After reading recent posts on this forum, I've decided to toss another subject into the fray for discussion. Recently, a subject arose here on the forum regarding smoke detectors and attic space fires. The responses were well thought out and I admire the efforts of those who discussed the subject. I applaud them for their contributions. I do have a few minor points I'd like to offer relating to attempts by scientists/engineers to explain things to those who consider themselves outside that arena. One of the comments made by Doug Carpenter was something to the effect that fundamental scientific knowledge is not being passed on to the general fire investigation community at typical training sessions.

In the past, I've heard the mention of similar statements related to the available training and in general, I don't disagree too heartily. I do disagree to the extent that despite the allegation, some solid but basic scientific/engineering information is being offered. Take for instance, the recent IAAI Annual Training Conference in British Columbia. Several classes were given in which such information is being shared, and from my perspective, it was correct with respect to scientific and engineering principles. There were several instructors with both science and engineering backgrounds that made presentations. While the classes weren't of the type an engineer would receive in his/her third year of college perhaps, valid principles of fire science were nonetheless being offered and discussed. Each of us must remember though, these and similar classes are meant to appeal to an audience of wide ranging knowledge and experience and while a semester-long class in Fluid Dynamics may not be on the agenda, some of the valid principles in these training sessions are being passed on, albeit more slowly.

In my opinion (and like Dan Hebert, I have been known to be incorrect on occasion), one of the MAJOR factors that seems to elude many of the scientists and engineers who consider themselves "instructors", is an apparent lack of understanding as to who their audience really is, and the extent of their scientifc/engineering educational background and familiarity with various scientific principles.

One such principle that might confuse people is one of the basic conservation laws, the conservation of mass, as was discussed here in a recent posting. The problem as I see it is not that the "average fire investigator" can't understand such a principal, it's that the delivery by various "instructors" might come across a bit above their heads. And, as a result, as soon as people start hearing discussions using terminology they're not familiar with, their eyes tend to glaze over and the information fails to get through. It reminds me of an old cartoon where a dog owner is giving a detailed lecture to his dog, Bogey. As he goes on and on lecturing the dog, all the dog hears is, "Blah, blah blah, blah blah... Bogey".

While those of us trained in science and engineering understand the verbiage of the laboratory and the terminology of our loose association of eggheads (of which I fancy myself a very low level member), many of the fire investigators who come into the field not via a school of engineering, physics or chemistry, but through the fire service, may start to identify with poor ol' Bogey. Sometimes it's simply a misunderstanding on the part of the "instructor" as to how to communicate fairly simple principles with those not trained in "Egghead-ese". At other times it could be a tendency of some students to just shut down as soon as they start hearing new terms. Regardless of the reason, in our arena, we "instructors" (who I assume really do want to pass on knowledge of fire science and not just impress others with our mastery of Egghead-ese), need to take these same principles and put them in common terms that all can understand without a corresponding rise in blood pressure. Eventually, the level of discussions can and will incorporate the more techincal terms. Until that day, most "end users" can still appreciate the concepts even when delivered in everyday language. A good case in point is Dr. Hurst's comment a few posts back discussing the lower pressure found at the upper areas of an attic. It was simple, correct and quite understandable AND it was "short and sweet". Sometimes that little change actually makes a HUGE difference.

After spending nearly 20 years working side by side with hundreds of practicing fire investigators, I'd say almost every one would be able to understand scientific principles such as theh conservation laws and their application IF explained in readily understandable terms. I think I can safely speak for most investigators in saying that the KISS approach of instructing (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is far more successful in truly reaching an audience rather than lengthy "explanations" that often end up confusing more than explaining.

In closing, I think there are few (if any) gems of scientific wisdom related to fire science that could not be explained to laymen using simple English. We "instructors" need to quit hammering our audiences with doses of "Blah, blah blah" and start actually teaching in terms they can understand. After all, if and when we "experts" get on the stand in a court and preach to the jury rather than teach them, they may just "arrange for a reciprocal transaction of our posteriors on a platform consisting of an alloy of ductile, malleable metallic elements of such chemical composition to prevent oxidation under ambient conditions"... or in terms any of us can understand, "hand our asses to us on a silver platter".