Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Passive Fire Protection (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/15/2014 10:51:10 AM EDT
|
Here's a quote from a thread that was locked before I had a chance to reply which I believe to be false.
Here's the cliff notes time line of Sturdy Fire Lining discussions -Sturdy has the worlds best fire insulator. Its better than the space shuttle. Sheetrock is a joke and ours is a million times better. Anybody that buys a sheetrock / composite lined safe is asinine even though its industry standard. There was no testing or scientific basis for this. My opinion is that the insulation they use is highly temp resistant and has a great R value. They thought that meant fire protection but had little knowledge of the physics of it then... -Information was collected and presented over a period of time that showed there was no other safe company using this insulation. The Sturdy fans said well its just as good or better. then... - A respected safe design engineer spilled all the beans in the lobby on how heat resistance and absorption occurs in safes. This has been validated, tested, tried and true. Insulators don't work. Only materials that actually consume heat and convert it to steam Sturdy fans seem to concede that fire protection is not a priority. At this point, there is plenty of public info, expertise, etc that would cause any rational/ethical company to change there advertising and go with industry best practices. Passive fire insulation / fire protection including the same materials used by Sturdy is found in virtually every industrial facility throughout the world. It is also found within your self cleaning oven that is keeping the 1200F or so degree interior over the course of four hours from burning down your house. |
|
This was addressed in a thread you were active in. You should have come to terms with the concept that it was a poorly thought out idea from the get go by sturdy. You need something that absorbs btus, not something that slows the transfer.
Keeping energy in an oven and keeping a safe cool are two different ends of the spectrum. It's analogous to keeping a glass of water warm vs spilling 1000 gallons of boiling water on something that's frozen. I'll sit out from here and let the physics teachers take over. |
|
Quoted:
This was addressed in a thread you were active in. You should have come to terms with the concept that it was a poorly thought out idea from the get go by sturdy. You need something that absorbs btus, not something that slows the transfer. Keeping energy in an oven and keeping a safe cool are two different ends of the spectrum. It's analogous to keeping a glass of water warm vs spilling 1000 gallons of boiling water on something that's frozen. I'll sit out from here and let the physics teachers take over. Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convection and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from the mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a fraction of that time for the empty freezer. |
|
Quoted:
Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convention and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a faction of that time for the empty freezer. Quoted:
Quoted:
This was addressed in a thread you were active in. You should have come to terms with the concept that it was a poorly thought out idea from the get go by sturdy. You need something that absorbs btus, not something that slows the transfer. Keeping energy in an oven and keeping a safe cool are two different ends of the spectrum. It's analogous to keeping a glass of water warm vs spilling 1000 gallons of boiling water on something that's frozen. I'll sit out from here and let the physics teachers take over. Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convention and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a faction of that time for the empty freezer. Do you own a Sturdy safe with fire lining? |
| The math has been posted in the AMSEC thread, which concludes the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work. Sturdy doesn't want to do (read: pay for) lab testing, so until somebody has it done at their own expense, nobody really knows what's going to happen inside a Sturdy safe in a fire. I'd bet that Sturdy have not discovered something that the rest of the gun safe world doesn't know about, but at this point the question is academic for me. |
|
here's the main difference as i see it.
basic physics tells us that sturdy's fire liner will work just fine. insulation is insulation, that's how it works. period. sheetrock is inferior to sturdy's liner, absolutely. no contest. amsec's liner is not sheetrock. it's concrete mixed with other bits. not as strong as normal concrete, but significantly better fire protection than sheetrock, AND you get additional structural protection as well. win-win. the butthurt on both sides will argue one way or another till the heat death of the universe and not convince the other side. but both are lightyears better than straight sheetrock. |
|
basic physics tells us that sturdy's fire liner will work just fine. insulation is insulation, that's how it works. period. But that's not how it works. Not with safes. sheetrock is inferior to sturdy's liner, absolutely. no contest. I wouldn't say that either. lightyears better than straight sheetrock. There are a few problems with gypsum board. The first is that it is often cut in a fashion that prevents it from fitting tightly where it needs to fit. This causes gaps. The second is that as the fire heats the gypsum, the board will disintegrate and fall into the safe, exposing the safe to the heated walls. Both of these issues can be addressed. The gypsum itself is actually a very good safe insulator if used properly. the butthurt on both sides will argue one way or another till the heat death of the universe and not convince the other side. There's only butthurt on one side. The other side actually knows how safes work. 
|
|
so which laws of physics do safes not obey? conduction, convection, radiation? An engineer, who specializes in safe construction, explained it all (and showed the math) in the other thread. I'm not a physicist, engineer, or scientist. I just have 24 years of experience in the safe business, but that has obviously taught me nothing. I don't know the math. I really don't care much about the math. I have just observed, with my own eyes, over 24 years, what does and does not work when it comes to safe construction. |
|
Quoted:
Do you own a Sturdy safe with fire lining? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This was addressed in a thread you were active in. You should have come to terms with the concept that it was a poorly thought out idea from the get go by sturdy. You need something that absorbs btus, not something that slows the transfer. Keeping energy in an oven and keeping a safe cool are two different ends of the spectrum. It's analogous to keeping a glass of water warm vs spilling 1000 gallons of boiling water on something that's frozen. I'll sit out from here and let the physics teachers take over. Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convention and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a faction of that time for the empty freezer. Do you own a Sturdy safe with fire lining? Yes I own both a non-fire lined and a fire lined Sturdy Safe. |
|
Quoted:
An engineer, who specializes in safe construction, explained it all (and showed the math) in the other thread. I'm not a physicist, engineer, or scientist. I just have 24 years of experience in the safe business, but that has obviously taught me nothing. I don't know the math. I really don't care much about the math. I have just observed, with my own eyes, over 24 years, what does and does not work when it comes to safe construction. Quoted:
so which laws of physics do safes not obey? conduction, convection, radiation? An engineer, who specializes in safe construction, explained it all (and showed the math) in the other thread. I'm not a physicist, engineer, or scientist. I just have 24 years of experience in the safe business, but that has obviously taught me nothing. I don't know the math. I really don't care much about the math. I have just observed, with my own eyes, over 24 years, what does and does not work when it comes to safe construction. I'll play devil's advocate. And for the record, I'll be ordering a BF6636 in the near future, if for nothing else than my wife wants the safe to 'look pretty' 
In the other thread and others I've seen around the net while doing research on this subject (I can only assume it was you by your unique username), you've mentioned a few times that Sturdy is the only company to use a high R value insulation as a heat barrier and goes against the industry standard of gypsum board/concrete Here you claim you've seen what doesn't work. Have you had direct experience with a Sturdy Safe (Or one built to comparable specs) failing to protect it's contents from fire? Has anyone? Because I've searched high and low and I've found nothing that supports the accusation that it doesn't work. |
| You guys need to go read the other thread, we've been through this EXACT same argument with the EXACT same guy before. I suspect he works for Sturdy or is butt hurt it's been proven that his safe doesn't provide the protection Sturdy claims. From what I got in the other thread the passive insulation is good for keeping heat IN not OUT, it's all in that thread. Read it. |
|
Here you claim you've seen what doesn't work. Have you had direct experience with a Sturdy Safe (Or one built to comparable specs) failing to protect it's contents from fire? Has anyone? Because I've searched high and low and I've found nothing that supports the accusation that it doesn't work. Here's the easiest way for me to explain it. Have you ever seen a car with square wheels? If not, how can you say that they aren't better than round wheels? If square wheels worked, at all, surely some manufacturer out there would be using them. If square wheels worked equally as well as, or better than round wheels, then you would also see some of the major manufacturers using them. Insulating safes is no different. The industry uses what works. If passive insulations were so great you would see it used by more manufacturers, and in more applications. Now, for those that want it proven with science, go read the other thread mentioned. It explains, in very specific details, why what I said above is true. And it's not just insulation. Have you ever seen triangular locking bolts on a safe? Square dials? Upside down hinges? Doors hinged at the top instead of the sides? This industry has been around for hundreds of years. They have pretty much figured out what works and doesn't work by this point.
|
|
The one thing that stands out in all the replies is that Sturdy will not pay to fire test their product. Why? How can anybody rationally argue for something when there is zero proof? Amsec did get their safes tested with their fire protection installed on the safe, and the results exceeded their advertised ratings. If people want to say Sturdy is as good or better, prove it, or ask Sturdy to prove it.
Even if the materials used indicate Sturdy should be equal to, or better, that doesn't mean squat without proof. Otherwise, I have a match-modded, "1/2 moa all day long" AR to sell you with no range report. |
| No data, no real scientific testing, here's a good thread that sums up much of sturdy's "Amsec's Drylight is BS, our fireproofing is the greatest, just take our word for it, and like here are some photos of one sturdy in a fire," : http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-729661.html |
|
"the industry" uses 12 ga sheet metal for the most part I tend to keep real safe manufacturers and gun safe manufacturers separate, as there really is no comparison between the two. Most gun safe manufacturers have zero background in the safe business. They simply woke up one day and decided that they could manufacture sheet metal boxes for a profit, and away they went. There are far more "real safe" manufacturers than most people realize. |
|
Quoted:
Are you for real? Take your word for it? You really sound like a used care salesmen. Quoted:
Quoted: our fireproofing is the greatest, just take our word for it, Are you for real? Take your word for it? You really sound like a used care salesmen. I was being sarcastic and summing-up Sturdy's argument for their fire liner 
What's even more ridiculous is they have the nerve to attack Amsec's Drylight on their website LINK: "DRYLIGHT INSULATORS It's Is Not Good Enough- If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given. The manufacturer who offers Drylight has small fire safes that are fire rated by UL. These smaller fire safes use REAL cement, and have very thick walls compared to their gun safes, which do not have UL Fire Ratings, and are not built the same as their smaller UL fire safes. However, they will perform better than a sheetrock lined safe." LOL!!!! I love the "If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given" quote. Sturdy Gun Safes have not received a single 3rd party certification from ANY 3rd party testing company, much less UL. So according to them, we should not believe any of their Amazing Fire Insulator claims! With all the info on their website slamming their competitors fireproofing, you would think they had some 3rd party real testing data for their safes, maybe something like this: http://i1363.photobucket.com/albums/r703/TheSafeGuy/comparefire_zps79e9f351.jpg It's almost like Amsec has actual engineers design their safes and has experience making real UL listed fire and burglary safes for 50+ years.... Although I think Sturdy definitely beats Amsec in expertise when it comes to making toolboxes 
|
|
Quoted:
Here's the easiest way for me to explain it. Have you ever seen a car with square wheels? If not, how can you say that they aren't better than round wheels? If square wheels worked, at all, surely some manufacturer out there would be using them. If square wheels worked equally as well as, or better than round wheels, then you would also see some of the major manufacturers using them. Insulating safes is no different. The industry uses what works. If passive insulations were so great you would see it used by more manufacturers, and in more applications. Now, for those that want it proven with science, go read the other thread mentioned. It explains, in very specific details, why what I said above is true. And it's not just insulation. Have you ever seen triangular locking bolts on a safe? Square dials? Upside down hinges? Doors hinged at the top instead of the sides? This industry has been around for hundreds of years. They have pretty much figured out what works and doesn't work by this point.
Quoted:
Here you claim you've seen what doesn't work. Have you had direct experience with a Sturdy Safe (Or one built to comparable specs) failing to protect it's contents from fire? Has anyone? Because I've searched high and low and I've found nothing that supports the accusation that it doesn't work. Here's the easiest way for me to explain it. Have you ever seen a car with square wheels? If not, how can you say that they aren't better than round wheels? If square wheels worked, at all, surely some manufacturer out there would be using them. If square wheels worked equally as well as, or better than round wheels, then you would also see some of the major manufacturers using them. Insulating safes is no different. The industry uses what works. If passive insulations were so great you would see it used by more manufacturers, and in more applications. Now, for those that want it proven with science, go read the other thread mentioned. It explains, in very specific details, why what I said above is true. And it's not just insulation. Have you ever seen triangular locking bolts on a safe? Square dials? Upside down hinges? Doors hinged at the top instead of the sides? This industry has been around for hundreds of years. They have pretty much figured out what works and doesn't work by this point.
I understand the analogies, and the physics. I'm an engineer by trade, albeit an electrical engineer. While the subject is foreign, the math still works. So the arm waving is unnecessary, as are the ridiculous comparisons of thinking thermodynamics is as easy as comparing the rotational properties of a square dial.
I'm just simply asking if you have personally seen one (or one built like it) fail as you claim to have seen what doesn't work. |
|
An old Bible teacher once told me that you can't reason with an unreasonable person.
When I cross these people my thoughts about their outlook follows on the line of these people's thinking which generally is...Don't confuse me with the facts because I have already made up my mind!! These same personalities said for years the earth was flat... 
|
|
Have I ever seen a Sturdy fail in a fire? No. If you took every Sturdy safe in production, it would probably represent a very small fraction of a single percent of all safes. Factor in the odds of having one in a fire, and I would have a better chance of hitting the powerball. To my knowledge, only one Sturdy safe in existence has been in a fire, and that safe is shown on their website.
Have I seen another safe using ceramics as a primary insulator in a fire? The answer to that question is also no, because there's not very many companies that use it, the few that do are gun safe manufacturers, and again, the sample size is too small. To put things in perspective, I see anywhere from 10 to 20 burned safes in a year, and I am in a major metropolitan area. Over the last 5 years, I have seen exactly 3 Sturdy safes here in St. Louis, all 3 of which I installed. Of those 3, only 1 was fire lined. Over the same previous 5 years, we have installed over 2,000 gun safes sold through area retailers. I recall 1 of them being in a fire over that same time period. Beyond the insulation, there are several other design factors that will hurt the Sturdy in a fire. Even if their insulation performed as advertised (which it won't), the other design factors would allow an incredible amount of heat transfer into the safe. And don't think I'm picking on Sturdy. I would say the exact same thing about several other gun safe manufacturers as well. Safe construction has evolved every time a better method came along. Once upon a time all safes were locked with keys, then combination locks, and then electronic locks. Even as we speak, advances are being made with new locks that use bluetooth technology so that you can open them with your phone. Barrier materials have changed. Fire insulations have changed, although they still use the same original principal. I can assure you that if ceramics were the answer, or even a answer, their use would be far more widespread. |
|
the industry is very slow to change. every single shop i've been to argues against electronic anything. electronic locks, electronic lighting, hell they even argue against cat5 passthroughs. S&G electronic locks? unreliable garbage they say.
they'd still use mechanical cash registers and old manual credit card carbon copier rollers if they could. |
|
Quoted:
I was being sarcastic and summing-up Sturdy's argument for their fire liner
What's even more ridiculous is they have the nerve to attack Amsec's Drylight on their website LINK: "DRYLIGHT INSULATORS It's Is Not Good Enough- If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given. The manufacturer who offers Drylight has small fire safes that are fire rated by UL. These smaller fire safes use REAL cement, and have very thick walls compared to their gun safes, which do not have UL Fire Ratings, and are not built the same as their smaller UL fire safes. However, they will perform better than a sheetrock lined safe." LOL!!!! I love the "If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given" quote. Sturdy Gun Safes have not received a single 3rd party certification from ANY 3rd party testing company, much less UL. So according to them, we should not believe any of their Amazing Fire Insulator claims! With all the info on their website slamming their competitors fireproofing, you would think they had some 3rd party real testing data for their safes, maybe something like this: http://i1363.photobucket.com/albums/r703/TheSafeGuy/comparefire_zps79e9f351.jpg It's almost like Amsec has actual engineers design their safes and has experience making real UL listed fire and burglary safes for 50+ years.... Although I think Sturdy definitely beats Amsec in expertise when it comes to making toolboxes
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: our fireproofing is the greatest, just take our word for it, Are you for real? Take your word for it? You really sound like a used care salesmen. I was being sarcastic and summing-up Sturdy's argument for their fire liner
What's even more ridiculous is they have the nerve to attack Amsec's Drylight on their website LINK: "DRYLIGHT INSULATORS It's Is Not Good Enough- If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given. The manufacturer who offers Drylight has small fire safes that are fire rated by UL. These smaller fire safes use REAL cement, and have very thick walls compared to their gun safes, which do not have UL Fire Ratings, and are not built the same as their smaller UL fire safes. However, they will perform better than a sheetrock lined safe." LOL!!!! I love the "If it doesn't have a UL Fire Rating, you can't believe the fire rating given" quote. Sturdy Gun Safes have not received a single 3rd party certification from ANY 3rd party testing company, much less UL. So according to them, we should not believe any of their Amazing Fire Insulator claims! With all the info on their website slamming their competitors fireproofing, you would think they had some 3rd party real testing data for their safes, maybe something like this: http://i1363.photobucket.com/albums/r703/TheSafeGuy/comparefire_zps79e9f351.jpg It's almost like Amsec has actual engineers design their safes and has experience making real UL listed fire and burglary safes for 50+ years.... Although I think Sturdy definitely beats Amsec in expertise when it comes to making toolboxes
I have never seen those curves before but they are pretty cool, breakdown of the door seals? I wonder though if that Amsec BF had a thermocouple on the door which I would think would be the weakest point with only 1" of drylight and a locking mechanisms transmitting heat throw the door behind the liner? Sorry for the edits *mod* typos |
|
the industry is very slow to change. every single shop i've been to argues against electronic anything. electronic locks, electronic lighting, hell they even argue against cat5 passthroughs. S&G electronic locks? unreliable garbage they say. This industry changes very quickly. It's always a game of staying ahead of the bad guys. Your local shop may advise you against all of those things, but they are offered regularly by manufacturers. Once something newer and better becomes known, many jump on the bandwagon. The electronic locks you mentioned are a perfect example. |
|
Quoted:
Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from the mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a fraction of that time for the empty freezer. Well, I'm not here to argue this all over again, but I do feel compelled to point out the elephant in the room... All the cards need to be on the table. No cheating now! "Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever." Really? So, does that mean the the earth doesn't get warmed by the sun? Hmmm, isn't space a vacuum? So, how does all that sunshine result in running the entire natural cycle of life on the planet? Wow, maybe it's magic. Well, let's get back to reality here. You are thinking in one dimension, when we live in a 3 dimensional world. There are THREE modes of heat transfer. You said it yourself. How is it then that you assume the dry insulation is only subject to conduction? Did you forget that the outer skin is radiating infrared energy at red-hot solar rates? In addition, the inside wall is heating the air in the insulation (not a vacuum) on the inside of the safe, and circulating hot air by major convection circulation? These are by no means trivial, and the safe is not providing a vacuum by any measure. Seems pretty clear that you are ignoring 2/3's of the heat energy transfer avenues. The convection and radiation are extraordinarily powerful heat transfer modes. No argument that the ceramic fibers conduct little energy, but the fibers do heat up and re-radiate to adjacent fibers, and the internal air and IR still carry energy at phenomenal rates.... remember that yellow ball in the sky? |
|
Quoted:
Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convection and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. So, then.... how does all of the heat from the Sun make it across 92,000,000 miles of vacuum? |
|
Quoted:
So, then.... how does all of the heat from the Sun make it across 92,000,000 miles of vacuum? Quoted:
Quoted:
Well if a physics teacher is present maybe he can teach you something about heat transfer I.e., conduction, convection and radiation. Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. So, then.... how does all of the heat from the Sun make it across 92,000,000 miles of vacuum? radiation vs conduction. the earth is heated by radiant heat. a vacuum does not conduct heat. same reason a vacuum flask works. reduce conduction. the mirrored surfaces reduce radiation. |
|
Quoted:
Well, I'm not here to argue this all over again, but I do feel compelled to point out the elephant in the room... All the cards need to be on the table. No cheating now! "Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever." Really? So, does that mean the the earth doesn't get warmed by the sun? Hmmm, isn't space a vacuum? So, how does all that sunshine result in running the entire natural cycle of life on the planet? Wow, maybe it's magic. Quoted:
Quoted:
Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever. Nor does heat move through convection in a vacuum because there are no molecules present to move the heat; only radiant heat can pass across a vacuum. A high quality fiber insulation is by no means a vacuum but will limit all modes of heat transfer very well. If your passive insulation is good enough there won't be time for enough heat to cross the insulation to cause damage to the contents and especially if there is some thermal inertia from the mass of the safe and its contents involved. It's analogous to a freezer which is full that has its power go out on a hot summers day verses one that is nearly empty; the full freezer will remain cold for many hours verses a fraction of that time for the empty freezer. Well, I'm not here to argue this all over again, but I do feel compelled to point out the elephant in the room... All the cards need to be on the table. No cheating now! "Zero heat can conduct across a vacuum ... ever." Really? So, does that mean the the earth doesn't get warmed by the sun? Hmmm, isn't space a vacuum? So, how does all that sunshine result in running the entire natural cycle of life on the planet? Wow, maybe it's magic. So did you miss the part about only radiant heat can transmit across a vacuum. Where did you go to school, wow ...  
|
|
Quoted:
So did you miss the part about only radiant heat can transmit across a vacuum. Where did you go to school, wow ...
No I didn't, but you apparently forgot you said that in the following sentences when you ignored the radiant energy heat transfer and argued there was no convection like the safe is under a vacuum. It seemed you needed reminding... glad you caught that. I went to a very highly respected engineering university. How about you? |
|
Quoted:
The math has been posted in the AMSEC thread, which concludes the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work. Sturdy doesn't want to do (read: pay for) lab testing, so until somebody has it done at their own expense, nobody really knows what's going to happen inside a Sturdy safe in a fire. I'd bet that Sturdy have not discovered something that the rest of the gun safe world doesn't know about, but at this point the question is academic for me. Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. Ceramic fiber was used on the Space Shuttle tiles which endured over 2000F temperatures for nearly 30 minutes without letting the aluminum body laying underneath from seeing temperatures in excess of 350F (the design criteria). I know I'm not going to convince anyone who has ownership in the traditional method of fire protection (hygroscopy) in document fire safes / gun safes which includes those who manufacture, own or sell safe them; it is a proven technology, albeit with a lot of steam involved, and doesn't cost a lot of money. A high quality ceramic fiber insulation on the other hand does cost a lot of money in comparison to gypsum or concrete. But, as shown by the space shuttle, successfully resists extremely high temperatures over a long period of time. So to your statement danb35: "the math has been posted in the AMSEC thread which concludes that the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work". No it has not been posted, the math done so far that I have seen is for steady state conditions which would be true if the safe had been in a furnace for three hours prior to the calculation. Much like what the shuttle experiences on re-entry, the ceramic lined gun safe in a fire experiences a blast of heat over a duration that it will have to resist before the fire either extinguishes itself on its own or by the fire department. The benefit of the Sturdy passive design over a hygroscopic design is that there is no moisture / steam involved that could damage the contents aside from the heat alone. |
|
Quoted:
Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. Ceramic fiber was used on the Space Shuttle tiles which endured over 2000F temperatures for nearly 30 minutes without letting the aluminum body laying underneath from seeing temperatures in excess of 350F (the design criteria). I know I'm not going to convince anyone who has ownership in the traditional method of fire protection (hygroscopy) in document fire safes / gun safes which includes those who manufacture, own or sell safe them; it is a proven technology, albeit with a lot of steam involved, and doesn't cost a lot of money. A high quality ceramic fiber insulation on the other hand does cost a lot of money in comparison to gypsum or concrete. But, as shown by the space shuttle, successfully resists extremely high temperatures over a long period of time. So to your statement danb35: "the math has been posted in the AMSEC thread which concludes that the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work". No it has not been posted, the math done so far that I have seen is for steady state conditions which would be true if the safe had been in a furnace for three hours prior to the calculation. Much like what the shuttle experiences on re-entry, the ceramic lined gun safe in a fire experiences a blast of heat over a duration that it will have to resist before the fire either extinguishes itself on its own or by the fire department. The benefit of the Sturdy passive design over a hygroscopic design is that there is no moisture / steam involved that could damage the contents aside from the heat alone. Quoted:
Quoted:
The math has been posted in the AMSEC thread, which concludes the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work. Sturdy doesn't want to do (read: pay for) lab testing, so until somebody has it done at their own expense, nobody really knows what's going to happen inside a Sturdy safe in a fire. I'd bet that Sturdy have not discovered something that the rest of the gun safe world doesn't know about, but at this point the question is academic for me. Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. Ceramic fiber was used on the Space Shuttle tiles which endured over 2000F temperatures for nearly 30 minutes without letting the aluminum body laying underneath from seeing temperatures in excess of 350F (the design criteria). I know I'm not going to convince anyone who has ownership in the traditional method of fire protection (hygroscopy) in document fire safes / gun safes which includes those who manufacture, own or sell safe them; it is a proven technology, albeit with a lot of steam involved, and doesn't cost a lot of money. A high quality ceramic fiber insulation on the other hand does cost a lot of money in comparison to gypsum or concrete. But, as shown by the space shuttle, successfully resists extremely high temperatures over a long period of time. So to your statement danb35: "the math has been posted in the AMSEC thread which concludes that the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work". No it has not been posted, the math done so far that I have seen is for steady state conditions which would be true if the safe had been in a furnace for three hours prior to the calculation. Much like what the shuttle experiences on re-entry, the ceramic lined gun safe in a fire experiences a blast of heat over a duration that it will have to resist before the fire either extinguishes itself on its own or by the fire department. The benefit of the Sturdy passive design over a hygroscopic design is that there is no moisture / steam involved that could damage the contents aside from the heat alone. There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. 5 minutes of googling is all that's needed to prove most of this wrong. It was more like 12 minutes. The TPS tiles can be best be described as "ceramic foam", and they bear so little resemblance to the fiber batts used in a safe that it doesn't even merit discussion. They were also up to 5 inches thick in areas. If you're talking about the "soft" thermal protection on the shuttle like the FIB/AFRSI, they don't see anywhere near the same temperatures the tiles do. They also contain silica tiles inside the quilt. No resemblance to the batting in safes. TPS tiles are very expensive, yes. They are also categorically different than the batts they use in safes, as stated before. Comparing a shuttle reentry to a safe in a housefire is farcical anway. The shuttle can re-radiate heat back into space and the atmosphere after just a few minutes exposure, which is a luxury a safe does not have. Even when the fire department is on the way. No. |
|
For the record, I only added this thread because a few members where directly implying that Sturdy Safe was "dishonest and disreputable." I have no affiliation what so ever with Sturdy Safe other than being an owner of their safes and have never received any financial compensation for posting on their behalf. I have never met them but I appreciate who they are as a small family owned company producing a high quality product.
Getting off my soapbox though I spent a couple hours tabulating some data to come up with a more representative mathematical model of what a passively lined fire safe like Sturdy Safe will do in comparison to the competition. For myself, short of a using a software simulation, I don't think I could have created a convincing mathematical model to show the benefits of a fiber lined safe. As luck would have it, however, TheSafeGuy posted the results of the furnace testing of the AMSEC BF that showed the interior temperature at various test points during the tests. Since there is a portion of the temperature ramp up phase where the concrete is acting just as a passive insulator, a projected slope for fiber lined safe can be created based on knowing what the reduced level of heat transfer the fiber will provide due to its high thermal resistance. Eventhough the AMSEC BF and Sturdy fined lined safe are constructed differently, they are around the same weight for a given size and have similar construction in that there is an outer steel shell, insulation layer, then inner steel shell. The main difference is that the insulation layer of the AMSEC BF is of a lightweight concrete mix and the Sturdy is a dry fiber insulation. The dimensions of both safes are well known and published including the thermal conductivity of fiber glass (k=0.04) and ceramic fiber (=0.06). Typical concrete thermal conductivity is around 1.8 Watts/((meter thickness) * degree C.) but Drylite which is used in the AMSEC BF is a light weight concrete mix that also has a high concentration of water. Since I couldn't find published thermal conductivity specifications for Drylite, I used a typical thermal conductivity value for light weight concrete of 0.2 which is likely generous due to the high concentration of water in Drylite. thermal conductivity k This graph is in keeping with the first law of thermodynamics in that if there are two similar closed systems (interior of the gun safes) and the rates of heat transfer to the systems are at different rates the temperature rise (increase in energy) will directly correspond with the energy input of both systems. Since fiber has a very high thermal resistance, it will allow heat to transfer to the interior of the safe at a much lower rate (1.83F/min verses as 11F/min) which will correspond to a slower rise in temperature for the Sturdy gun safe. So the data suggests that the example on their website is not just due to luck. 
|
|
I wonder if Rockola has given any consideration to the fact that one of those safes shown on the original diagram could have been a Sturdy.
It's OK though. Keep poking the bear. You've already drawn a bunch of (probably unwanted) attention to this issue, and if you keep it up, you may finally drive a nail in the coffin. |
| That is no more than a collection of erroneous assumptions and guesswork. You clearly have no idea what's going on in that data-set. None of those assumptions are anywhere near reality. The slope of those curves have no relationship to thermal conductivity, and you ignore how steam plays a role in the internal temperature response. You are under-estimating the energy influx by several orders of magnitude. I am not here to smear or discredit competitors, so I will step lightly. |
|
Quoted:
Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. Ceramic fiber was used on the Space Shuttle tiles which endured over 2000F temperatures for nearly 30 minutes without letting the aluminum body laying underneath from seeing temperatures in excess of 350F (the design criteria). I know I'm not going to convince anyone who has ownership in the traditional method of fire protection (hygroscopy) in document fire safes / gun safes which includes those who manufacture, own or sell safe them; it is a proven technology, albeit with a lot of steam involved, and doesn't cost a lot of money. A high quality ceramic fiber insulation on the other hand does cost a lot of money in comparison to gypsum or concrete. But, as shown by the space shuttle, successfully resists extremely high temperatures over a long period of time. So to your statement danb35: "the math has been posted in the AMSEC thread which concludes that the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work". No it has not been posted, the math done so far that I have seen is for steady state conditions which would be true if the safe had been in a furnace for three hours prior to the calculation. Much like what the shuttle experiences on re-entry, the ceramic lined gun safe in a fire experiences a blast of heat over a duration that it will have to resist before the fire either extinguishes itself on its own or by the fire department. The benefit of the Sturdy passive design over a hygroscopic design is that there is no moisture / steam involved that could damage the contents aside from the heat alone. Quoted:
Quoted:
The math has been posted in the AMSEC thread, which concludes the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work. Sturdy doesn't want to do (read: pay for) lab testing, so until somebody has it done at their own expense, nobody really knows what's going to happen inside a Sturdy safe in a fire. I'd bet that Sturdy have not discovered something that the rest of the gun safe world doesn't know about, but at this point the question is academic for me. Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. Ceramic fiber was used on the Space Shuttle tiles which endured over 2000F temperatures for nearly 30 minutes without letting the aluminum body laying underneath from seeing temperatures in excess of 350F (the design criteria). I know I'm not going to convince anyone who has ownership in the traditional method of fire protection (hygroscopy) in document fire safes / gun safes which includes those who manufacture, own or sell safe them; it is a proven technology, albeit with a lot of steam involved, and doesn't cost a lot of money. A high quality ceramic fiber insulation on the other hand does cost a lot of money in comparison to gypsum or concrete. But, as shown by the space shuttle, successfully resists extremely high temperatures over a long period of time. So to your statement danb35: "the math has been posted in the AMSEC thread which concludes that the stuff Sturdy uses doesn't work". No it has not been posted, the math done so far that I have seen is for steady state conditions which would be true if the safe had been in a furnace for three hours prior to the calculation. Much like what the shuttle experiences on re-entry, the ceramic lined gun safe in a fire experiences a blast of heat over a duration that it will have to resist before the fire either extinguishes itself on its own or by the fire department. The benefit of the Sturdy passive design over a hygroscopic design is that there is no moisture / steam involved that could damage the contents aside from the heat alone. If it's so great, and proven by NASA, the test should be a walk in the park. Sturdy should want to do it for their own reputation, and for their customers. |
|
Quoted:
Truth be known, the testing has already been done by NASA and it is a well proven technology. The material on the Shuttles is something completely different than Sturdy is using in their safes, as is the application to which they are being put. I'm not aware of any reason that NASA would be testing insulation material for a small safe, but if you can point us to where they've done that I know I'd be interested. The bottom line is that there's a very simple (albeit expensive) way to test the effectiveness of Sturdy's material in their safes--take one safe, instrument the heck out of the interior, put it in a furnace, and measure what happens. Until they do that, they pay someone else to do that, or someone else does it at their own expense, nobody knows how effective it is. Sturdy's refusal to have this testing done tells me that either they can't afford it, or they know they won't pass. In either event, their marketing materials are dishonest in that they discount the relevance of lab testing to the real world. The passive insulation has the obvious, and significant, advantage of not releasing huge amounts of steam into the safe interior. As you say, it's been around for a long time. If it were as effective as the concrete mixes, or even the gypsum board, I'd expect to see some other safe manufacturers using it in their premium models. It might be more expensive, but it would be a great competitive advantage to them as well. Heck, if it were even anywhere close, it could still be a selling point. But that isn't happening. Sturdy wants us to believe that they've found this material which has a well-known, proven track record, is equally if not more effective than the water-retaining materials, weighs less, and generally is the perfect material for insulating gun-size safes against residential fires--and nobody else is using it in that application. Without objective data, that just doesn't pass the smell test. |
|
Quoted:
I find this whole debate stupid. If you want to protect against fire, run a steel water line to the top of the safe to a heat sensitive emitter. When fire is present, the emitter sends a flow of water over the safe until the FD can take over. The only way this is going to be reliable is if the entire house is sprinklered. If you just have one spigot over the safe eventually in a fire that's raging like oh say the kitchen will eventually sever the water line. |
|
I have to take the high road here, and act as a professional and not allow this argument to spiral out of control. Every time I make a point, I risk revealing bits of trade technology that is bought with years of expensive testing and hard earned experience. I can't allow this discussion to educate competitors.
I will close with a tidbit directly from a manufacturer of ceramic fiber insulation. When I posed the question of performance with the safe modeled like what we are debating, and asking for estimates of internal thermal response, my source provided a study. The report I have is not mine, so I can't publish. In that study, a high quality 2 inch ceramic fiber insulator was exposed to 1500ºF. Internal surface temperature started at 60ºF. Time was measured for the internal surface temperature to reach 125ºF (seems arbitrary to me, but it's real data). The time was 25.3 seconds. So, that surface was heating at a rate of 65º/25.3 seconds, or 154º per minute. This manufacturer says they have customers in the safe industry. You can probably independently verify this level of insulation performance yourself. This kind of performance comes very close to matching mathematical results based on standard heat transfer calculations. Without arguing about the implications of such an extraordinary heating rate, or how the steel walls might reduce that by some tiny margin, it's pretty clear the survival estimates I initially offered were pretty generous. If that is not convincing, coming from a manufacturer of the type of material we are discussing, then there is no sense in prolonging this debate. Again, I will say... a passive insulation safe is not useless, not at all. It has merit within certain limits, and the dry nature is definitely desirable. But, in the context of long term exposure, it is inferior to a safe utilizing active barriers that absorb (consume) energy, and release a temperature regulating gas as a result of a high energy phase change process. |
|
Quoted:
I have to take the high road here, and act as a professional and not allow this argument to spiral out of control. Every time I make a point, I risk revealing bits of trade technology that is bought with years of expensive testing and hard earned experience. I can't allow this discussion to educate competitors. I will close with a tidbit directly from a manufacturer of ceramic fiber insulation. When I posed the question of performance with the safe modeled like what we are debating, and asking for estimates of internal thermal response, my source provided a study. The report I have is not mine, so I can't publish. In that study, a high quality 2 inch ceramic fiber insulator was exposed to 1500ºF. Internal surface temperature started at 60ºF. Time was measured for the internal surface temperature to reach 125ºF (seems arbitrary to me, but it's real data). The time was 25.3 seconds. So, that surface was heating at a rate of 65º/25.3 seconds, or 154º per minute. This manufacturer says they have customers in the safe industry. You can probably independently verify this level of insulation performance yourself. This kind of performance comes very close to matching mathematical results based on standard heat transfer calculations. Without arguing about the implications of such an extraordinary heating rate, or how the steel walls might reduce that by some tiny margin, it's pretty clear the survival estimates I initially offered were pretty generous. If that is not convincing, coming from a manufacturer of the type of material we are discussing, then there is no sense in prolonging this debate. Again, I will say... a passive insulation safe is not useless, not at all. It has merit within certain limits, and the dry nature is definitely desirable. But, in the context of long term exposure, it is inferior to a safe utilizing active barriers that absorb (consume) energy, and release a temperature regulating gas as a result of a high energy phase change process. Oh TSG you forgot that Sturdy uses more than 2" of the ceramic fiber and compresses it!!!! So everything you've ever said is wrong!!! Uhuh...What? Compressing ceramic insulation actually reduces it's insulating value? Oh.....oops.... |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Passive Fire Protection (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor