1. #76
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    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.
    Do they always hold hands?
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    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.
    In other words, no, you can't provide a citation. Thank you for finally answering the question.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    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."[/I]
    Thank you for pointing out in your incomplete citation that this is an unsupported inference that is explicitly "not exactly correct."

    I wonder why you left off the qualifier on the reply?

    The reason for this is the rapid decrease in temperature within the fire building...
    So the discussion isn't really directly applicable to a detached exposure is it?
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 12-31-2010 at 02:05 PM. Reason: double double quote quote
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Do they always hold hands?
    We try not to notice.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  5. #80
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Thank you for pointing out in your incomplete citation that this is an unsupported inference that is explicitly "not exactly correct."

    I wonder why you left off the qualifier on the reply?



    So the discussion isn't really directly applicable to a detached exposure is it?
    Incomplete citation?

    The qualifier was not intentionally left out. In fact, the first time I seen that specific statement was when I quoted it. The fact still remains unchanged, regardless of how backhanded you choose to be.

    The discussion was NEVER about using the two concepts (exposure protection/heat reduction) together. I even acknowledge this much earlier in the discussion. You are choosing to lump them both together.

  6. #81
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    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?
    Setting up PPV isn't necessarily an entirely exterior task but we'll let that go for now.
    I am not going to argue the semantics of ICS/NIMS terms and crews/single resources/groups. Another discussion, another day. And YES, I am completely familiar with its usage. I was more just poking fun of you two person "crew"..

    I believe in focusing on strengths and managing around weaknesses. I view exposure pressurization as a strength. So, yes, I will commit manpower to exposure protection, which includes, but not limited to, pressurization of the exposure. Funneling my resources to ensure property conservation is my duty and mission as a fire officer and I will use any tactic needed to accomplish this task.

    You're right, setting up PPV for exposure protection is not necessarily an exterior task. Although, I would say that 99% of the time that I have been assigned to this task it has been done exterior and 100% of the time out of any IDLH environment.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 12-31-2010 at 04:52 PM.

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    In other words, no, you can't provide a citation. Thank you for finally answering the question.
    Dug out the old book..Positive Pressure Attack for Ventilation and Firefighting by Garcia and Kauffmann.

    Page 18: "Ventilation removes heat. As heat is removed, it slows the ignition of potential fuels. For every decrease of 18 degrees, the speed of the chemical reaction leading to combustibility decreases 50%."

    As I flip throught the pages, this is stated often...

  8. #83
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    As I flip throught the pages, this is stated often...
    The reason I ask is that the statement all by itself is misleading (and incomplete). First of all, the relationship between combustibility and temperature isn't linear. Second, common combustibles don't have very high combustibility at room temperature anyway which is the only time the stated ratio actually applies...

    I'd be interested in hearing what conclusions are drawn in the text whenever that statement is made and if it actually supports them.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    The reason I ask is that the statement all by itself is misleading (and incomplete). First of all, the relationship between combustibility and temperature isn't linear. Second, common combustibles don't have very high combustibility at room temperature anyway which is the only time the stated ratio actually applies...

    I'd be interested in hearing what conclusions are drawn in the text whenever that statement is made and if it actually supports them.
    Author a thesis on the subject challenging the "theory" and include it in your not quite complete MS program.


  10. #85
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Author a thesis on the subject challenging the "theory" and include it in your not quite complete MS program.
    IOW, you can't (won't) answer the question. I didn't think so.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  11. #86
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    IOW, you can't (won't) answer the question. I didn't think so.
    In your rambling diatribe you posed a question?

    It seemed as though you were making a statement as opposed to having a specific question that you wanted me to answer.

    What is your question?
    Last edited by J.Beck; 01-01-2011 at 07:40 PM.

  12. #87
    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 your rambling diatribe you posed a question?
    Excuse me for not making it explicit enough for you.

    I'd be interested in hearing what conclusions are drawn in the text whenever that statement is made and if it actually supports them.
    What conclusions are they drawing from their repeated (mis-statement) of the relationship between combustibility and temperature?

    (And you never did say how CPS was related to structural firefighting.)
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    What conclusions are they drawing from their repeated (mis-statement) of the relationship between combustibility and temperature?
    Mis-statement?!?

    What conclusions are they drawing from their repeated (mis-statement) of the relationship between combustibility and temperature?

    They are using the statement directly in supporting their theory that PPA decreases fire spread.

    For a grad student you have a difficult time in engagaing in discussion without being aggressive. Surprises me..I learned to never ask a question in an aggressive manner. This indicates that you are only asking the question to prove to the other person that you are right and they are wrong, meaning that you are argumentative and not open-minded. Ask because you are genuinely interested. Otherwise, you will receive a defensive and less than helpful response.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 01-01-2011 at 08:18 PM.

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    Mis-statement?!?
    The one relating combustibility to temperature. Try to keep up. :P

    They are using the statement directly in supporting their theory that PPA decreases fire spread.
    I got that. I'm asking how they are applying it to support their theory.

    For a grad student you have a difficult time in engagaing in discussion without being aggressive.
    I'm being direct. With all due respect, I don't have time to write out long meesages so I get to the point.

    I learned to never ask a question in an aggressive manner.
    Go upthread a few pages. You haven't been very forthcoming at answering less direct questions.

    This indicates that...
    Trying to psychoanalyze now? Puh-leez.

    Ask because you are genuinely interested. Otherwise, you will receive a defensive and less than helpful response.
    I have asked. You've been rather less than helpful with your evasive answers. If you don't want to support your position, feel free to withdraw.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  15. #90
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I have asked. You've been rather less than helpful with your evasive answers. If you don't want to support your position, feel free to withdraw.
    I have layed out and supported my position adequately enough for a lay man to draw a conclusion. I am not sure why you continue to nit pick any percieved "inaccuracy"? We don't have to agree, but there are ways to have tact when engaged in a discussion with a brother firefighter. The fire service must be different in Connecticut?

    References have been provided and you question their validity. You have completely deflected away from the OP. Perhaps, because of you inability to prove that you are correct?

    Continuing coversation with you is absolutely pointless. You would argue the moons existence just for the sake of argument.

    Good luck in your quest, whatever it may be.

    G'day
    Last edited by J.Beck; 01-01-2011 at 09:05 PM.

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Beck View Post
    I have layed out and supported my position adequately enough for a lay man to draw a conclusion.
    I disagree that you have supported it with any actual science. You have tossed around CPS and a partly accurate combustibility/temperature relationship but filed to connect either with the subject at hand.

    but there are ways to have tact when engaged in a discussion with a brother firefighter
    Like I said, I don't have time to write out long messages. You haven't exactly been the model of tact yourself so you'll forgive me if I am unapologetic.

    References have been provided and you question their validity.
    The name of a book isn't a complete citation. When asked to provide context in the one citation you've made, you've steadfastly sidestepped the question.

    You have completely deflected away from the OP. Perhaps, because of you inability to prove that you are correct?
    Who's deflecting now? You've put forth an argument that conflicts with basic heat transfer principles involved in exposure protection: The burden of proof lies with you. If you can't support your position, don't.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

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

  17. #92
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    For the third and final time, there is ZERO correlation between positive pressure exposure protection and the 18 degree/50 percent decrease in combustibility theory. ZERO. Despite me stating this multiple times, you continue to make the assumption that I am lumping the two together.

  18. #93
    Forum Member
    J.Beck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    The name of a book isn't a complete citation. When asked to provide context in the one citation you've made, you've steadfastly sidestepped the question.
    The name of the book AND the actual reference the authors used for their theory was provided.

    As you will note, the CPS was used as the reference. Disagree with the reference? Take it up with the authors and/or PenWell publishing..but, don't ask me to prop up and defend the reference.
    Last edited by J.Beck; 01-01-2011 at 11:30 PM.

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, 08:38 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, 11:37 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, 01:58 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, 11:17 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, 07:35 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