1. #51
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I've heard of it in conjunction with wildfire firefighting. I don't recall ever seeing anyone attempt to apply it to structural firefighting nor would I expect it to be relevant to it.
    No attempt to apply the CPS to structural firefighting? Not relevant?

    http://www.pennwellbooks.com/popratforfiv.html

    The authors use the 18 degree/50% drop in combustibility extensively in their well respected book.

  2. #52
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    No attempt to apply the CPS to structural firefighting? Not relevant?

    http://www.pennwellbooks.com/popratforfiv.html

    The authors use the 18 degree/50% drop in combustibility extensively in their well respected book.
    Since I don't happen to have a copy, would you care to provide a citation in context? Just saying that they "use it" in the book somewhere isn't very helpful.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  3. #53
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Since I don't happen to have a copy, would you care to provide a citation in context? Just saying that they "use it" in the book somewhere isn't very helpful.
    Provide a citation in context?

    I already have. Multiple times.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 12-30-2010 at 11:18 PM.

  4. #54
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    [QUOTE=DeputyMarshal;1234494]
    I'm not disputing the value of the technique in attached exposures -- just detached ones.
    QUOTE]

    It makes no difference - attached or detached.

    The same concepts hold true.

  5. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    I have no idea what you are talking about in your second paragraph. So I will address the first one only.
    Sorry, slight attempt at levity at your expense. Clearly you've provided enough relevant information on the topic that we (certainly I) don't beleive you're a crack-pot or an explorer.

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    It is not my concept. It is something that initially I severely disagreed with and set out to prove wrong...well, here I am 50+ burns later and I am the biggest PPA advocate there is.

    Don't believe it?

    Prove it wrong.
    Ah, if I only had the time to be fired up (pun intended) about the subject. So far, traditional methods have worked well for us. Our weak attempt at PPA in the late 90's made us restrict it to an after knockdown tool. Clearly we were not fully trained well enough, though some key concepts of that day seem to be questionable now.

    Much like the any religion, I don't care to prove it's wrong, but would prefer it proven correct to me. What we use works and has years and years of experience nationwide to back it. Will we move forward and adapt newer tactics? Sure, it's a matter of time and proof that to do so is truly worthwhile.

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Provide a citation in context?

    I already have. Multiple times.
    Erm... No, you haven't. I'm looking for a specific citation and quote in context using CPS from the structural firefighting book you mentioned. I assume you have access to a copy since you referenced it.

    Or an actual citation and quoted application of your assertion that combustibility doubles with every 18 degrees. (Which I still don't believe is entirely accurate. It sounds like a mis-application of a thermodynamic maxim about chemical reactions -- not "combustibility.")
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    It makes no difference - attached or detached.

    The same concepts hold true.
    I beg to differ on the basis that the "same concepts" aren't really relevant to both attached and detached exposures unless the "detachment" is so minimal that they might as well be considered "attached" anyway.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  8. #58
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I beg to differ on the basis that the "same concepts" aren't really relevant to both attached and detached exposures unless the "detachment" is so minimal that they might as well be considered "attached" anyway.
    Beg to differ?

    Ok

    If you can't understand how fire reacts to differing pressures (negative, positive and neutral) then I can't help you.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 12-31-2010 at 10:42 AM.

  9. #59
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Erm... No, you haven't. I'm looking for a specific citation and quote in context using CPS from the structural firefighting book you mentioned. I assume you have access to a copy since you referenced it.

    Or an actual citation and quoted application of your assertion that combustibility doubles with every 18 degrees. (Which I still don't believe is entirely accurate. It sounds like a mis-application of a thermodynamic maxim about chemical reactions -- not "combustibility.")
    Don't believe that I am using that specific information in context?

    You seem to be fairly interested in the subject. Or at least interested enough to try and prove it wrong..

    Don't rely on me 100% for your PPA/PPV knowledge. Buy some books. Do a google search, etc.

    All of my information is coming directly from NIST, UL, simple science principles, numerous live burns and multiple text books/trade journals.

    EDIT: please don't twist what I said...what I stated was, "for every decrease of 18 degrees the speed of the chemical reaction leading to combustibility decreases 50%" not, "combustibility doubles with every 18 degrees".

    Totally different.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 12-31-2010 at 10:45 AM.

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    If you can't understand how fire reacts to differing pressures (negative, positive and neutral) then I can't help you.
    I understand it just fine. I might not be quite done with my MS in fire protection engineering but I think I' ve got that particular bit down pat. :P

    What I'm trying to understand how you are applying it to detached exposures and you're being annoyingly evasive about responding to direct questions. Unless the detached exposure is very close (effectively attached) and/or the smoke and fire gas velocities exiting the fire building are very high, pressurizing the detached exposure is doing a lot of work for very little benefit because the primary means of heat transfer is going to be radiation -- not smoke and flame directly entering unprotected openings.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  11. #61
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I understand it just fine. I might not be quite done with my MS in fire protection engineering but I think I' ve got that particular bit down pat. :P

    What I'm trying to understand how you are applying it to detached exposures and you're being annoyingly evasive about responding to direct questions. Unless the detached exposure is very close (effectively attached) and/or the smoke and fire gas velocities exiting the fire building are very high, pressurizing the detached exposure is doing a lot of work for very little benefit because the primary means of heat transfer is going to be radiation -- not smoke and flame directly entering unprotected openings.
    "Annoyingly evasive"

    Interesting.

    Ok, let me ask you a few things; how is pressurizing an un-attached structure a lot of work? What follows radiant heat exposure?

  12. #62
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Don't believe that I am using that specific information in context?
    Suffice it to say I'm not sure you're applying it accurately.

    You seem to be fairly interested in the subject. Or at least interested enough to try and prove it wrong..
    I don't particularly need to "prove it wrong" but, since it flies in the face of typical fire behavior, I'm asking you to back up your assertion which you seem very sure of.

    Don't rely on me 100% for your PPA/PPV knowledge. Buy some books. Do a google search, etc.
    I'm certianly not relying on you for anything except to back up your assertion. I have a couple of thousand dollars worth of fire technology and engineering texts on the shelf now. You'll excuse me if I don't go out and buy a book just to hunt down a citation that you won't (can't?) supply.

    All of my information is coming directly from NIST, UL, simple science principles, numerous live burns and multiple text books/trade journals.
    Cool. Citation, please. Pretty much everything NIST has ever done is published online so that would be a good place to start and it wouldn't require going out and buying any books.

    EDIT: please don't twist what I said...what I stated was, "for every decrease of 18 degrees the speed of the chemical reaction leading to combustibility decreases 50%" not, "combustibility doubles with every 18 degrees".

    Totally different.
    I'm sorry if you think paraphrasing is "twisting your words" but the net mathematical result is the same.

    BTW, that isn't what you said anyway:

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    For every 18 degrees dropped in temperature, combustibility is decreased by 50%.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 12-31-2010 at 11:04 AM. Reason: typo
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  13. #63
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Ok, let me ask you a few things; how is pressurizing an un-attached structure a lot of work?
    A minimum of one crew that could be used elsewhere to better effect; ventilation equipment that could be used elsewhere to better effect. Like I wrote before, if you have the luxury of excess manpower to perform low gain tactics, knock yourself out.

    What follows radiant heat exposure?
    Typically, ignition of the exposure's exterior unless it's protected. If you fail to protect it to the point of fire infiltration (IOW, if you're doing a poor job of exposure protection already), it'll eventually breach the exposure's envelope. At that point, pressurization is helpful. Of course, if you allow it to progress to that point, it isn't an exposure at all but a second fire building.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  14. #64
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    [QUOTE=DeputyMarshal;1234647]
    Cool. Citation, please. Pretty much everything NIST has ever done is published online so that would be a good place to start and it wouldn't require going out and buying any books.
    QUOTE]

    Being a grad student, you certainly know about different research principles.Buying the book is only one way to do research.

    Here is a great place to start.

    http://positivepressureattack.com/im...veThinking.pdf
    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf
    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07011.pdf
    http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?p=541
    http://firechief.com/tactics/firefig...reinforcement/

    A simple google search will reveal numerous other links that deal specifically with pressure gradients..no need to spend thousands of more dollars on books.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 12-31-2010 at 11:20 AM.

  15. #65
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    A minimum of one crew that could be used elsewhere to better effect; ventilation equipment that could be used elsewhere to better effect. Like I wrote before, if you have the luxury of excess manpower to perform low gain tactics, knock yourself out.



    Typically, ignition of the exposure's exterior unless it's protected. If you fail to protect it to the point of fire infiltration (IOW, if you're doing a poor job of exposure protection already), it'll eventually breach the exposure's envelope. At that point, pressurization is helpful. Of course, if you allow it to progress to that point, it isn't an exposure at all but a second fire building.
    One crew to set up a fan?
    A single firefighter could accomplish the same task in a few minutes.

    Not allowing the fire to breach the exposures envelope (interior) is the exact reason you pressurize the exposure. Of course, I will state it again, pressurizing the exposure should be done in conjunction with handline exposure protection.

    This exact thing happend yesterday. The second due crew was assigned exposure protection - the officer ensured the exposure was sealed up and threw a fan to the front door, his crew pulled a handline and put it in between the exposure and the fire. Pretty simple and it worked great.

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I'm sorry if you think paraphrasing is "twisting your words" but the net mathematical result is the same.
    The net mathmatical result is not the same.

    How are "doubling" and "50%" of a variable number the same?

  17. #67
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Here is a great place to start.
    I'm just looking for a source for your assertion that "For every 18 degrees dropped in temperature, combustibility is decreased by 50%." And somewhere that CPS is applied to sturctural firefighting -- I'm not looking to do a thesis on the subject.

    Can you supply citations for those specific assertions or not? Yes, or no.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  18. #68
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    One crew to set up a fan?
    A single firefighter could accomplish the same task in a few minutes.
    Once I break up a crew to get one firefighter, the crew is out of service anyway so why not send them both? Besides, two are more efficient than one.

    Not allowing the fire to breach the exposures envelope (interior) is the exact reason you pressurize the exposure.
    That's not going to be much help unless the detached exposure is pretty damned close to the fire building. But then, I've mentioned that already.

    Of course, I will state it again, pressurizing the exposure should be done in conjunction with handline exposure protection.

    Pretty simple and it worked great.
    If you beat two sticks together it will keep the tigers away. I did it just now and there's not a tiger anywhere in sight. Pretty simle and it worked great.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Once I break up a crew to get one firefighter, the crew is out of service anyway so why not send them both? Besides, two are more efficient than one.



    That's not going to be much help unless the detached exposure is pretty damned close to the fire building. But then, I've mentioned that already.

    Of course, I will state it again, pressurizing the exposure should be done in conjunction with handline exposure protection.



    If you beat two sticks together it will keep the tigers away. I did it just now and there's not a tiger anywhere in sight. Pretty simle and it worked great.
    No it didn't. Those two damn Tigers hopped a bus and are now at MY house. Thanks a BUNCH DM,hehe T.C.

  20. #70
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Once I break up a crew to get one firefighter, the crew is out of service anyway so why not send them both? Besides, two are more efficient than one.
    In my neck of the woods two people is not a crew. Two people is two people. A crew or company would consist of 4-6 firefighters.

    Assigning a single firefightera safe exterior task that is not labor intensive is a no brainer for what is gained.

  21. #71
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I'm just looking for a source for your assertion that "For every 18 degrees dropped in temperature, combustibility is decreased by 50%." And somewhere that CPS is applied to sturctural firefighting -- I'm not looking to do a thesis on the subject.

    Can you supply citations for those specific assertions or not? Yes, or no.
    Looking for a source?

    I gave you the source...and no, I don't have their book in front of me to quote it verbatim.

  22. #72
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    The net mathmatical result is not the same.

    How are "doubling" and "50%" of a variable number the same?
    "Doubling on a constant increase" and "halving on the same constant decrease" are just two ways to describe the same relationship: If the relationship is such that it "doubles" going up, then it can also be said that it "halves" (x50%) coming down.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  23. #73
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    No it didn't. Those two damn Tigers hopped a bus and are now at MY house. Thanks a BUNCH DM,hehe T.C.
    No problem. Get two sticks... :P
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  24. #74
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    http://www.firedistrict7.com/section...r/Positive.pdf

    "For every 18 F the temperature of an ordinary combustible is decreased, the off-gassing or pyrolitic decomposition of the material decreases 50 percent. Although not exactly correct, one could infer that the ability of ordinary combustibles to burn is decreased 50 percent for every 18 F
    decrease in temperature."

  25. #75
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    In my neck of the woods two people is not a crew. Two people is two people. A crew or company would consist of 4-6 firefighters.
    There's that surplus of manpower I referred to before... On those days when we have the luxury of a 4 to 6 man company, the smallest crew size that company can typically be split up into is still a minimum of two. ("Crew" is an ICS/NIMS term if you're not familiar with it in this usage.)

    Since you imply that your smallest crew size is 4 to 6, aren't you committing even more manpower to this questionable tactic than I was already giving credit for?

    Assigning a single firefightera safe exterior task that is not labor intensive is a no brainer for what is gained.
    Setting up PPV isn't necessarily an entirely exterior task but we'll let that go for now.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 08-01-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-02-2005, 07:38 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 07-03-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2005, 10:37 PM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 04-03-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2004, 12:58 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 12-20-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2003, 10:17 AM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 11-15-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2003, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register