LOL, it's a classic case of moving the goal post

Reading Rockola grasping at straws reminds me of this great Chapelle Show sketch: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5uemlz/chappelle-s-show-celebrity-trial-jury-selection---uncensored

To be fair, Sturdy may win that one.  

 

My knowledge of safe construction is limited to shaking a door and kicking the side of a safe.  After rattling and shaking the doors and banging on the sides of Chinese made garbage, I struck an AMSEC BF...I won't do that again.  My uncle owns a Sturdy and it's definitely a solid safe.  With that said I am not sure how any consumer can make an informed decision on fire protection without relying on information from an independent testing group.  In this thread  there have been a lot of excellent points made on the issue but the one that resonates with me the most concerns the selling of 100K worth of safes on another site.  If that is indeed true, and the argument hear is science that is way beyond my current knowledge and I suspect the typical safe owner/potential buyer, prudence dictates that a reliable trusted independent testing source is needed. I would think this would be good business decision if you are confident in the outcome.

So if you won't go w/ AMSEC ... what would you do?

Quote History

Quoted:


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

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

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

Rockola, if you can read the info on the bottom right of the chart, you'd see your answer was already given.

Thanks Firestalker, I usually don't spend much time looking at propaganda from safe companies so I didn't even see it. BTW, where's the heat trace for the AMSEC BF on the upper part the safe. Seems to me I recall radiant heat contributions in addition to conductive as what is being shown on the curve TSG shows. Hmm, comparative data of competitors safes but not showing the same location as a test point.

Oh and I did save the chart TSG and recall at the time I speculated that the extra heating must be caused by an open burner which you mentioned above. See, I even helped you out. Now I'm no lawyer but it certainly seems this stunt has crossed a line but that's up to Sturdy what they want to do if anything about it.

Again thanks Firestalker, I went back and read the chart. "Temperature probes mounted 7" down top surface centered front to back and side to side." So is that door, sides and back being measured? Where is the data from the other three points? Why didn't you show data points on four sides for the AMSEC BF for your testing. You might as well give full disclosure here to save some time later in court Nah, unfortunately they are too nice for that but boy do I ever smell a lawsuit.

 Let me clarify my point.  The safes I examined were not AMSEC BF but competitors. I was very impressed when I examined AMSEC BF.  Incredibly solid safe.  I am also impressed with my uncle's Sturdy again very solid safe.  My personal issues with AMSEC is the dealer network. My choice is as follows.  I can go with Sturdy dump the fire liner, get a bigger model, upgrade the steel, and place it in the garage or I can pay considerably more money to get a much smaller safe that can be professionally moved into my house. At this point I do not have the option of buying a safe online and moving it into the house myself.  The professionals in my area that I trust to move a safe into my house charge 800 plus to move a safe they sale you into your house.  I hate to think of what the price will be to move a safe they didn't sale you.

I'm sorry, could you please enlighten me as to what arguments I'm making again? I seem to have forgotten.

I asked a question, a1 got all up-tight about it, TSG got condescending about a subject he clearly lacks the scientific basics in, and I corrected him. What argument was I trying to make?

The funny thing is, none of them have actually answered the question with an actual scientific answer. And neither of them has answered my question about if it has actually been tested before.

What "other three points"?  The legend of the chart sounds pretty clear to me--two probes side-by-side, 7" down from the interior top of the safe, centered front-to-back and side-to-side.  The readings should be pretty close to identical, since the probes are in almost the same place.

As to your imagined lawsuit, hopefully Sturdy has legal counsel who can advise them that California has a pretty robust anti-SLAPP law--otherwise they may well find themselves on the hook for Amsec's legal fees.  I'd offer my help to Amsec (as I'm licensed in California), but I doubt they'll need it.

Edit: Mostly to entertain myself, but hopefully to educate some others here (not that I think you'll really pay any attention to this), I'll go through this lawsuit you're dreaming about.  For Sturdy to win a lawsuit (presumably based on defamation or something similar), they'd have to show a few things: (1) Amsec said something about them, (2) what Amsec said was false, and (3) Amsec knew what they said was false.  Let's break those down a bit.

The first point is probably pretty easy to meet.  TSG never named Sturdy, but Sturdy is the only gun "safe" maker to use the ceramic insulation, and by posting in this thread, he made it pretty clear that they were the manufacturer in question.

For (2), Sturdy would have to show that the test in question never happened, that it was done with significantly different parameters than stated (to Sturdy's detriment and Amsec's benefit), or that the actual results of that test were significantly different than what's shown on the chart.

For (3), Sturdy would have to show that Amsec knew one of the things in (2).  If the lab screwed up the test and Amsec didn't know any better, they're still off the hook.

If Amsec had a test run with the parameters they describe, and the results were as their chart shows, they win, hands down, at the summary judgment stage.  Or, given California's anti-SLAPP law, actually before summary judgment, because that law provides an expedited way to resolve obviously-bogus defamation lawsuits.  Once Amsec wins the anti-SLAPP motion and has the case dismissed, they're entitled to recover their court costs and attorney's fees.  They'd also be able to file what's known as a "SLAPPback" lawsuit against Sturdy, where they could be entitled to punitive damages for Sturdy's abuse of the courts.

So, rockola, do you really think a lawsuit would be such a good idea?

I have to admit, I'm impressed that you have actually conceded round one and the failure of ceramic fiber insulation. Kudos for accepting data and independent testing.

Sturdy makes nice strong steel boxes. I have no doubt they'll perform as well as, or better than, most other RSCs in the market with regard to muscle and tool attacks.

 

Your legal advice can't be any worse than your fire protection advice.  I say they go for it!  Just think of all of the things the discovery phase would dig up.  

If I were Sturdy, I would remember what really brought this issue to the forefront.  You.  If it weren't for you, this would have likely never happened.  So thanks again Rockola.  

The pair of probes provided redundancy in case one went sour. The readings shown in the graphs is the greater of the two readings at any sample point. All safes were instrumented exactly the same. ETL issues test cert's to verify the setup and conditions.

I have had him on ignore for years now.  Who knew he could type something useful

Thanks for the test results TSG!

I used to use a product called Kaowool for lining my forges.  I am honestly surprised the Sturdy safe didn't fair better since it appears to use a material that is similar but I knew there had to be a reason nobody else uses it as it would be much, much easier to work with than other materials.

Wow, questioning TSG's testing results at Intertek/ETL testing based on those allegations from almost 2 decades ago. How about you post the results of the court case from 2001?

"Eight lab workers have been acquitted of falsifying test results in what federal officials had called the largest case of fraud in environmental testing in U.S. history. Federal jurors rejected all 77 charges against the workers at Intertek Testing Services' lab in Richardson. The workers were accused of misrepresenting results in the cleanup of thousands of hazardous-waste sites and other environmental cases in a moneymaking scheme.

Former Intertek chemists and managers cleared of all federal charges Tuesday were Chukwujekwun Anozie, Michelle Georgina Delgado-Brown, Gesheng Dai, Martin Dale Jeffus, Michael Lynn Ludwick, Dale Thomas McQueen, Sheila Ann Petty, and William S. Wingert.

"This is a bungled investigation on a gigantic scale," said Mick Mickelson, an attorney for one of the defendants. "This investigation was a disaster for the government."

http://amarillo.com/stories/2001/11/23/bus_labworkers.shtml


How ethical of you to post the allegations without mentioning that they were not proven to be true in a court of law. Also, this case was only eight people accused of doing something wrong out of hundreds/thousands of employees.

What's next? Accusing TSG of paying off the testing agency ? Or maybe aliens (brought back from a space shuttle trip)  influenced the results?

Face it, you were/are dead wrong about the fire protection effectiveness of sturdy gun safes. Get over it, accept the facts and move on with your life.  I know you won't,  but you're really grasping at straws here.

As far as gun safe fire testing goes, Intertek is as reputable as it gets right now. Much better than the companies who are using their own facilities for testing.

I chose to ignore your defamatory remarks. Your vicious personal attack does not deserve a reply. If you would like to leave out all of the insults, maybe it would warrant a civil answer.

I am not here to argue or be insulted, I am here to help educate the consumers buying these products. Not as a representative of any company, but as a fellow gun enthusiast that happens to have a professional knowledge base that others clearly want me to share. Notice I have not named a manufacturer of the safe in question. There are others that make safes with ceramic fiber insulation, you just don't know the market and all the players. I assure you, any data I have shared is above reproach, and has not been altered in any way. I fully understand the consequences of any such intentional deception.

Ceramic blankets actually do work really well for insulating ovens, forges, and other high-temp furnaces.  Their use in gun safes has probably been based on mistaken attempts to apply results from oven tests to a situation with completely different boundary conditions.

And, just speculating here, but I believe the results TSG posted probably indicate some level of door seal failure (not surprising without positive steam pressure inside the safe).  For a sealed-box transient FEM thermal model (with no thermal bridging), I have been predicting somewhat longer times until 350 degree internal temps are reached with 1200 F external temps.  

The other factors that we ignore in the math is the infra-red and convection component or marginal construction areas from the "thermal bridging". All of the steel is getting extremely hot, and some of that steel is a solid heat conductor to the safe interior, namely any solid or connected part exposed on both the outside and inside of the safe. The jambs are the most significant of the many areas. They represent a lot of spacial volume, and they get very hot. The steel exposed to the inside is not only convecting heat, but they are also huge IR radiators. These are not insignificant modes of energy influx, but good design mitigates a lot of this. Remember, the whole safe is not a perfect layered stack of barriers. Corner and edge joints, door construction, connecting members and a host of other factors play a role in the actual inbound energy that is not represented by a simple thermal model. And, yea, door seals play a crucial role.

The key property with thermal blankets is that they are not destroyed in the process they are intended for. They are able to cycle and continue to perform to their capabilities over and over. A steam-generating safe barrier is a one-shot mechanism. Once burned, the barriers are spent and useless thereafter.

Let me refer you to exhibit #1, where-in I asked you if you had perhaps misspoken and you replied with insults and derogatory statements towards me (quoted below). You aren't here to be insulted but it's ok for you to insult others. Got it, I think I'm learning more and more about you all the time.

Lets put aside the the discussion about Sturdy or any alternative insulations, I haven't engaged in any of that discussion in this thread and to be honest, I don't really care. The fact of the matter is, you have an elementary misunderstanding of some very basic thermodynamic principles of which you've tried to claim I don't understand. You said I need to do some reading, I say the same about you. You quoted a small excerpt from an online source in an attempt at proving your side of the disagreement. The fact of the matter is, at that very same source, the paragraph that precedes the very paragraph you quoted was a paragraph that contradicted your statements. Within the paragraph you quoted there is a statement that nullifies your argument because the system constraints in which that paragraph applies are not met in the situation of a safe in a fire (not in thermodynamic equilibrium).  Yet you've chosen to ignore those and use that paragraph that is not applicable as some sort of evidence to prove that I'm wrong and you're right. If you would take the time to read and understand the very thing you're proclaiming to know you would see that you, in fact, are not correct.

You want to talk about insults. Your condescending attitude and refusal to open your mind and admit that maybe you have misunderstood those principles prove a LOT about you and I don't even have to say anything for anybody with a scientific background to see it; it's all right here in this thread, in your very own words...

I understand all of this very well. You have cherry-picked some comments out of context. First, and foremost, I said that the inside of the safe was in complete saturation. Maybe you missed that, so go back a re-read the thread. Therefore, equilibrium is in play, and the steam should not superheat. Moreover, there is no heating mechanism inside the safe to provide the super-heating effect on the steam that is in the safe. How do you propose that super heating is happening? By what mechanism?

Super-heating causes the air to expand, increasing the energy of the flow and converting the flow to a single-phase medium. The increased volume in a confined space or pipe results in increased flow rates (expanding volume has to go somewhere). Since there is no appreciable pressure building (yes, we have measured that metric), there is always a normalizing venting action. In a safe, the safe insulation generates a continuous saturated steam release flowing into the safe, and exiting thru the door seals and other breeches. There is a constant flow of the new steam release until the materials are completely calcined. The saturated air volume in the safe is probably replaced every few minutes, maybe faster.

Furthermore, we have probes in multiple locations for which you have not seen data (and you won't). Without that crucial information, you have no idea what thermal dynamics are in play here. This is a highly complex thermal system in reality. I am not going to argue with you and reveal the finite details at the risk of providing valuable intelligence to competitors. I can tell you that there is no direct evidence of any super-heating in this system, and I have dozens of fire tests with extraordinary instrumentation monitoring internal conditions to prove that is the case. You are nit-picking at trivial fringe issues trying to discredit my professional standing, and you have NO idea how little you know about fire safes and fire testing.

Who was cherry-picking what? You cherry-picked a paragraph from wikipedia that wasn't even applicable to this... I didn't take your comments out of context, I took them for exactly what they were. You were trying to compare a closed system steam power plant to an open-system fire-safe which have absolutely no similarities other than the fact that they are both hot and they both involve some level of thermodynamics.


I still think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "thermodynamic equilibrium". You REALLY need to look that one up as I have now suggested 3 times.


No shit there is no heating mechanism inside the safe, the heat is outside, therefore energy is passing across the boundary of the system and the safe is therefore NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium. The heat passing across the boundary of the safe is the very heating mechanism that can create super-heated steam.

And just because you still seem to be misunderstanding what super-heated steam is lets go to the wikipedia article you liked so much before and pull up the info I was alluding to in my 2 previous responses.


Therefore, if the atmosphere of the safe is laden with moisture (as you've said previously) and the temperature is ANY amount greater than the boiling point (212 at atmospheric) then the moisture contained within the air is super-heated steam. Your graphs show that quite clearly.

Hey, I asked a question, your reply was a bit lacking in details and slightly erroneous, I asked for clarification and you blew up and started slinging insults and now you're calling me out for nit-picking? Geeze, you must be bi-polar or something... You're the one that turned this into a shit-storm by calling me "Bill-Nay the Anti-science guy" for pointing out your error and asking for clarification. If you can't take the shit storm then don't start it.

Dual redundant temperature probes (thermocouples) very common in furnace testing. Thermocouples do fail from time to time and in many cases (such as testing a safe) having to repeat a test can be quite expensive. I read the description as 4 sides centered and 7 inches down but thank you for the clarification on the law. TSG, will you go on record saying that the temperature shown on the chart isn't on the door located 7" down from the top? Is it as danb35 thinks which would be on a side wall like you had tested your own safe?



Good post danb35. I'm no lawyer and have no idea how laws are in California or even NY for that matter. From a few of the items you mentioned there might be enough for a case but I just don't know.

Where is the temperature probe located that represents the ceramic lined safe in the chart your displayed TSG?

All safes tested had probes located in the same place, as damb35 described. The redundant pair of probes were placed as close as practically possible to make all safes equal. The readings shown are the higher of the two probes at any given point. The differential between probe pairs was never more than 2 degrees apart, as I recall. There was no monkey business to distort the data, I assure you. The ETL Techs rigged all instrumentation in every test, and I never touched any of it. They would be happy to verify that.

You didn't answer the question. The heat trace on the graph that you are showing labeled 'competitors 3 inch ceramic fiber with steel liner', where is the exact location in the safe does that data collection point represent?


(edited original question to distinguish which trace the question is being asked.)

 

The test point shown is not on any walls. It is in the middle of the air space, 7 inches from the ceiling. No TCs against walls have been published. All safes were rigged the same way. In fact, all safes tested were as close to the same size as possible too.

Thanks--I was starting to wonder if I'd lost my ability to write clearly.  Or, instead, if rockola were intentionally misreading things to make trouble.  Seems the latter is more likely.

So what is the verdict on the non-fire lined Sturdy? I got a quote from them, I can get the 3627 size, none fire lined, with a bunch of steel reinforcements for $3,100 shipped. It would have .5625 inches on the door and .4075 inches on the side walls and roof.   Would be above the typical requirements of a B rate anyway, which I like.

I am also looking at the AMSEC BF, but the problem is a BF6036 with the 4ga liner is over $4,000, more than I really want to spend.  The BF6030 is more in my price range, but the interior is only 15 cubic feet or so.  Not sure if the fire resistance is even worth it in my case, it's going in a basement with a poured concrete floor and concrete walls. Fire department is less than 5 minutes away also.

Buy the Sturdy with fire lining and you won't regret it.

Unless you have a fire...........

Open air thermocouples So what standard is that based on AMSEC-72? Of course the temperature trace shown on the graph for the AMSEC BF is also an air couple in the same position right with the smooth curve shown? I already know the answer and I assure you I would be considered and expert in a court of law

Double post for some reason and sorry about that.

Not interested in a fire lined Sturdy, honestly. I am considering them because I like the fact I can add steel and get close to a 1/2 inch on the body without paying $5k+.  if I go with something with a fire liner it will probably be the AMSEC. I got a quote on a B-Rate Graffunder, way more than I want to spend.

Been reading your posts on here for years, really respect your opinion. What do you think of the non-fire lined Sturdy?  I have a $3k budget and I can get a larger size (60x36x27) with almost a half inch in the body and a little over a half inch in the door from them for right at that amount.   The safe would be big enough that I was planning to get a UL rated fire chest for documents and such, and I can just put the while thing in there.

I have looked locally, there isn't much here. We have 2 major vendors that stock & sell real safes, and gun safes to.  One didn't even bother to call me back about an AMSEC even after I drove to the shop and told them what I wanted. The other seems to stock mostly Liberty and gin safes under $1,200.

Thank you for the kind words.




Brace yourself for my Sturdy hate...........

I think the unlined Sturdy is a great option when fire protection isn't important.  It allows you to get a more secure safe in the same weight range.

In case you missed the question there TSG, your AMSEC BF temperature trace is also a measurement of an air thermocouple in the same position as you have shown for your competitors in the graph you displayed... right?

I have a Sturdy safe coming. I chose a non-fire lined 4g.
My research was between the BF and Sturdy. I like the fire lining of the BF/Brown line of safes. I loved the price and simple sturdy bolt system of Sturdy's safe.
Since I was going to build a containment around whichever safe I ended up with, a group discount buy helped make up my mind to go with the Sturdy.

By skipping the fire lining, I have more inner space than the BF6030 with 4g inner lining I was considering. The $1500 price difference allows me to construct a containment with a layered defense and still be ahead cost wise.

Why do you keep making thinly-veiled lawsuit threats?

There's no information he could provide that you wouldn't argue or claim a falsehood. If I owned a fire lined sturdy if be more concerned about how they duped their customers and perhaps focus your legal efforts towards making that right.

Your starting to sound like one of the expert witnesses on behalf of a tobacco company.

You might also consider a used safe with a rating.

I was safe shopping earlier today, looking for a non-fire rated safe. The shop had 4 used TL15 and TL30 safes in the back. They had a TL15 for $2K delivered about 4' high 2.5' wide and 2' deep that was about 2500 pounds. I'm going to go back when the owner is there, the sales guy didn't know anything about the lock which looked as beat to hell as the finish on the safe. No fire rating, but damn if it wasn't a heavy metal box.

I'm going to ignore all the legal threats...

What we have done is established a quasi-standard for the Gunsafe Industry. I asked the Engineers at ETL to share this test program with anyone that wants to come play. They know the setup to provide a level playing field. I actually shared this with a couple competitors at the SHOT Show too, and they wanted  a lower (non-UL72) test program. There has been follow-up correspondence even, and I sent one of them the test program in writing with the fire curve.

Open air TCs respond much faster than copper shelled insulated ones. The lag on TCs in protective shells is horrible, and you can be 20-30 degrees behind the real ambient temperature when rapid changes occur. As you can see, the early test measurements are going up at a very fast rate. You would never capture that data with an enclosed TC.

As for the BF and it's slow response, consider two key differences between the BF and all of those other safes. The BF has a welded steel liner, which is a significant conductive barrier that moderates heat transfer. Also, the BF is an engineered wet-fill safe, with a homogeneous DryLite barrier with no gaps or joints to leak convecting heat to the interior of the safe. The BF exhibits the same behavior as UL72 Class 350 safes, where the response inside is slow and steady.

You have to understand, no matter how good you build a drywall lined safe, there are gaps in the insulation everywhere. The steel that makes up the outer body is expanding in every direction at a staggering rate. I did the math on that before, the safe grows nearly 1/2 inch vertically. It does similar growth in width and depth. That growth allows the joints in the walls of the safe to open. The outer body is the only thing holding all that drywall together, think about it. There is no inner liner in those safes to block those leaky joints either, and the steam is the only moderator. That is why all of the safes jump up well over 212º quickly, because there is much more than just steam heating the safe interior.

Moreover, if you didn't notice, the BF is built very differently, with many advanced fire resistance measures that make it so much better. So, the slow gradual curve is exactly what you should expect. I pioneered this technology back in the late 90's with our BF Security Safe line. To date, nobody else has ever achieved similar ratings for a heavy steel safe. I translated all that R&D into a larger Gunsafe product line.

I have shared more than I should, but maybe you will start to understand what makes the BF safe superior, and more costly to build. It's an apples and oranges comparison. There is no funny business here, it's all honest and genuine. We have nothing to hide, and anyone can buy a BF and test it if they want to spend the money and find out. The bar is set high, which is exactly what we do. We can't compete in the gutter with imports, so we choose to build a better safe, made in the USA, and cater to an educated market that wants their money's worth.

TSG,

Was the safe tested the 4ga liner or the standard? Would that make a substantial difference?

The BF safes tested were standard liner models. I would expect the HD models to perform a little better. The heavier liner provides more structural integrity, and the thicker material would take a bit longer to rise in temperature as it has greater thermal storage mass. I would guess that might extend the time another 5 minutes, maybe more. I don't want to over-play that, testing would be the necessary to make any real claims. I'm confident that it would be better by some margin.

Exactly the answer I was hoping for!  Thanks.

If the lawsuit pertained to ovens or kilns?  Perhaps.  If it was a lawsuit about safes?  I doubt it.

I have said a lot of things that a variety of manufacturers weren't exactly happy about, yet I have never been sued, or even received a threatening letter.  Want to know why?  Because they know I'm right, and if they started down that road, their BS would be proven to be BS in a court of law.  Sturdy isn't going to sue anybody, and for obvious reasons.  Perhaps they should consider suing the people who convinced them to use that material in their safes.  That isn't you, is it?  You are a ceramic insulation expert.  Coincidence?

Now that is an interesting observation!!

It could explain his obsession with trying to prove Sturdy's case for using that type of insulation.

Question for TSG,

How much water was released from your safe in the above referenced test?

Thanks.