It was too late to edit when I remembered what I wanted to ask. Sorry, I'm tired, it's been a very trying past couple of weeks and I just returned from a short couple of days off. At any rate, my question concerns the success that was mentioned during the NAPWDA trials. Where those trials part of the ORT or were they part of the operational phase?

DFrost

I was at the NAPWDA workshop the master trainers put them in a regular problem along with explosives and narcotics. They ran the problem blind.

You know I have been a cop for about 11 years now and one thing that I have learned is that cops are the biggest skeptics. I think the big issue is you do not trust the aid because it is not the real thing. It will not explode nor will it get you high. I think this is a mute point, if it has the same scent signature. I know other companies have tried to do this and failed. I can tell you I use it and love it. The one thing is that David, the maker of scentlogix, understands odor better then anyone that I have researched. He also could make all these explosives and narcs if he wanted to I am sure. So he has a clear understanding of what the material does and more important what the odor is. I am not a chemist, I am a dog trainer. I can tell you I feel honored to be able to converse with Kevin and you David Frost. But I can not make these explosives and I am pretty sure you all can't either. All I can tell you is by using this product my K9's have gotten better. They understand odor better and my K9's are finding explosives and narc's.(I have separate dogs of course) I am finding narc's on the streets. I have full confidence if there was a explosive my k9 will find that to. I think its time to utilize science in our favor. Odors change with time, chemicals break down. This is what we deal with in this game. I would want my k9 to understand a older and newer explosive. Also I want my k9 to understand TATP and HMTD fully and not just once a year. A K9 that understands fully what it is looking for is less likely to make mistakes.

Austin, I'm glad you've gained confidence in your dog. That certainly is a big step in any handler's working career. I too have confidence in the dogs I've trained, or they wouldn't be on the street. Sometimes dog training isn't as hard as people try to make it out. If the product prepares dogs for the real world, then it certainly is a worthwhile product. With all the hype, I hope it is. I don't worry about drug dogs. If we miss something we'll probably never find out unless someone down the road gets it. Which did happen to me by the way, very embarrassing. At any rate, I admit, with no shame mind you, I'm pretty set in my ways. Two primary reasons for that, I've done it a long time and what I do works. That isn't to say there isn't an easier way, one with less steps, certainly different ways with differing terminology. Success however is determined in two ways; 1. Testing 2. Operationally.

I don't know how much studying or research you've done on "odor", but there is a lot of research that has been done. Have you looked into any of the research conducted by Land Warfare Laboratory or Auburn University? We're only told this material has the same scent signature. I've not seen the research that shows this, nor have I seen the results of the double blind study that was going to be conducted. I'm am glad you are having success with the material.

Just because, I think you misunderstood the remark about real material detonating. The point is, the material that doesn't detonate is certainly missing something. I don't know what that "something" is, but it is missing. If it had it, it would be cap sensitive just like the rest of the material. Which leads to my questioning of how the scent signature can be the same. I don't see how the point could be moot.

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

I don't know how much studying or research you've done on "odor", but there is a lot of research that has been done. Have you looked into any of the research conducted by Land Warfare Laboratory or Auburn University? We're only told this material has the same scent signature. I've not seen the research that shows this, nor have I seen the results of the double blind study that was going to be conducted. I'm am glad you are having success with the material.

Just because, I think you misunderstood the remark about real material detonating. The point is, the material that doesn't detonate is certainly missing something. I don't know what that "something" is, but it is missing. If it had it, it would be cap sensitive just like the rest of the material. Which leads to my questioning of how the scent signature can be the same. I don't see how the point could be moot.

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

Just because, I think you misunderstood the remark about real material detonating. The point is, the material that doesn't detonate is certainly missing something. I don't know what that "something" is, but it is missing. If it had it, it would be cap sensitive just like the rest of the material. Which leads to my questioning of how the scent signature can be the same. I don't see how the point could be moot. DFrost

Well David, i just got back from work to read your thread. I think that i can help you out with the missing "something" and rant on for a minute whilst i make dinner . An explosive material that does not detonate can simply have lost its ability to detonate. This could be due to one of many reasons. It could be wet, it could have had occluded impurities, it might have cracked or crumbled, or it could have simply degraded and deteriorated due to aging and environmental condtions. Whereas all these aforementioned situations will still result in a materials that are non-detonable, they will have the same scent signature as the detonable material and can be used for detection training, but they are now non-detonable equivalents (just like some of our "real" training aids?).

As i stated in my last post when i whimsically referred to TNT powder as being a good pseudomaterial for "detonable TNT," the physical properties of an explosive material has alot to do in determining the ability of the material to detonate. This is because for detonation to result in an explosion event, it has to produce shock waves that can interract with phonon modes within the bulk of the material, which then causes a cascade of exothermic and dissociative reactions throughout the bulk material which translates into an explosion event.

I intentionally mentioned "bulk material" twice to emphasize the importance of this physical property, as shockwaves generated by a blasting cap or detonator has to transverse through the whole of the explosive material, as fast and as unhindered as possible, with the material acting like one big single crystal. And, if the physical property of "bulk" is important, then related properties such as the purity of the explosive material and the arrangement and packing of its crystal particles (its crystallinity and crystal packing) are also of paramount importance to the propensity of a chemical explosive to explode through detonation.

Impurities, dampness and aging easily robs an explosive material of its ability to explode through detonation. Thus, crystalline TNT makes a better explosive material through detonation than compressed TNT powder. RDX without the plasticizer and binder will not detonate easily because it will not exist as a plasticized solid, but as a powder, and not have the bulk property and phonon mode configurations to propagage a shockwave. Instead, it'll burn. Gunpowder that is run as a fine line will burn but packed gunpowder will explode.

You'll probably tell me that you knew all this, and, as i am sure you also know, none of this has to do with scent signatures or "odor" in any way whatsoever. Also, it does not cover those explosive materials such as TATP and HMTD, which do not need blasting caps and undergoes explosion events through a spontaneous dissociation of their molecules and molecular structure. They are so sensitive that nobody wants to train with them; there are no "real material" training aids for these explosives - in fact, less than 10% of our nation's working dogs have ever than any experience with the odor, and, apart from being the explosive-makers and terrorists' current favorite explosive, an increasing number of curious high-school kids seem to be making them. How do we supply our CONUS and OCONUS detector-K9 handlers in operational theaters, including our private, police and sheriff K9 groups, with training aids to cover this threat to their ability to get back home to their families safely everyday? My passion lies in this area because, as impossible you might think it is, i know about scent. I did not study or get my credence from Auburn but then Auburn has not come out with a training aid to help the detector-K9 community either. Like i mentioned in previous posts, i am different from the people at Auburn as i am an applied scientist and my expertise for outstrips the collective expertise of behavorial scientists. I will not refuse working with them though if there is an opportunity. I always embrace opportunities for new knowledge.

We already established that an explosive material might not detonate and still retain its scent signature, so detonation is no more a requirement for the retention of scent signature. Now we can move further. Another method of formulating a training aid for an illicit or illegal material is by knowing the scent signature of the parent material and using the knowledge to formulate a material that has non-illicit/illegal properties but still comprises of pure odor characteristics. A painter is an eye artist while an olfaction scientist is a nose artist. An olfaction scientist is like an artist who can paint 25 shades of red that has the 25 shades of resolution when viewed with a colorimeter or spectoshotometer but can only be viewed as 1 unified, single shade to the human eye. This is because the resolution of the human eye is limiting. The same goes for the nose... many compounds smell so much like the original that it cannot be differentiated by a mammalian nose. They are one and the same to the nose and can be interchanged and supplanted at will, making an explosive material non-explosive, a poisonous gas non-poisonous, a water insoluble odor water soluble and a narcotic compound non-narcotic. This is beacause of the fact that although these materials smell exactly the same, they still have different physical and chemical properties. Part of my expertise is in the area of why they smell the same and i use this knowledge to make these aids, and any other aid i might want to make. I know that you did mention that you were "old skool" and probably would not change your ways; however man must always be ready for change in order not to be stagnant. Dave, this is the future and although you might intially be relutant to be a part of it, it'll be fun seeing you change and make some admissions that you would not have believed yourself making 4 years ago. And if you really are passionate about this profession, you'll love the illumination. I hope that Kevin Shedahl finishes his studies soon and publishes them...

 Quote:

All I can tell you is by using this product my K9's have gotten better.

Austin,
I understand you are quite happy using this product, but that has no bearing on your dog becoming better. Only good training will make the dog better, not a specific training aid especially if it is hawked as having a near identical scent picture.

 Quote:

They understand odor better and my K9's are finding explosives and narc's.(I have separate dogs of course) I am finding narc's on the streets.

All else being equal (proponents of pseudo claim) ...your perception is that they understand odor better. In reality it is not so. Maybe your confidence in your training aids and style have you believing this is so. Because your training has become better, thus your dog being better, I suppose one could draw the line between performance and understanding of odor but that would be a rookie mistake. No offense.

 Quote:

Odors change with time, chemicals break down. This is what we deal with in this game. I would want my k9 to understand a older and newer explosive.

I agree with you here. Question is...does pseudo break down in the same manner? Or does it stay consistant which does not give the dog the advantage of detecting explosives in various stages of deterioration but are still capable of detonation? Do you want a dog that hits only on pure/new explosive odor...or what you are likely to find in the real world? That would include black market explosives of various ages and origin, Home made bombs of different recipes, or a concoction of explosives which are of different ages etc, etc.. Not all terrorists can go to the local bomb depot and get the freshest stuff out there. Something to consider.

We train with the purest forms of narcotics available. This is to ensure that the dog understands the base elements of what we are looking for. Ideally this is what we want. If pseudo does not break down over time then this would be a bonus.


David A.,

I, like you, am keen on learning from different folks. You make an excellent argument for your product. It would not take much more to push me in your favor but being as I do not have the knowledge to intelligently debate the pros or cons of pseudo on a scientific level with you, all I can do is raise legitemate questions for reasons to change from the real thing to pseudo. I guess myself and David Frost went to the same Skool. Forgive my ignorance.

Howard

 Quote: D.Frost

If departments have EDD's and can't supply their trainers with fresh explosives, perhaps they shouldn't have EDD's.

Even if departments can supply their departments with fresh explosives the fact still remains that the ATF strongly stipulates that explosives still cannot be utilized within a civillian environment by either law enforcement or civilian parties. Thus, they cannot be used to set up real-life senarios and problems within populated and built up areas. Due to these limitations, the sole use of real explosives, fresh or unfresh, still limits the optimisation of any EDD training program.

 Quote: D.Frost

You didn't answer my question however about your observations of the NAPWDA trials. Were the targets part of an operational scenario or part of the ORT.

The targets were set up as part of an operational senario in between their certification program and the ORT. Some of the K9's used were pre and some were post ORT. Also, i will like to add that NAPWDA, from what i witnessed, was doing the ORT in conjunction with their certification program which employed normal operational methods that were impresively stringent to me. I do not know anyone personally at NAPWDA...i just went there as a vendor and i commend the forward-thinking decision of some of their master trainers to try out the product, without any official validation, just to see if it works. If i may add, some USPCA trainers also tried ScentLogix's heroin training aid during their USPCA recent certification process in Colorado, using non-ORT (i.e., using operational) methods. You might find it interesting that 100% of the K9's used alerted during this evaluation process.

 Quote: D.Frost

I know NAPWDA, like USPCA has adopted the ORT program as part of their certification.

But does this really matter, when, at the end of the day, you really cannot still use the real explosives in an authentically-simulated senario? David, not even you can (legally) use real explosives in civillian settings, you cannot use it in corner shops, at airports, in banks, or anywhere except in deserted areas. Is not everyone playing cowboys and indians when you cannot use the real stuff on the streets?

 Quote: Howard Knauf

You make an excellent argument for your product. All I can do is raise legitemate questions for reasons to change from the real thing to pseudo.

Howard, believe me, my argument is not for the product but for the fact that my scientific understandings and developments in odor and olfaction makes it possible for me to formulate synthetic training aids that can be as good, if not better, scent training aids than using the real material. It is this knowledge and the benefits it has to scent detection as a whole that i am trying to share. Synthetic training aids, i) can be formulated to harness the scent signature of any amount of the target material that you want (including all amounts of the material), ii) can be made to exclude any component of the scent signature of the material that you might also find within consumer/household goods (reducing false alerts), and iii) can actually be made to have a better scent signature than the real thing. Also, it will allow you guys to be able to train anywhere, even during serious thunderstorms! I do welcome your questions and i am happy to answer them all to the best of my knowledge. As far as the product is concerned, all that i can do is to share the foundations behind it. Alas, the K9 is really the final vendor.

Austin,
I understand you are quite happy using this product, but that has no bearing on your dog becoming better. Only good training will make the dog better, not a specific training aid especially if it is hawked as having a near identical scent picture.

My reply
I would think That the total picture is what would make the k9 better. Hence if you have good training along with a good training aid the pair would equal to a excellent dog. If you had good training with a crap aid then you would have a good picture of a k9 searching and not finding nothing. The quality of the aid is essential in the total picture.


All else being equal (proponents of pseudo claim) ...your perception is that they understand odor better. In reality it is not so. Maybe your confidence in your training aids and style have you believing this is so. Because your training has become better, thus your dog being better, I suppose one could draw the line between performance and understanding of odor but that would be a rookie mistake. No offense.

My reply
So I draw the conclusion that you think it is impossible for a k9 to understand odor better? I would say just as experience leads us to better ways a K9 is no different. If you make a clear picture the k9 will get better. It will understand odor in the way that it will key on all the compounds that are possible in that scent signature instead of keying on one or two compounds that is more predominant in the training aid that it is looking for. Example a lot of people in the seminars that I have gone to have troubles with finding other peoples training aids. My conclusion to this is that k9 is familiar to that scent signature of that training aid and is only keying on what is predominant in that aid. It does not have the full understanding of that odor. It could be that the explosive is newer, older or etc. This is where scentlogix gives you the edge in breaking down the odor and giving the dog the expierence to find that explosive. So the K9 will understand everything that is in the head space of that odor and not keying on 1 or 2 things.

ScentLogix gives you the edge on all these areas, I think we need to realize a K9 is a efficient machine it will do the least work to get what it wants. So training is essential to give the k9 as much experience on the odor so it will be efficient on all the odors and not 1 or 2 compounds.

I do not proclaim to have all the answers and nor do I say I know everything. I was as skeptical as everyone is because I have tried the other products and got burned by them. I have had awesome results with this product. I am not a real big fan in the new flavor of the month either. I talk about this product because I believe in it. There maybe someone else in the same situation that I am in that does not have explosives or narcs and this is the answer. Not everyone that I know that has a explosive k9 has explosives despite what people might think. There are big and small departments that have this issue. Those dogs are still needed though so there is not a two hour response time to a call. This is a perfect bridge to train with so when you do not have access, you still can accomplish training. I like this forum because it provokes thought and you can meet a lot of different personalities.

Everything I say is my opinion on how I have seen things and my experiences.

You know one trainer that I went to a training session with(Tracy Bowling)who started his workshop with this. I don't know everything and if anyone says they do there full of it. He made in impression on me and got my respect from that point. What I am getting at is we always have to learn and do the best job that we can do. The day we think we figured everything out is the day you die. Do not be stagnant in everyday training push the limits so you know what they are.