I won't begin to pretend to know the math behind this, but I know from speaking with those that do know the math, it's important.





Horse drawn carts rolled on round wheels.  The means of propulsion have changed, the design of the car has changed, and some of the materials that we use have changed.  But the round wheel is still the best method for rolling something down the pavement, or a set of rails.

When something better comes along, every major manufacturer will jump on it.  I guarantee it.

Google the NASA studies if you like but they are way over the top for this forum IMO.

Here is an excellent study as posted in the ASME Journal of Heat Transfer that is very applicable to this discussion.

'Transient Analysis of Layered Ceramic Fiber Insulation and Stainless Steel Foil Barrier, ASME - Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol 121, November 1999'

This is a good article, and the authors have done a good job with the thermal analysis.  However, it's folly to state that these results are strongly comparable to a safe in a fire.

Look at Fig. 4.  Notice that the asymptotes of the temperature curves are not at ~1300K.  This is because the external environment is able to carry away significant amounts of heat from the top of the insulated surface, and the system reaches an energy balance with a sample temperature lower than that of the flame.  Because a safe is a "closed" system, it just has to deal with all of that heat flux.  Its asymptote will be the same as the external temperature.  Note that, even with the very thickest amount of insulation (bottom curve, Fig. 4), the temperature reaches approximately "steady state" in about 45 mins.

The results if anything are conservative relative to a safe having ceramic lining installed as an addition for thermal protection. If a fire lined Sturdy Safe is being used in comparison to this study which would make sense based upon the OP you would have to account for 3 inches of insulation that is being used on the roof and door of the safe (max insulation thickness is 2 inches in the study which is bottom curve in figure 4) as well as the mass and thermal inertia of the steel shell of the safe itself which at a minimum is 7ga or as in my own case is 4ga plate. There is also the 14ga or 16ga inner liner that needs to be heated up as well that didn't occur in this study. Additionally, due to the lack of adequate burner controls on their system the sample was exposed to temperatures that exceeded the already aggressive thermal temperature curve of ASTM E119. As an example which can be seen in figure 1, the temperature at the exposed layer of the sample is at nearly 2000F at minute 45 whereas ASTM E119 curve would require a temperature around 1600F. As to where they reach equilibrium with the safe environment verses open ambient, that will also have to occur within a safe that is filled with a dense concentration of contents. I agree the heat absorption won't continue forever but a few hundred pounds of firearms and misc materials that have the time to absorb radiant and convection heating as it is passed through to the inner liner to the chamber of the safe will keep the temperature from rising in the short term.

Note the difference in heat transfer between a 1 inch sample and a 2 inch sample on figure 4 of the study. For a comparison, 450K is around 350F which is the failure point as per UL 350F. in figure 4, a 1 inch sample of ceramic fiber insulation failed at around 10 minutes, however: a 2 inch sample didn't fail till around 40 minutes. I'm curious to see how a 3 inch sample would have compared.

 

I'm speaking to you here as a Mechanical Engineer with experience in heat transfer.  You're trying to quantitatively compare two physical processes (this experiment, and a safe in a fire) that are qualitatively different.  You're busy talking about exact insulation depths, specific temperature profiles, steel thicknesses, etc, that are totally irrelevant to the qualitative physics of the problem- namely, that a process which is free to "sink" heat to its environment will have vastly different, and incomparable, thermal characteristics to a thermally "closed" process in which something of finite mass is heated from the outside.

By trying to directly apply these experimental results to analyzing a safe, you're doing the equivalent of conflating these two statements:
"I can set my oven to 500 degrees for 8 hours and the outside surface doesn't get past 120 degrees."
"Therefore, if I wrap my oven in extra insulation, fill it with bricks, and put it in a 400 degree room, then the inside should take at least a few hours to hit 120 degrees."

If you can't see the fact that NOTHING about the time/temperature profile of the first process will tell me anything about the time/temp profile of the second, then I can't help you.

It's funny that you mention that.  Going back several years, as a non-engineer, non-scientist, I gave Rockola that exact same example.  It really is common sense, isn't it?

And this doesn't even begin to cover the other aspects of how heat enters a safe.  It's a bit more complex than just the insulation used.

Do you think are the only engineer on this forum? I'm an engineer as well with 25 years in industry with also a graduate degree. I also have over 50 furnaces and ovens that I"m responsible for of every shape and size. In my career I have done more DOEs, furnace rebuilds, furnace calibrations, loop tuning, certifications (QS9000, TS9000, AS9000, ISO9000 etc) than I can possibly remember. I even have multiple banks of radiant heat extrusion die ovens that are made almost to the same size and dimensions as a gun safe that use that have 4 inches of ceramic fiber insulation so I know from first hand knowledge how these materials behave in the real world.

I also remember that analysis that you had done previously which said that the Sturdy Safe design would fail in some ridiculously low time (~10minutes?). I remember because I have direct fire furnaces that blast flame directly onto 1000lbs aluminum billets and even those don't heat up faster than the interior of a Sturdy safe according to your model. It was pretty clear to me that you had no idea what you were talking about. And, if you can't extract some useful information from the study that was posted here and apply the fundamental laws for heat transfer, then you are not a very effective engineer IMO.

If I ever hit the multi million dollar lottery one of the first things I am going to do is buy a fire lined Sturdy safe and send it to a certified fire testing facility to put this issue to bed.
However since I have a hunch that this has already been done by competitor(s) if they ever release that info then I retract my offer.

This is from the other thread. This just shows to not believe everything you read on the internet until a lab tests it in practice

So what you're saying is, "I don't really know so I'm going to pretend that you didn't ask that question"??

How can you say that I'm wrong or my idea wouldn't be effective if you don't even know?

I also remember retracting those results after I lost confidence in their validity, apologizing to you personally, and promising to produce an updated analysis using transient analytical methods.  Attacking my integrity as an engineer is pretty low, IMO.

And I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are a graduate degreed ME if you think that heating a furnace from the inside is physically analogous to heating one from the outside.  Your "first hand knowledge" of how ceramics behave in the real world is irrelevant if the physical setup of the problem is completely different.

Oh the irony of your statement...

MrFisher, I can say with complete confidence that your calculations were actually quite conservative. At this point, I can't share any more than that. Just know that the thermodynamic calculations on heat transfer and energy exchange have again been proven to not be simply theoretical, but represent the real world.

For the matter of moisture, containing the steam and the dynamics of a firesafe, I would like to offer some facts garnered from real fire safe performance testing.

First, the steam that is generated from gypsum board is on the order of astounding. A safe with one (1) layer of 5/8" thick gypsum board will sustain steam generation for about 40-45 minutes when exposed in a 1200º fire test. The steam that is released represents a total environmental wash-down, full on fog that saturates the air inside to the point the water falls out like rain. The water fallout collects on every surface inside the safe, and runs to the floor as you might expect. When a safe is opened immediately after testing looks as though someone hosed the inside of the safe down with a spray nozzle. It is that wet everywhere, assuming the test is terminated before the liner is completely calcined and crumbing.

The steam is intentionally contained, for the reasons mentioned in a few well written posts here. The steam is the temperature regulating instrument. As long as there is a pressure release, the steam is limited to 212ºF. That's not a theory, it's a fact. All safes subjected to extreme heat suffer various degrees of leakage. The door seals don't provide air-tight containment, and various minor vents are available with power ports, anchor holes and less than full-weld body joints that open.

Also... Remember, this level of heat is causing the steel to expand at extraordinary levels.

Thermal Coefficient of Expansion of Steel is 0.0000067 inches per (inch-ºF). A 60-inch tall steel safe subject to an 1100ºF rise expands ~0.44 inches in overall height. It's almost a full 1/2 inch taller!

This is happening in all directions in a 3-dimentional world. The safe exposed to this degree of heating is suffering massive mechanical stresses. The side walls bulge as much as 2-inches outward, making the safe look like a wine barrel. The seals of the doors must be very carefully engineered so the Intumescent seals are not broken significantly. Clearances between the door and body change radically.

Without divulging too much about firesafe technology, I can tell you for a fact that a passive door seal is useless when the body bows away from the door (left and right) as much as 1 inch in the center of the vertical span of the door. That Palusol we use, said to expand 8-times it's original size... every bit of that expansion is necessary to maintain a reasonable fire seal. Moreover, if you lose your door seal, the temperatures inside the safe skyrocket in seconds to 1000º or more. Ask me how I know...

I'm not here to slam any competitor. I am here to provide facts and educate consumers.

For what it$ worth....

Priceless clear educational write-up again, thanks again for the education SAFEGUY! Only way it could be clearer is with a pop-up photo book :)....  but I trust the Professor, class dismissed!

Yeah, you've got me on that one all right .  Guess I got a little caught up with the all the ad-hominem he's throwing around.

I do know.  TSG just explained the science behind it.  So there you have it.

Yes I did recall that you had retracted your analysis but I didn't recall that you had apologized to me personally. If you had, then sorry that I brought it up again. I sensed where you were going with this discussion so I guess I lumped you into a category with some others who post here. Again sorry that I didn't take your statements more professionally.

So, this study put a layer of insulation above a 1350 K (near 2000 F) heat source and measured the temperature on the other side, which was open / exposed.  It performed well; their ~1" insulation kept the far side temperature under 450 K (350 F) for what looks like about 30 minutes.  The study was conducted for the purpose of model development; among its findings were that increasing thickness of insulation improved its performance in an additive fashion, that multiple layers of foil (to reduce radiative and convective heat transfer) were not more effective than a single layer, and that dense insulation of this kind performs better than less-dense insulation.

And if a safe was a wall with a large open space on the "inside" where transmitted heat could radiate and convect away, and not a box with nowhere for that heat to go, maybe this study could be applied in some way to predict safe performance.

Based on this study, I believe that if I stored my firearms on the roof of my house, this insulation would effectively protect them from a really hot kitchen fire.  Yay?


Do you really think this study's measurements of the performance of that insulating material, under those conditions, is at all relevant to the question of temperature rise inside a sealed box?  Really?

What exactly are you taking away from this study, as applied to safe fire insulation performance?  That because the 0.88" of insulation used in the study kept a 2000 F fire from heating the far side to 350 F for 30 or so minutes, that a safe with 0.88" or 3" or 6" of similar insulation will do as well or better in preventing interior temperature rise?  You can't do that.  It's just handwaving.

Maybe I'm jaded by spending most of my journal-reading time looking through publications of a medical sort, typically fraught with publication bias and other reliability and repeatability issues, all of which demand a very skeptical eye, but I'm just not that gullible.


Incidentally, I just looked over Sturdy's web site again.  They seem proud enough of the fact that their door fire gasket has a proud check mark next to "UL Tested" ... so formal third-party testing means something to them.  I wonder why they don't want UL to test the rest of the safe?  Maybe they know something you don't?  Or maybe they have, and they don't want you to know the results?

I purchased the largest safe they make without going custom, 60 x 28 x 72.  I upgraded metal and fire proofed it.  I'd buy another, I'm happy with it.

You clearly didn't at the time. If your head was so full of that knowledge then why did you duck the question? I also believe you have quite the misunderstanding of it, yet you try to come off as a person well-versed in the science behind it. Thank you for your insightful post

[Insert Sarcasm where necessary]



So you're saying that steam can't get over 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure? If you really are an engineer then you should know that is completely untrue...

Were you perhaps saying that because everything inside the safe is so thoroughly soaked at this point that the items don't get over 212 because the moisture has to evaporate out/off before the temp can go above 212?

I guess whatever works to keep the safe temp down, but that just seems a bit like swerving into a tree to avoid hitting the deer that's in the roadway. But hey, at least the guns "made it", no worries about the rust, documents, and other moisture sensitive items that didn't make it.

Seriously?  Perhaps reading comprehension isn't something you're good at, so I'll go ahead and quote what I said:



So, as if I could predict the future........I gave you your answer (certainly didn't duck it), AND  TSG came along and "better answered with specifics".

Let's not forget that TSG and I operate at different ends of the spectrum.  He designs and builds safes in a factory.....I break into them in the field.  His moves safes across a smooth warehouse floor....I move safes up and down stairs, across sod, through windows, etc.  The heaviest safe they build weighs a few thousand pounds......I move tens of thousands of pounds.

So we are both in the same industry, we both do many of the same things, but each of us do those same things from a different perspective.  Why would I even attempt to "explain the science" about the products he's responsible for engineering?  I can tell you how they work, and the basics premise.  If you want the exact science, that's up to him.

I'm sorry some people get pissed off when Sturdy is proven not to be what they believe it is.  Such is life.

What, are you Bill Nay the Anti-Science Guy?

Wow, what a chain of nonsense. I am stating scientific facts, these are not my opinions. Sorry if you choose not to believe, but this is not a religion with some unseen deity. These are concepts and naturally occurring processes that make up the world we live in. Please feel free to do some Google-ing and see what you find. The concept of a stable and consistent water phase change temperature has been used as the basis to calibrate thermometers since  Florentine scientists studied this in the 17th century.

It's unfortunate that we don't have some simple and naturally occurring means to moderate temperature without water saturation. That would be cool, and if it existed, we would know about it. If it were economically feasible, we would employ it.

Why such contempt?

TSG, yes it is. It's the religion of Sturdy Gun Safes. With an overall-clad Terry as its God and his daughter playing the role of Jesus. Facts and science be damned, you must throw all logic aside and believe in the all knowing Sturdy!

As I said earlier, nothing brings the Trolls out like a Sturdy Safe post.

OK you are not an engineer and that's okay. But, you appear to be in the medical community so you are trained in the scientific method.

First off, thanks for reading the study it is a very good one to reference with this discussion in mind. Much like the 'New England Journal of Medicine', this particular publication is a well respected, peer reviewed journal that is read and critiqued but experts in the field who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than anyone on this forum.

So that aside and your sarcastic comments noted here is my attempt at an actual discussion of the article.

You picked up on some important points that are very significant in a transient analysis of heat transfer. The article showed that a denser ceramic fiber material performs better than a lower density material in the initial (transient) conditions. For those who have taken thermodynamics and heat transfer, it seems to be counter intuitive because normally higher density means a faster rate of heat transfer. In this case, the relatively high specific heat of ceramic fiber plus low thermal conductivity means the material requires more time to "soak" in heat especially when there is more material to heat up.

So if you truly want to discount all effects of the open ambient air on the unexposed side that can convect away heat from the sample. Use where the linear ramp starts to no longer be linear (bottom curve Figure 4 at around minute 30) that is where the delta T of the surface temperature and the surrounding air is significant enough for a noticeable amount of heat to transfer away from the surface. Same would be true inside a safe because the inside air will be at it's initial non-heated state.



Heat transfer is incredibly predictable which does show in the results of the experiments and why it can be modeled as an electrical circuit. Adding more insulation to the thickness is equivalent to adding more resistance in a series electrical circuit. For electricity, Ohm's law shows that I=V/R which means as resistance R becomes bigger, there will be lower current that will flow and in heat transfer q=T/R for the more resistance which in this case is ceramic fiber insulation (more layers) the less heat will flow.

Rockola, again you ignore the elephant in the room. The miracle test you reference is an open environment, where there is an unlimited opportunity for energy to escape the model in every direction. A test of this nature proves nothing in context of the closed safe system. You also continue to use terms that are not scientifically meaningful, like "soak". There is a physical property, known as "Specific Heat", that represents a material's capacity for energy retention. This simple concept supports your psycho-science because the higher density compressed material does hold a tiny bit more energy. But, on the scale of heat transfer rates we are discussing, that factor is like saying 0.005 inches advantage at the starting line will win the drag race. It's simply insignificant on a microscopic scale.

Moreover, higher density packing of ANY substance increases thermal conductivity. That's why you have fluffy piles of insulation in your attic, rather than thin boards of compressed insulation of the same mass per square foot. Think and be practical for a moment. You'll get it. That test you reference has some unknown conditions that completely distorted the test results. It has no credibility in scientific terms.

I wish I could say more, because debating the science with you is a waste of my time. You warp the science to suit your twisted ideas of thermal behavior, and try to associate radically different system conditions to a closed safe system. I assure you, you are as wrong as you can be, I have the proof, and the Science I have been sharing is 100% correct. The basic thermodynamic LAWS we have been discussing have been proven again and again. The closed safe system is no exception. The math we did before, close to dead on the money. The model errors are moderate, and due to ignoring infra-red energy transfer in the furnace, and accounting for the leaky door gasket system that is not protected by steam escaping. Yes, that means the the thermodynamic models we used to predict failure were quite conservative, and the real safe system fails faster than the calculations suggested.

I can say no more... sorry all. You'll have to take my word at this point. I hope to share more soon.

I agree! There has been this Sturdy safe troll who for the last 5 years or so, has been on forums parroting the same baseless arguments and grasping at straws without any...you know.... actual evidence or relevant experience to back up his claims. This troll is not dissuaded by facts, or when his claims about the magical awesomeness of Sturdy safes and the giant leaps and assumptions he uses to prove those claims are repeatedly refuted. He continues to bring his tired arguments to every single thread where someone questions or says anything negative about them.

So yes, you're right, Sturdy safe threads do attract the trolls, especially the biggest troll of them all.

What makes this all so ridiculous is that there are actually people who pay money and trust their valuables to a company that makes a fire safe that has not been verified with real and independent fire testing. Do these people also shop for cars that have not been crash tested? Seriously, they sell thousands of safes for $1000+ each and they can't spend $10-$15k on a real fire test that could prove the effectiveness of their product? Heck, that group buy they did on another forum was like $112k by itself.

So here we are again, no testing, no data, no certifications, nothing. At least we can count on rockola making assumptions and using unrelated studies and products to back up his hypothetical claims.

They should put a sticker on their safes: This is not a fire certification label but you'll have to trust us because....like... the space shuttle, bro!

I would like to applaud Rockola.  It sounds like there has been some third party testing, and we're only a short time away from getting some more specifics.  Were it not for him and those like him irritating the right people with their nonsense, perhaps this would have never come to light.

I appreciate Rockola's contribution to this matter, and I'm sure Sturdy appreciates it too.

Do I really have to explain the meaning of "soak"? It's a common industry term and seeing that is in the scientific dictionary, it appears to also be a scientific term as well:

Scientific definition of Soaking (Heat Treatment)

And, ceramic fiber has a very low capacity to store heat so there is more to the long soak time than it's measure of specific heat. Low thermal conductivity along with high specific heat and higher density per unit volume in this study showed better performance in a transient period which is the case during a fire.



Speaking of infra-red heating (increases to the 4th power with temperature). I do see that you must have gone back and tested the AMSEC BF to ASTM E119 because now it only has a 1 hour rating. Did you put a thermocouple on the roof and door? Just curious.

Here we go again... This "Soak" means to allow the material to sit at a fixed temperature for a period so the slow molecular changed can complete. This has nothing to do with a heat transfer delay in conduction conditions. Again, completely inappropriate interpretation. I could just as easily use the word cook, or delay, or linger, or dwell to describe the meaning of Soak in this context. Give it up Rocky...



Please site some scientific reference for this chain of irrational speak. Making it up as you go now, right?



Please site you source. The BF Gunsafe has a 2-hour 1200ºF rating from ETL - Intertek. If you see otherwise, it's a typo on some website and I will see that they are corrected.

Again, you attack science and facts with irrelevant and unfounded banter. I hate answering your amateurish science spew, but you taint it with just enough tone of credibility to make the novice question the debate, so I have to set the record straight.

I hope others don't see this as an argument about the quality or value of a competitive safe. This is a debate about a scientific process, proven with empirical test data, and correcting the erroneous assumptions and irrelevant references to unrelated thermodynamic conditions or systems. It's unfortunate that the debate is in a thread of the given subject, as it appears as though this is an attack, and it's anything but that. Please excuse that issue.

Rockola, thanks for taking the time to reply to my reply.  I'm just going to quote one part of your response, because it concisely summarizes the root of your error -


I mentioned this earlier, but you simply can not take data measured under one set of conditions, and make logical or intuitive leaps to apply those observed outcomes to other conditions.  Much less, as you've done here, cherrypick one piece of the data and try to apply it to different conditions.


Observations and results from a study in one set of conditions can prompt a hypothesis about what might happen under a related set of conditions, or even completely different conditions.  But it's still a hypothesis.  Logic and intuition can give you an idea about what MIGHT happen.  You still have to do the new experiment to test the new hypothesis.

Science (all fields) is absolutely littered with disproven hypotheses that seemed reasonable or made intuitive sense.  This is a problem in medicine in particular - a drug or treatment that might be super promising in an animal model just might not work at all in humans.  You can't take rat data on Friday and market a drug for people on Monday.  You've got to do the trials and PROVE that it's safe and that it works for people.

You're making the same error here with this ceramic insulation and safe construction.  Sturdy has rat data on ceramic fiber insulation, but they skipped the human trials and went straight to market.  You've got some data that shows that under one set of conditions, this material performs to your satisfaction.  But you can't just declare victory and confidently claim that it'll perform equally well under another set of conditions.  You've got to do the study.  In this context, that means testing the material in a safe.  A layer of insulation in open air cooked from below is not the same as layers around a box cooked from five sides.

At best, it's all handwaving and a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works.  At worst, it's cynical snake oil salesmanship.

Well believe me, I would love to do a design of experiment on all the factors involved in their fire protection and help them come up with an optimum design but ... it's not my company or my place. They have done a very good job from what I see; a couple localized areas that will get hot such as the door jamb where heat will leak in but for the most part, the liner is insulated well from the body. It's tradeoffs, however, and Sturdy balances them very well. The door jamb and strong bolt support make the door incredibly strong as can be seen in their videos and I for one feel a whole lot better knowing that no one with less than the Jaws of Life is prying that door open.

The use of ceramic fiber insulation is very common for fire protection and there a plenty of UL listed devices that use it. The real proof is in results though which Sturdy has at least one available to examine: 90 minute complete burn down and no damage to the contents. Any wonder a big company the AMSEC is going after a small family owned business like Sturdy to discredit them, it could be a paradigm shift to the industry if it was determined that their way is better.

That aside, here is a "closed" system that exclusively uses ceramic fiber for fire protection. These media vaults not only have to keep the interior walls less than 125F to pass (tested to ASTM E119 and UL 72) but also have to keep the humidity level low as well. This is basically a 50F delta change in temperature while the outside wall is ramped up as much as 2000F.  They have a certified test displayed one the page as well. This always gets a good lash-back when I mentioned them.

Photos of ceramic fiber panels

UL 125F, 150F and 350F fire endurance ratings

Ah yes.  Just like the cure for cancer.  The big companies just don't want the rest of the world to know about it, so it must be suppressed!

A paradigm shift.  You mean all of those big companies could get rid of all of those mixing and pumping machines?  They could eliminate the vibrating tables, and the curing ovens? And replace all of that with a utility knife?  They surely wouldn't be interested in that.

Sooner or later, you're going to run out of hole to dig.

Oh this is classic, a few threads ago you were saying "soak" is a non-scientific term and now you are telling me that I'm not using it correctly? The ASTM E119 is nothing more than a multi-step heat treat practice. At each interval, a new temperature step is moved to and the sample is soaked at that level for the interval period.



So I see you didn't actually read the article attached, it's all explained in the study very well complete with charts showing the effect of varying of factors such as density, specific heat, thermal conductivity and thickness. But really, it's pretty basic stuff.



Wow, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.



Well if they don't see this as an attack on a competitors safe, they certainly should. At least you aren't changing your name while you do it

Once upon a time, while discussing gun safes and fire protection, a comment was made that bears repeating:

My apologies, no attack intended. I am here as an individual, not a representative of a company. I express my options and offer my near 3 decades of experience in this field. I am here to learn as well, and I spend a lot of my time here learning about weapons. I have built three AR Rifles, and it's all thanks to this website that I do this successfully.

Wow... TSG I used to have respect for you and your knowledge in the industry... but your lack of even basic, freshmen science/engineering curriculum is starting to change that... I certainly have doubt that you hold an engineering or science degree if you don't understand the fact that steam can, and does go over 212 degrees. Did you skip that day... err year?

No need to google anything, if you refuse to acknowledge that such a thing as super-heated steam exists then it would be pointless for me to continue. I could more effectively argue with a fish than with a human like yourself that ignores scientific facts.

You should do a bit more reading before you assume that superheating is a natural process that might occur in a safe under fire exposure. It is not. I don't need to Google anything, I have been working with energy conversion my entire career.

Superheated Steam is generated by a secondary heating "process" that adds energy to a saturated steam flow, usually by running it thru a special heat exchanger. In industrial steam processes, the steam flow is passed thru a "superheater" to increase the temperature. The safe environment does not provide any secondary heating mechanisms of this nature, and there is no appreciable pressure build in the safe due to ample venting thru door seals and other breeches. To increase steam temperature, you must build significant pressure. Therefore, my statement is 100% correct. Reference following quote:



My comments are correct. Under the condition in a normal safe, superheating is not present, and temperature readings in testing have never indicated there is any superheating happening.

whats up with all the bold writing, is it done automatically with your computer? because you have quote boxes to separate where your comments begin and someone's ends.

You've made a faulty assumption. In a sealed system that only consists of water and water vapor, like maybe the steam loop of a power-plant (using your example) the steam cannot exceed the temperature at which the phase-change happens until all the water has been converted to steam because the vapor is always in contact with liquid water (that acts to moderate the temperature of the steam until phase change has completed). In an environment where the water vapor is carried in a medium of air the vapor can, and absolutely does exceed the boiling point, even if there is liquid water located nearby. That is because the air itself (and the vapor contained within) may be at an elevated temperature, but it acts as an insulating barrier between the vapor and liquid water. Simple example would be a safe (hey, that's what we're talking about here, not steam power plants), where-in liquid-phase water remains in the lower regions of the safe, moderating the temperature, but the upper region of the safe has lost it's retained water and the vapor can now exceed the boiling point, causing super-heated steam.



Are you saying that you have never seen a safe's internal temperature exceed 212 degrees? In order for you to have never witnessed superheating, then the safe temperature must not have exceeded the boiling temperature of water. If any airborne water vapor rises above the boiling temperature that, by very definition, is superheating. Geeze I can't believe I have to explain something so elementary to somebody like you. I highly suggest you go back to the source and re-read the paragraph directly above the one you quoted to me. Then read it again, more slowly this time. After you're done with that, click that pretty blue link that say "Thermodynamic Equilibrium" and thoroughly read that page as well. Hopefully you will be able to understand why the paragraph you quote is 100% irrelevant and inapplicable here.

I'm now beginning to realize the true state of our safe designing/engineering capabilities in this country. If you're a lead engineer at Amsec then the safe industry really needs some help...

I'm curious.

UL will test any safe, built any way you want, and if it passes the test, it gets the label.  How many safes have you submitted for testing, and have subsequently been awarded the label?  How many safes can you name by manufacturer and model that uses the same materials, in the same fashion that Sturdy is using?

You see, even if you are correct.  Even if TSG is the dumbest engineer on the planet.  His products work in real life.  Not only do they work, but they have been verified to work by some of the most respected third party authorities.

I'm just glad we have guys like you to tell us, you know....the guys who work with this stuff every day, how it "really" works.

Come on SafeGuy just confirm that the 9 minute fail on the fire test chart was the magnificent Sturdy and we can end this once and for all.  We all know that's the Sturdy, well everyone but the Kool-Aid drinkers and Sturdy employees who are posting here.

I have been granted permission to share our most recent graph showing competitive safes. The graph speaks for itself. The ceramic blanket lined safe failed (exceeded 350º) at 8.2 minutes. Off the graph area, the interior temperature hit 1100ºF at 47 minutes. Test graph lines that terminate at 93 minutes were run where the test goal was 90 minutes and testing was terminated.

Debate on all issues... closed.

See data presented in the other thread HERE.

......But.....But..... The space shuttle and furnaces man !!!!!

Yea, that's why no one else uses ceramic insulation for fire safes.

Mess with a bull, get the horns.

After all the years of Rockola's nonsense and irrelevant comparisons and theoretical arguments on multiple forums, you finally see why Sturdy never did or published third party fire test results. How many people believed Sturdy's (and their online loyalists) unsubstantiated claims and bought safes thinking it would protect their valuables from fire?

Rockola and Sigowner, cool hypothetical arguments bro! I'm just glad you guys aren't building fire safes or the industry would really be in trouble.

A1, congrats and thank you for arguing with rockola all these years and trying to help protect consumers from their bogus claims. Make sure you post the test results to the other forums as well.

What a surprise!

In for all the excuses and conspiracy theories from the Sturdy contingent.

Crickets, not likely for long . . .

TSG, thank you as always for sharing information.

Lol, you will stoop to no level low enough. So what, did that test lab of yours run a test of their (or whoevers) safe with a thermocouple on the door jamb of their safe? Funny how your own certification has 3 locations on a side wall and run at only 1200F ... what standard is that based on? What ever happened to UL 72 which would have had a thermocouple located on the hottest location? Did you get to throw out the data points you didn't like? If you do have one of their safes, invite them to witness a test with their safe full of contents in the same furnace as yours. Run a full hour using ASTM E119 and let a full cool down occur and see what the contents look like.

BTW, isn't this the test lab company that certified your safe?

'Intertek Suspended for Fudging Data'

So if it truly was Sturdy safe you tested and are trying so desperately to discredit. I hope round two will go to Sturdy by having them duplicate their pry bar and fork truck tests on your BF. I already said that their design will have some localized hot spots because the door jamb and even bolt support extend into the body but that is a trade off for how INCREDIBLY strong their door is ...

So TSG, can your AMSEC BF withstand Sturdy Safes pry resistance tests? Let me answer that, I've seen picture of your doors bolt support and I know it wouldn't stand a chance. Come on Sturdy, buy an AMSEC BF and let people compare. I'll chip in, you know my address.

Video Sturdy's 10,000LBS plus pound fork truck tension test on door

Pry bar test on door with two bolts cut

So now that the fire protection has been tested, we're moving on to pry resistance.  

Wow you reference an article from 14 years ago?   Keep trying.........  When the old fire argument fails switch it to pry tests! Got it!  Maybe we could test whose paint lasts longer next.

No. This is an opportunity. He proved that firearms won't be damaged by steam in the event of a fire if you have a sturdy safe. It's the only one like it in the world.