In search of an answer.

   Whilst doing some research on a musing that had floated past my mind whilst researching for chemistry, I was presented with a model to demonstrate the definition of fire.
Apparently these days, if you ask the question, ‘What is fire?’.
You will be presented with four triangles and a circle as an answer.

You are presented with a triangular based pyramid, each of the four triangles is supposed to represent a different element in the creation (and sustain) of fire.The first two are Fuel and Oxygen, this is correct. It stands to reason that every fire must have a fuel source that is being oxidised, and we know that O₂ must be present for reaction that creates fire.
The third triangle represents heat. Now, some may argue that it is the reaction that creates the heat as energy is being released, but this is a minor defect in this oh-so informative shape.

Now the fourth and final triangle should pull this all together right? This should complete the three dimensional puzzle as to what fire is. The fourth triangle, and may I add the base of the model, the segment which should support the theory is…
Chain reaction, and by this, what is meant is:
‘Fuel’ + O₂  –>  ‘FIRE‘ (CO₂ + H₂O)
This is basically combustion This is combustion.
What!? So the answer to what is fire (fire/combustion/oxidation) is…combustion. So basically what you are telling me is, fire is fire. But you’re telling me in a really long-winded wasteful way.

Now don’t get me wrong, this provides a full model as to how to create fire and the ingredients needed. But this doesn’t explain what fire is. All this lame pyramid has given us is a description of fire and its components. Yet I’m left unsatisfied as to what fire is.
I won’t go into what fire is, it involves energy (the realeas of, in the form of light), oxidation/reduction, ions and unsatisfied components. Either way, not much chemistry getting done tonight.