I would suggest you speak with Jeffery Warren of the Warren Group. He was involved in the testing or reviewed the test results. The information I posted came from page 63 of his deposition (see attached file).

No matter what the testing results indicated, the fact that it was properly documented, and it did take place is not disputed by any test or other facts. Did Bowes using the Frank-Kamenetskii theory place a water line with water at the temperature of 170ºF running through a hole in a 2x12 floor support between two floors. If the test did not replicate the actual conditions present, then how can the findings be valid?

If I am to believe to believe the Frank-Kamenetskii theory used by Bowes, one would need to believe steam lines, at 212ºF, running through structural members cannot cause a fire because the theory is based on 347ºF. The insurance industry has known of the event taking place since the early 1800’s. There are many reports where insurance inspectors have discovered where burning had taken place in large structural timbers where these conditions were present. You may want to read, “Steam Pipes and Other Causes of Fires in Manufacturing Establishments, September 4, 1869”. Also, there is the Fire Investigation Handbook published by the National Bureau of Standards. They state, “Unusual ignitions can occur from heating equipment long after the original installation, such as ignition of wood in contact with steam pipes after several years of exposure” (Fire Investigation Handbook, National Bureau of Standards, 1980).

You ask, "With that being said and your reliance on test data to support your opinion, let me ask what testing you have that supports your opinion that 170ºF applied to a 2x12 over several years will not allow ignition of the wood to take place. Has any test been conducted with wood being subjected to this temperature for several years? Right now, all you have to my knowledge is wood in an oven short time in comparison to the several years and you are relying on that data to support your opinion. How can it be any certainty as to the accuracy of the test if one does not conduct a test that replicates the conditions that actually took place?" The answer to this question is simple. There are photographs documenting the location where ignition took place. We have a seasoned fire investigator that went one step further and determined the temperature of the water in the pipe. This person was interviewed by two independent people at separate times to determine the validity of this investigation. Both found him to be creditable. One published this investigator’s findings in his book. You are saying because one has not or could not reproduce the event, the event could not have taken place as described. I think the accuracy of the information needs to be judged independently by the person(s) reviewing the data presented. It just does not make common sense to say the persons facts when there is nothing to refute them except the fact that no person attempted the replicate the event. So, if there is a vehicle accident, and the on-scene investigator determines what took place, is it then necessary for someone to reproduce the accident before one can determined what happened.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group