Doug, I will answer each of your questions (like my earlier post to Pat) after the questions you asked.

dcarpenter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dan,
>
> Your posting piqued my interest with respect to
> your test cell burns and the interpretation of
> burn patterns. You have some interesting data here
> that may be useful in a qualitative context of
> burn pattern analysis. Here are some questions
> that come to my mind. Others may have additional
> thoughts.
>
> Doug
>
> Did the students know the type and configuration
> of the pre-fire fuels within the compartment?

Not completely. No more than the recollections of a real homeowner in a real scenario....such as I think there was a trash can here, plastic, probably newspaper in it...Don't know what it is made of, things like that.
>
> What fuels were in the compartment and where were
> they located prior to the fire?

Rather than get that detailed I would be happy to send you a few photo's...Let me know.
>
> What ignition sources were present and where were
> they located prior to the fire?

Lamp, Battery powered toys. Of course it was Arson since the last block was courtroom testimony. We had the students generate reports and defend there O&C on the stand with a pretty nasty defense attorney.

> What ventilation openings were present in the
> compartment?

A doorway....again, I can send you a photo if interested.

> What was the technical basis for thier
> determination of the origin of the fire (right or
> wrong)?

We were not asking to come up with a specific cause, just pick a zone. Many in the class were very new to fire investigation.
>
> Did this exercise yield determination of the right
> area of origin for the fire, but the wrong
> technical basis?

Yes in some cases. About half of the class got it right (correct zone). And of those that picked the correct zone, about half put the fire on top of the bed (mid way down) in the zone whereas the fire was actually started in a waste basket next to the head of the bed.

> How many of the students used "burn pattern
> analysis" as the methodology for determining the
> origin of the fire?

All of them. We did not give them the benefit of knowing if samples were positive or negative, dogs, suspect info, etc. Strictly observation of the fire scene.
>
> If they used burn pattern analysis, how did the
> students determine that the patterns analyzed were
> directly related to the origin of the fire as
> opposed to the result of conditions within a
> post-flashover, under-ventilated compartment
> fire?

Many who participated has years of experience and education whereas some had the 5 hours of O&C that we presented in the morning before the fire scene examination. Strictly observation, education and experience.

>
> Did any of the students used a methodology other
> than burn pattern analysis in determining the
> origin of the fire? If so, what was the
> methodology used?

>Just burn pattern analysis. Well, that's not true, they inspected the electrical outlets, the battery powered toys for faults and things such as that.

> For the 50% who got it wrong, what was the
> distribution amoung the three remaining areas of
> origin?

Zone D was on the right hand side when facing the cell and contained the doorway (open) Zone C was directly behind D....B was to the left of C and A was in front of B. The set was in B and as stated about half of the class got it right. Nobody picked A or C alone although they were included in a couple of multiple point calls (ex. zone A and C). There was a real impressive ventilation pattern in zone D that threw most of them off. About half picked correctly and most of the others picked the zone closest to the door. This was by design that I set up the burn this way. To prove a point about post flashover fire investigation.
>
> Were all those who this was thier first fire and
> those who have not had any formal training in the
> group who got it wrong?

Actually, it was a pretty good mix. Some got it right and some got it wrong. Maybe there is something to be said about over thinking these things. Some of the new guys did remarkably well. Some....Not so well, but they were quite eager to learn....It was nice to see.

> Did any of these students get the area of origin
> right?
Yes, see above.

> Did anyone who this was not thier first fire
> and/or who have had previous formal traning get it
> wrong?

Yes...


Let me know if you would like to see the photo's

Dan Hebert