Talk:Fire

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader =

|maxarchivesize = 125K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5 |algo = old(90d) |archive = Talk:Fire/Archive counted

^{Superscript text}

U are very very very... okay just INFINITY very BAD!!!!!!!!!!!😬😬😬

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)

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

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. 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)

Soil erosion and fyre

(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."

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

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

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

Dave F-M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Favis-Mortlock (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

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)

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

Edit suggestion: Basic definition as phenomenon, not chemical reaction

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) 

I'm with you on this, partially because the emphasis on oxidation has evidently created a perceived need to point out that digestion and rust aren't fire. Changing it to your version would hopefully allow the deletion of the rust/digestion sentence entirely, but even as it stands it needs to be edited. The first sentence contains the definition *of fire*, as such the phrasing of the second sentence means "digestion and rust are not included by this definition (of fire)." I understand it is meant to suggest that slower oxidative processes "are not included in this definition (of oxidation)" but that is not how it reads, syntactically.

This is a bit of a double whammy as well, in that the written definition of fire already includes the phrases "rapid oxidation" and "the exothermic chemical process of combustion". These phrases already eliminate the possibility of rust and digestion; stating that they do so is redundant.99.244.230.178 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Fyre in curved space

Most of reality is nearly flat, the tallest mountain far less than a millimeter above the lowest valley. When I think of fire, I imagine an earthquake of our world falling down a large fault line, a few quanta tall as some atoms come apart (up direction) and fall together (down direction) farther in other combinations, and the quake is felt as light, which is the curve of space, echos outward in many directions like a tidal wave, pushing up the nearly flat surface of reality wherever it may hit and everywhere between.

Everywhere and everything is Event_horizon not just the most extreme parts where we normally think of blackholes.

Fyre is Photoelectric_effect extended to molecules instead of just electrons, similar to a nuclear explosion emitting light except it doesnt fall that far.

FYRE

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

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

Third Introductory Paragraph

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)

fire vs combustion vs burning

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 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022042411/http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/cfm/usml-1_results.htm to http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/cfm/usml-1_results.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022092243/http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/lsp/lsp1_results.htm to http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/lsp/lsp1_results.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150113125900/http://www.iea.org/statlist/index.htm to http://www.iea.org/statlist/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206013312/http://www.firecomm.gov.mb.ca:80/safety_education_nero_and_ashcan.html to http://www.firecomm.gov.mb.ca/safety_education_nero_and_ashcan.html#6

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fossil record section.

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.