Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Positive Pressure... neighbours' house?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    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"
    sigpic
    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

    Comment


    • #77
      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, 02:05 PM. Reason: double double quote quote
      "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
      sigpic
      The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
        Do they always hold hands?
        We try not to notice.
        "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
        sigpic
        The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

        Comment


        • #79
          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.
          Cognition before Ignition

          Comment


          • #80
            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, 04:52 PM.
            Cognition before Ignition

            Comment


            • #81
              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...
              Cognition before Ignition

              Comment


              • #82
                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"
                sigpic
                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                Comment


                • #83
                  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.

                  Cognition before Ignition

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    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"
                    sigpic
                    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      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, 07:40 PM.
                      Cognition before Ignition

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        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"
                        sigpic
                        The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          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, 08:18 PM.
                          Cognition before Ignition

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            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"
                            sigpic
                            The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              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, 09:05 PM.
                              Cognition before Ignition

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                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"
                                sigpic
                                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X