english wikipedia, and that our goal here is not to create an infinitely accessible medium. However I'd agree that as it stands now, the article uses language which is inaccessible to many well-educated people who don't have a specialty in physics. So yeah, go ahead and good luck trying to find that tricky balance. -Lommer | [[User talk:Lommer|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fire ecology

I added a "see also" link to Fire ecology in the science section. I wasn't entirely sure whether that was the right thing for me to do. On one hand, fire ecology is a stub, so people going there won't find all that much useful information. On the other hand, it's definitely relevant to an article on fire, and maybe someone going to fire ecology will be able to expand that article. Please revert me if you don't think the link should be there. Thanks. --Allen 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random

Some of the information is uncited, and some ideas are left incomplete.

[edit] GFMC

Hi, I'm missing information about the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de). Could someone take care about it? Scriberius 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomadic people?

However, fire is also used more directly; many nomadic peoples still use fire for cooking.

Um, I think lots of non-nomadic people use fire for cooking too... I think most restaurants, for example, use fire for cooking... - Eric 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire is Alive!'

There are sevral articles disproving or attempting to prove that fire is a alive and I believe we should write a subtopic article on this theme.

The "Fire and religion" section would be a good place to write this. Ae-a 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Article needs adding to. DyslexicEditor 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember discussing this in science classes at high school. Fire exhibits most, if not all, of the characteristics of being alive. Namely; Respiration (needs oxygen), excretion (ash), reproduction (fire creates fire), nutrition (wood , coal, etc). I'm missing a few, but it was some years since high school. I also remember something about 'cellular activity', like a 'life form' would create/change organic cells; which fire does not. Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Triangle

Maybe one of the fire pictures should be replaced with the fire triangle. http://www.csmc.edu/6666.html or http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/hrforms/firesafetytraining/page4.html PrometheusX303 03:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The fire triangle is a very basic way to describe what factors contribute to creating fire. Many industries use it. User: Rdbrd82 14:20, 13 March 2006.

[edit] Splitting off the "Uncontrolled fire" section.

This section discusses the topic of uncontrolled fires which has enough scope to become an article of it's own. I've noticed that at least 10 other language wikipedias have separate articles for uncontrolled fires, such as de:Brand and fr:Incendie. I think that the reason there are somany on other language Wikipedias is that they have a separate word for "uncontrolled fire" in their own language. The problem remains, what to call this new article. Possible candidates are "Uncontrolled fire" and "Blaze" Ae-a 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral about it, but I'm leaning slightly towards it. It's not a bad idea. Freddie 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the differrent classes either need to be in a section by themselves or included above. A "Class A" fire does not describe an "uncontrolled fire", it describes all fires. Rt66lt 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, I would suggest merging the rest of it with the article on Firefighting.Rt66lt 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Either Keep it as it is or merge it to in part to Firefighting but keep appropate references. But I would not prefer to split it. Bdelisle 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Against splitting. Although I have to agree with Ae-a that the scope of the subject of uncontrolled fires is significant, simply making it into a separate article would be useless. The reason being is that this subject is a patchwork of a number of different subjects (each of with DOES in fact deserve to be presented in a separate article), including
  • fire (natural disaster) (should describe fires as disaster events as they occur in urban, rural and natural environment, and also should list most devestating fires in history, such as the Great Chicago Fire)
  • fire propagation (should describe how uncontrolled fires originate and spread)
  • fire safety (should describe fire protection measures and techniques in various industries and situations, some of which, by the way, are not regulated by fire standards; this may include description of fire alarm and suppression systems)
  • fire codes and standards (this needs to be moved from the "Fire safety" article and expanded to global coverage since model codes are used mainly in developed countries)
  • fire prevention (should focus on educational aspect of fire safety, targeted at adults and children (Is there such a thing as "Wikipedia for kids"? If there isn't, it probably should be since it will be a better passtime for children than browsing porn sites.)
  • etc.
  • fire fighting
  • fire service
It appears that most of these articles already exist, some are unfairly redirected to the "Fire safety" article, and some are in need of expansion and clean up. The section "Uncontrolled fire" in the Fire article should give a brief overview of uncontrolled fires and serve as a mini-portal for all related subjects. Asknine 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Against splitting - I don't believe it is a big enough subject to warrant it's own article. I believe it is adequtly covered in this and other articles (e.g fire-fighting, fire-safety). --Rehnn83 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Conflagration redirects to this page, which is not an efficient redirect for somebody wishing to research it. A separate section on Uncontrolled Fires would solve this. I appreciate that there are many smaller subcategories for this area, however, isn't the beauty of Wikipedia that related articles are linked when more detail is available? Rickythakrar 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ash

I'm moving the following from the article to here:

This ash, as well as the smoke and other residue, are different compounds from the original ones.The ash that remains on trees after forest fires is sometimes used as a source of protein for wild animals.

The former seems trivially true to me. Ash does not contain protein so what an animal would do with ash needs to be discussed. Might be a source of minerals. RJFJR 01:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car arson

An editor thinks that arson of cars is misleading or superfluous: it is not. See this page as an example. "The initiative targets car dumping "hot spots" and removes vehicles that are abandoned, have no value, are not taxed or have no registered owner. The aim is to remove the vehicles as quickly as possible to avoid them being set alight." Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think arson would be an appropriate addition to the Fire page. However, a picture standing alone that says 'A car on fire. Cars are sometimes set alight and abandoned in order for their owners to avoid paying for their removal.', puts an emphasis on car arson that is unwarranted.

Out of the millions of automobiles, are a substantial number being burnt by their owners at the end of the car's useful life? I have never heard of this as a common practice. Most people don't start a fire to dispose of a car. I would think that would be a serious crime. My biggest reason for desiring the wording be limited to only 'a car on fire' is that there is no context for the additional material. (Avanu) 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, the uploader knows the street culture where this occurred. If you follow the above link, you find that over 55% of car fires are due to arson of abandoned vehicles for this purpose. Most people don't, but most car fires are self-arsons. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animated Gif?

This article has LOTS of pictures of fire. But it has no animated pictures of them. Why none? It could be real fire or a cartoon fake of fire.

And the mythology reference is too little. At least do better with links. And could acid be considered a at least metophorical version of fire in water?
DyslexicEditor 06:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Acid is not related to fire. Fire is combustion which is the rapid oxidation of a material. An acid has hydrogen ions and work off of that (sorry, its been a few years since I've had a chemistry class). We, as humans, experience both as burning, but they aren't the same.65.65.230.53 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tester bare wikipedia: "Rød grød med fløde"

The fellow said 'metaphorical.' However, I agree...no, acid should not be included. Really, there's no point, and it's not like there's some sort of international meme connecting them. Jachra 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. While acid is in no way similar to fire, I support an animation in the article. As a matter of fact, I request we have more animations in good ol' Wiki.Dark Fennec 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Dark Fennec

[edit] Easter fire?

An anonymous editor just added:

Additionally, a fire is used in the Roman Catholic Mass during the Easter Vigil.

Is there any truth to this (beyond the altar candle that is kept burning continuously throughout the year)?

(I vaguely remember something about burning last year's palms. Is this what this refers to?)

Atlant 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do burn the palms, and this is where the Ash Wednesday ashes come from. However, on the Easter Vigil, during the "service of Light" there will usually be a large bonfire which is the centre of attention while the priest goes through a short ritual, then everyone receives candles and lights them from the fire. This is explained in more detail on the Easter Vigil page. Nsmith 84 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European fire classes (EN 2)

Where do the European fire classes E and F mentioned in the article come from?

European Standard EN 2:1992 "defines classes of fires according to the material undergoing combustion. In consequence it does not define a particular class of fire involving an electrical risk."

It "classifies in four categories the different kinds of fires which can be defined in terms of the nature of the fuel. Such a classification is particularly useful in the context of fire fighting by means of an extinguisher.

[...] The following designations are for the purpose of classifying fires of different natures and of simplifying spoken and written reference to them:

  • Class A: fires involving solid materials, usually of an organic nature, in which combustion normally takes places with the formation of glowing embers.
  • Class B: fires involving liquids or liquefiable solids.
  • Class C: fires involving gases.
  • Class D: fires involving metals."

Could anyone provide a reference for the other classes listed in the article? Markus Kuhn 14:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I berleave that E and F are not part of the standard but have become "de facto" as these two cover sections that are also needed for classifing fires for extinguishing.

I notice that E states that it is a A or B class fire but I berleave that in fact a fire would be described as AE or BE fire.

--CAJ 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire/Flame Temperature

The standard SI notation for "degrees Celcius" is a degree symbol immediately followed by a capital C. The temperatures need to have this minor editing, but I don't know how to produce the degree symbol, a raised, small o.

David B. Benson 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to use the superscript tag (because the subscript tag works, and I think the superscript tag will too), but I don't have anything much to add.^v^ [[User:orngjce223|my home page[[Talk:orngjce223|my talk page]]]] 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flame Color

Many common substances either contain or have a light coating of sodium. The sodium D emission lines produce the yellow color seen in wood fires, bunsen burners(?), etc. The sodium D lines are far from black body radiators.

I believe what I have written is correct, but I am not a physicist, so I am not going to attempt to add to this (quite good) essay on fire.

David B. Benson 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is flame color more to do with the temperature and incadesance of the particals in the flame. Resulting in a color temperature aproxamitly the temperature of the flame.

--CAJ 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do some research on fire.

Alot of this article contradicts itself.


"Fire is simply glowing gas and other combustion materials such as carbon particles. It is not plasma, as it is not hot enough to reach such high ionization as is required of plasma (an 'electrically neutral, highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons, and neutral particles')."

"Fire is extinguished when any of the elements of the so-called fire triangle—heat, oxygen, or fuel— are removed. The unburnable solid remains of a combustible material left after a fire are called ash."

Now when we use logic and common sense: If fire is not plasma then it cannot be plasmatic in nature.

So one of those statements is inccorect.

Since in highschools around the country, fire is being refered to as plasma, I suggest you change it.

Please sign your comments. Don't believe everything (anything) you're taught in school. Fire can be veiwed as behaving with plasmatic properties, but it definitly isn't plasma (ionised gas). Also how do these statements contradict each other? --Rehnn83 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the article on plasma, it says that fire is a partial plasma. Isn't that statement inconsistent with the statement that fire is not plasma in this article? I heard that the ionization of fire is what makes it glow. 71.121.5.65 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POWER RANGER

Removed the image of the Power Ranger from the 'See also' section as it lowered the overall excellent tone of the article. MiAnRo 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I saw several instances of 'Sneaky Vandalism' by User:Saunders9000. It seems someone reverted the article faster than I could. Watch for continuing instances and please correct them lest this page become another popular article that falls prey to individuals that are too bored to make use of their time. --FK65 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minor point: Life

A minor point somebody with more in-depth knowledge might want to add, perhaps as a trivia item or something else. Although it is not talked about often, in a general sense, life creates fire. The reality is that when the earth was first formed there was very little in the way of self-sustaining fires since there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Fires as we mostly know them today only really became possible when there were enough plants to fill the atmosphere with oxygen. In some sense, therefore, the very thing the plants give us to exist (oxygen) also creates the constant danger (and benefit) of fire. --Mcorazao 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Flame Is Not Liquid

The "physics" and introductory sections of this article repeatedly refer to fire as a liquid. This appears to be a change from when it was said to be a plasma in earlier editions. A flame is a region of chemically reacting gases, hot enough to emit light. It's true that it's not a plasma, but it also is definitly not a liquid. The contributor who used the word "liquid" may have meant "fluid" instead. If thrue, that would be correct, but unnecessarily vague. I will change the instances of the word liquid in the article to make sure that flames are properly characterized as gas. Aerodave 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma or no?

There appears to be a contradiction in the "Chemistry of fire" section:

Typical flames are just incandescent gas, and are not plasmas, as they are not hot enough to be sufficiently ionized.

then a paragraph or two later:

A flame is an exothermic, self-sustaining, oxidizing chemical reaction producing energy and glowing hot flame, of which a very small portion is plasma.

I can see that there has been debate about this, perhaps consultation with other encyclopedias may be the go? BenC7 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire stats

Does anyone know the average number of fires a year in a school? Uptonogood 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardised Spellings

Just wanted to make everyone aware that I have now standardised the spellings on this page. There was a bit of a strange mix between British (ex: smoulder) and US (ex: color) spellings, so per Wikipedia Style Guidelines I have standardised as much as possible to British English standards. Also fixed an obvious spelling error. Please feel free to improve if you believe necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.106.37 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/Talk%7EFire_1fd0.html"