Is it wrong to consider the Fire Triangle, because already exists the Fire Tetrahedron?
Formerly, the Fire Triangle considered only oxigen, fuel and heat, as the three components needed to the fire begins to exist.
Today, the Fire Thetrahedron included, as a forth component, the chain reaction, as a component needed in order to exist fire.
Is it wrong to talk about and continue using the Fire Triangle, because it is already outdated model?
Or it still helps a lot?
The fire triangle is may be outdated, but it still has many practical uses. The tetrahedron is used more in fire technology classes and such, because it is a more advanced base for fire science.
I like talking about the fire triangle with children because it is easier for them to understand. Sometimes they do not understand what a tetrahedron is, or they can’t wrap their mind around the "chemical chain reaction."
So in short, I would say they are both very useful, and it is never wrong to try an educate the public on fire safety!
Unless you are dealing with a fire extinguisher which blocks the free radicals that greatly speed up oxidation reactions, they are effectively equivalent.
References :
The fire triangle is may be outdated, but it still has many practical uses. The tetrahedron is used more in fire technology classes and such, because it is a more advanced base for fire science.
I like talking about the fire triangle with children because it is easier for them to understand. Sometimes they do not understand what a tetrahedron is, or they can’t wrap their mind around the "chemical chain reaction."
So in short, I would say they are both very useful, and it is never wrong to try an educate the public on fire safety!
References :
Firefighter and owner of http://www.SureFireCPR.com
The Fire Triangle is still useful in teaching the basics to children. Just consider your audience.
References :