# The FIRE TRIANGLE: Very oversimplified??

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fire-triangle-very-oversimplified/105298>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 24, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fire-triangle-very-oversimplified/105298 "2002-04-24T05:23:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\
**Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fire-triangle-very-oversimplified/105298/21 "2002-04-25T20:18:20Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by ZenBeam_  
> Any definition for fire I’ve seen defines it in terms of burning or combustion, so I believe hydrogen burning in an atmosphere of chlorine is “fire”.

Well if you look at the updated fire tetrahedron, the chlorine is acting as an oxidizing agent, so all the conditions of the tetrahedron would be met. Thus, it would qualify as fire according to the model.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fire-triangle-very-oversimplified/105298.md?page=1)