A tool doesn’t become a global workhorse because it’s clever. It becomes a workhorse when different labs can run it, calibrate it, compare it, and trust it. It is a very long road from the invention to widespread use. And I got the chance to discuss the path of how the Cone took off with Dr. Marc Janssens, who is a key figure in this story - he was even jointly co-awarded the Phillip DiNenno Prize together with dr Vyto Babrauskas, for his efforts on developing, standardizing and promoting the Cone.

Marc takes us back to the early days of reaction-to-fire testing, when heat release rate measurement was messy, methods differed by country, and oxygen consumption calorimetry still had to prove itself. He was sent on a mission to find a heat measuring device, and shares on what was available back then.

Later in the episode we dig into the questions raised: is a 10 by 10 cm specimen too small, what does “scaling” really mean, and how do you avoid fooling yourself when you try to turn cone calorimeter curves into real-fire predictions. We also get into why the cone’s controlled heat flux and feedback control mattered so much, and how interlaboratory round robin studies turned uncertainty into precision statements that standards could stand on.

From there, the conversation opens up into what cone calorimetry enabled: faster R&D for products, smarter screening ahead of costly room corner testing, and a path to modeling. Marc shares how cone calorimeter data supports fire modeling efforts, including flame spread approaches in FDS, and why validation at larger scales still matters. The episode lands with a powerful case study: performance-based, risk-informed nuclear power plant fire safety, where cable tray fire spread scenarios depend on models fueled by cone calorimeter measurements of cable insulation.

If you are a daily user of a Cone, an engineer who depends on high quality models and data, or simply want to hear about the history of our discipline... this one is for you.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

A fire scene looks like a puzzle, but it’s a puzzle where the pieces melt, burn, and get hauled away before anyone can measure them. On the 25th anniversary of 9/11, I sit down with Professor Vincent Brannigan to ask a questions - does a fire investigation truly use the scientific method, or are we doing something else and calling it science?

Vincent brings a rare mix of experience as a fire protection engineer, a lawyer who has seen cases up close, and a historian of science who cares deeply about how we justify knowledge in court. We talk about the World Trade Center collapse, what made investigation so difficult, and how code and design assumptions (like fireproofing priorities and sprinklers) shape outcomes long before any investigator arrives. From there, we get precise about language: what a hypothesis is, what makes a scientific hypothesis testable, why a theory is not a casual idea, and why “proof” is the wrong word in most scientific and forensic contexts.

Then we take the discussion into the context of NFPA 921 directly. We explore why much of forensic fire reasoning is abductive inference (the Sherlock Holmes style of “best explanation”), why that can be useful, and why it becomes dangerous when it’s presented as if it carries the repeatability of lab science. We dig into witness statements, models and simulations, experiments that actually help, and the uncomfortable gap between “possible,” “probable,” and “true” when the courtroom demands answers.

If you care about fire investigation, forensic fire science, expert testimony, and how fire engineering knowledge becomes evidence or a foundation of new code recommendations, this conversation will sharpen how you think and how you write.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

Critical velocity is supposed to be the clean moment when tunnel smoke control flips from unsafe to safe. But after too many real projects and too many review battles, I am very sure that such a single number cannot be a sole proxy of what is safe or unsafe... So why it has so much power over my design?

In this solo episode I walk through why critical velocity became the world's favorite proxy for tunnel fire safety: it’s simple, it’s calculable, and it gives verifiers something rigid to check. But what is simple at first glance, can become quite messy in projects. Different code editions, different assumptions for hydraulic diameter or slope, and different approaches like hand calculations vs CFD can push the “right” value around. And the value becomes what we argue about, not the safety. In a tunnel, smoke movement is not one-dimensional either. Ceiling jets, momentum exchange, and the timing of fan activation can all change what it takes to control back-layering.

From there, I share project realities that don’t fit the checkbox. Reversible ventilation where slope fights you, station-to-tunnel transitions where uniform velocity is physically impossible, and very wide rail spaces where applying small-tunnel models can imply absurd power demands. We also talk about what happens when you miss critical velocity: back-layering isn’t automatically system failure, and the distance and conditions matter far more than a binary pass/fail.

Finally, we dig into the hidden conservatism inside typical tunnel ventilation design scenarios and the real-world cost of “just adding jet fans” once cabling, inverters, power supply, redundancy, and maintenance hit the full design. If you care about tunnel fire engineering, smoke control, CFD modeling, and practical fire safety design, this one is for you.

Did you like it? Subscribe for more, share it with a colleague who reviews tunnel designs, and leave a review with your take: should tunnel fire safety rely less on one number and more on performance outcomes?

Origins of the critical velocity are in this highly recommended episode: https://www.firescienceshow.com/157-revising-critical-velocity-with-conrad-stacey-and-michael-bayer/

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.