Can you put out fire with fire?

On a literal level, yes. Others didn't agree with me. Would love to hear your opinion.

If someone sets a tree on fire with a small match and it is barely burning, then I come along with a flamethrower and burn the whole thing down. Did I arguably put out the fire with fire? I removed the tree with all of my fire, now there's nothing left to burn. I put out fire with fire.

Or think of it this way... If there is a flower growing, and I plant a small sapling next to it that grows into a tree. The flower would have died anyways when the winter came, but my tree grew large and made too much shade for the flower to survive. I killed plants with plants.

Quote:

---

Fire can be used to fight forest fires, albeit with a certain amount of risk. A controlled burn of a strip of forest will create a barrier to an oncoming forest fire as it will use up all the available fuel. There is, however, always the risk that the "controlled burn" goes out of control and starts a new inferno as happened in Australia recently.

Pete, Sheffield Englan

---

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-23143,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-23143,00.html

---

Nice exit scam link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dildo The K1ng

Nice exit scam link

---

Found one too: https://www.gayexitscammerz.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-23143,00.html

---

Right on, thanks for this! Gonna show this to my girlfriend so she stops saying I'm delusional. Now I can exit scam knowing I'm not stupid.

ur just destroying it even more lol

You possibly can but only if you use the fire to blow the other fire away. But most likely ur ganna get exit out scam by the fire and you'll burn ur house down.

Combustion needs 3 things. Fuel - Oxygen - Heat. If in a closed space, you could eat up all of the oxygen with another fire, which would put out the other one. Or you could also burn all of the fuel with the other fire, so the other fire would stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copperhorse

Combustion needs 3 things. Fuel - Oxygen - Heat. If in a closed space, you could eat up all of the oxygen with another fire, which would put out the other one. Or you could also burn all of the fuel with the other fuel, so the other fire would stop.

---

So basically I was right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Copperhorse

Combustion needs 3 things. Fuel - Oxygen - Heat. If in a closed space, you could eat up all of the oxygen with another fire, which would put out the other one. Or you could also burn all of the fuel with the other fire, so the other fire would stop.

---

I had a similar thought but you were able to put it into words. Good ideas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...-23143,00.html

---

Was going to explain the same thing with my paint skills but you managed to do it more scientifically

Yeah what they said. If there is no fuel because it has all been burnt away so fast or there is no oxygen because there is low air circulation then adding another fire may be useful to kill off both.

The catch is both only work in a contained environment. If you try to stop a fire burning down a house, you need to make sure the area of the house that the fire is across isn't close to anything else, or else once that part is burned the fire will burn something else and continue, meaning you only helped the fire. The same for oxygen. Don't think of starving a fire in open air. You would be retarded. This method is a whole lot riskier since you don't know much about how much oxygen the fires need to sustain themselves. So long as they got enough circulation for that, your plan backfires. However, if there isn't enough, they will get smaller until they can sustain themselves. If the oxygen is cut off, they die.

In the case of forest fires they probably dig a line around the fire and use a bunch of digging n'shit to separate the two sides of the line as much as possible. Then they control burn the area so that nothing in that section can catch on fire. Then once the fire gets there it can't get any more fuel and eventually uses all the fuel it has up and dies. It is like monkey bars. Separating the two dies and burning up everything in that section is like knocking down a bunch of bars on the monkey bars. Once you (the fire) get there it will have trouble moving on to the other side.

You have to be very accurate. If you underestimate the fire, you may run the risk of it getting to the other side of that line and getting more fuel, meaning you were just a small bump in the road. It is like a student that goes to those knocked bars and jumping to the one on the other side. If not enough are knocked down then your attempts mean nothing.

Yeah. Albeit with a shit ton of risk.

As long as the fire is providing a a service that is profitable to it, you can be sure it wont exit scam

Yes, you can

https://www.fireparadox.org/suppression_fire.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim

You have to be very accurate. If you underestimate the fire, you may run the risk of it getting to the other side of that line

---

indeed and what you also have to take into consideration is that sparks can travel a couple kilometers if the wind is right and start a whole new fire just on the other side when you almost had the first one defeated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niggo09

indeed and what you also have to take into consideration is that sparks can travel a couple kilometers if the wind is right and start a whole new fire just on the other side when you almost had the first one defeated

---

Good example m9 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim

Good example m9 .

---

thx m10 (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ