SCarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

> 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.

Certainly, what you are saying is true. As you know there is a big difference between conveying a basic concept (e.g. the equation for 1-D steady-state conduction through a solid) and practically applying fundamental knowledge in the analysis of fire and explosion incidents (e.g. 3-D transient heat conduction through a solid composite). I believe that the current training programs can provide awareness of new methodologies (truely new and those concepts "new" to the community) and basic concepts (and examples of thier practical use), but fall short of providing sufficient fundamental knowledge in a manner that allows attendees to walk away with the ability practically apply fundamental scientific knowledge. The bottom line is that one of the significant limiting factors is time.

My original point in the prior posting is that we need to be educating fire investigators with sufficient fundamental knowledge if we are to expect an significant advancement of this profession in the coming decades or life times. In developing this concept and talking with those in this community, not everyone agrees that anything needs to be changed. I think the first step in trying to initiate long-term advancement of this profession is to demonstrate the value in the practical application of fundamental knowledge to the analysis of fire and explosion incidents. This is where the current training programs can help (and perhaps do help). In my opinion, the most of the current training tends to be more reactive than proactive, which leads to maintaining the status quo and inhibit significant long-term advancement of the profession. What are we waiting for with respect to the significant advancement of this profession? Are we waiting for a new technology that will change the way fire investigations are conducted. While technology does make our lives easier, it does not shield us from understanding its fundamental technical underpinnings. If we use new technology in this manner, it is just a mask for ignorance. Ignorance is what we need to be fighting if we expect fire investigation to be a professional endeavor.

>
> 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.

Certainly not just a problem with the fire investigation community, but one of any interaction where the purpose of the effort is to convey technical information whether it be in the class room, the court room, or with a client. It is a difficult task to convey technical material in an effective manner and I have certainly had successes and failures in giving presentations of technical information.

>
> 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".

In my experience, attitude is a significant driving force with respect the ability of a person to learn new concepts. Obviously, if a person is not open to learning new concepts, failure is asured. Negative attitudes toward learning is a hurdle to advancement of the profession and may not, in all cases, be solved by better teaching since it may not be addressing the potential root causes of poor attitudes. There may be problems with learning styles, ability to learn more complex technical information, not understanding the value of its use, or we may be handicapping fire investigators by trying to teach concepts where the prerequisite knowledge has not been obtained. For example, a reasonable understanding of the fundamental of fire dynamics requires fundamental knowledge in such areas as mathematics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, heat transfer and chemistry. In general, given the short time frames involved with training, these prerequisites tend to fall to the wayside.

>
> 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".


You certainly make some good points. The upside of making concepts more user friendly is that they can be grasped by a larger group of people. The downside is that combustion is a very complex phenomenon and making everything so simple for everyone to understand dilutes the knowledge to a point of ineffective use and more importanly misuse. I believe that the solution to educating fire investigators has both a shorter-term and a longer-term solution. The longer-term solution is to educate fire investigators through a four-year or more academic program and allow an influx of these fire investigators into the field. The shorter-term solution should be a team approach where members of an integrated team working together to contribute and provide the missing fundamental knowledge and the ability to practically apply such knowledge.

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com