RSC Decision - AMSEC or Sturdy

[Walkalong]

Yep.

(Insulation just slows heat transfer, whether it's in your safe, your wall, your frig, or in your attic)

Some does it better than others.

 

[Simson]

The science of heat transfer is frequently thought of as theoretical. It's not. The equations we use to describe thermal behavior is highly accurate, and only very small errors are found due to some extremely small factors we ignore. Kind of like the wind resistance on a car, we ignore the valve stems on the wheels.

The materials like Aerogel are amazing, but hey are still only around 3 times better than common home insulation. It's not like they are hundreds of times better. The heat transfer is still there, just slowed down by a factor of maybe 3 or 4. Do the math, you will be surprised.

As for space travel, and dry insulation in spacecraft. The elephant in the room is the Delta-T. In a fire, the dT is on the order of 1100-1600 degrees. In space, worst case conditions is on the order of 200-300 degrees, and generally much less due to engineered materials that block IR influx. Why do you think they use gold, silver and paint everything white? These temperature differentials are easily controlled with active heating and cooling systems.

This is science, not witchcraft or black magic. There are hundreds of years of proof that the mathematical models of heat transfer are very accurate. As for the fire resistant value of a dry liner... let the math do the talking, and believe the results. Without a reactive means of absorbing and expelling energy, the internal wall temperature reaching destructive levels even with outstanding insulation is on the order of minutes wen you only have a couple of inches in the walls. The dT here is extraordinary. The heat transfer rates are phenomenal with so much thermal force. And, if you are curious, packing the insulation reduces the R-value and negates the greater volume of material. You must add thickness, physically making walls thicker, to get more energy barrier from a given material.

This is not to say that a dry insulation is worthless. In moderate conditions, it works pretty well. The question is about the exposure intensity.

First off TheSafeGuy, glad to see you enter this discussion, I didn't want to do as 2_ar suggested and post in another forum.

I don't want to put you on the defensive but isn't the bigger dT issue with the space shuttle on re-entry into the earth's atmosphere? During re-entry, the ceramic tiles see temperatures approaching 3000F for a significant period of time. Sure the tiles only slow the rate of heat transfer but they slow it enough that the body and structure of the shuttle itself can absorb and dissipate that heat. Wouldn't you think a safe that is passively lined with Aerogel or even fiber as in the case of the Sturdy Safe example work in a similar manner (I.e., that the contents act as a heat sink?)

 

[TheSafeGuy]

I don't want to put you on the defensive but isn't the bigger dT issue with the space shuttle on re-entry into the earth's atmosphere? During re-entry, the ceramic tiles see temperatures approaching 3000F for a significant period of time. Sure the tiles only slow the rate of heat transfer but the slow it enough that the body and structure of the shuttle itself and absorb and dissipate that heat. Wouldn't you think a safe that is passively lined with Aerogel or even fiber as in the case of the Sturdy Safe example work in a similar manner (I.e., that the contents act as a heat sink?)

Well, there is more to that science that you might think. The space shuttle tiles are not seeing the incredible temperatures as you might think. Read about it here if you care to, but in brief, the skin of the tiles deflect 80% of the heat.

Over 80% of the heating the orbiter experiences during reentry is caused by compression of the air ahead of the hypersonic vehicle, in accordance with the basic thermodynamic relation between pressure and temperature. A hot shock wave was created in front of the vehicle, which deflected most of the heat and prevented the orbiter's surface from directly contacting the peak heat. Therefore reentry heating was largely convective heat transfer between the shock wave and the orbiter's skin through superheated plasma

The low density tile core is the insulator, a very good one no doubt, but it is only working with moderately hot conditions only for a few minutes. NASA and the Media make these tiles out to be more than they really are. The magic in the tiles in the thin coating. Most of the flaming heat of reentry is deflected by the hypersonic shock-wave during the hard deceleration phase of re-entry..

 

[Simson]

Well, there is more to that science that you might think. The space shuttle tiles are not seeing the incredible temperatures as you might think. Read about it here if you care to, but in brief, the skin of the tiles deflect 80% of the heat.

Assuming that the Wiki article is accurate, I did read it and I don't think they were saying that 80% of the heat is deflected but they did say the peak heat was but still extremely hot temperatures being exposed.

I did find it interesting that they mentioned the use of ceramic fiber blankets which is something I didn't know.

Developed after the initial delivery of Columbia and first used on the OMS pods of Challenger.[5] This white low-density fibrous silica batting material had a quilt-like appearance, and replaced the vast majority of the LRSI tiles. They required much less maintenance than LRSI tiles yet had about the same thermal properties. After their limited use on Challenger, they were used much more extensively beginning with Discovery and replaced many of the LRSI tiles on Columbia after the loss of Challenger.

So I guess leadcounsel was more right that he originally thought in saying Sturdy is using similar materials as used on the Space Shuttle.

Anyway, good demonstration videos of Ceramic Tile by a doctor at Yale and at the Kennedy Space Center, pretty amazing material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIxiDWMJy80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9Yax8UNoM

 

[TheSafeGuy]

It's unfortunate that this testing is so expensive. I'm actually doing a series of gunsafe fire tests in November, but we can't test a sample just to prove a point. If the dry insulation was even remotely interesting, we would already be using it. Besides, it's not our style to spend gobs of money to provide negative advertising strategies. We would rather get premium legitimate listings and let the dogs chase the meat truck.

 

[2_ar]

If the dry insulation was even remotely interesting, we would already be using it.

And that's the reality that several Sturdy fans refuse to accept. Here's pretty much how every argument in favor of the Sturdy's fire-liner goes:

"Sturdy's "Amazing Fire Insulator" is the greatest because these other things ___________ (insert unrelated non-fire safe applications and uses) use ceramic wool."

Ceramic wool insulation has been around for decades and is nothing new. Real fire safe manufacturers have been using it for data safe inserts that are inside of a cast fill safe. It's not a secret proprietary material, everyone knows about it. Don't you think they'd use it for the whole safe if it was equal to or better than the cast fill? Don't you think even one manufacturer (who actually has their safes tested by a third party, or better yet a reputable third party like UL) somewhere in the world would have done this in the last 20-30 years?

No infrastructure required, the insulation itself is cheap, no giant ovens, no mixing machines, no vibrating tables, reduce labor costs and safe design complexity, cheaper shipping and easier installation due to the weight reduction, less work for dealers and installers, etc.... Just bend some sheet metal a few times, weld it together, cut the insulation and stuff it into the body, weld or screw some sheet metal over it and call it a day.

And, if you are curious, packing the insulation reduces the R-value and negates the greater volume of material. You must add thickness, physically making walls thicker, to get more energy barrier from a given material.

Doesn't sturdy compress their insulation? Why would they do that if it reduces the R-value and where's the science behind it?

I'm curious about their bent door jamb which looks like a great pathway for heat to travel inside the safe?

So on the one hand you have hundreds, if not thousands, of safe companies all over the world and 100+ years of using cast insulation for fire protection. Tens of thousands of safes that have survived fires, thousands more that have been tested by testing agencies all over the world. Insurance underwriters, businesses, governments and virtually anyone trying to protect something from fire, have relied on these safes. The science behind their design and performance has been proven many times, and most importantly, it actually exists beyond speculative arguments on the internet put forth by people who have never designed, fire tested, or done anything fire-safe related in their lives.

On the other hand, you have Sturdy's claims of fire-proofing superiority, a few pictures of a couple safes that did well in unknown conditions during a fire, and comparisons to the space shuttle.

We're talking about fire safe performance during fires. Sturdy people seem to forget that. That is it! That's all that matters. It doesn't matter if the insulating material is used on Mars. How does a safe that uses ceramic wool as an insulator perform during a fire? And what actual replicable evidence and experience do you have of the performance during a fire? In this case relative to other materials like cast fills which have mountains of data, real world fire evidence, and all the controlled testing data you could ever want. So, let me ask again, how does a safe that uses this "amazing" insulator perform during a fire? And where is your hard empirical evidence, real world evidence and corresponding verifiable data of this performance?

 

[TheSafeGuy]

Spoken like a true preacher 2-AR...

Why do you think they blow the insulation into your attic. If packing didn't reduce the R-value, they would make that 18-24 inches of fluffy insulation into a 1 inch thick slab and nail on the rafters or just drop in cut panels all over the joists.

 

[Walkalong]

Yep, space in the material helps insulate, but some compact materials are very good as well.

I have no idea about the bend on the Sturdy door as far as a heat path, but it is very strong. It also has a hard material between those bends which makes it very strong. (Would that affect the heat path? I would think it would, in a positive way.) Between that and the dual supported bolts it makes the door extremely pry resistant. I am more worried about that than fire. The smash and grab folks simply will not pry their way into it, especially if bolted down in a corner, as mine is. They'll need to bring a lunch and spend some time with it to get in. Time is your friend here.

I have a modest and insured collection. I am happy with the protection my Sturdy gives, especially for break in resistance. I do not have complete faith in the fire protection of any of them. A home burned around the corner from me. The fire dept put it out with much of it still standing, but it would have still put a strain on the fire protection of a gun safe.

Are their better options? You bet. Are there thousands of lesser "gun safes" out there "protecting as much or more than I have? I have no doubt there are.

 

[NotAGunNut]

Fella's;

And there, in more detail and engineer-speak, is the same information I've been putting out here for years. It's always nice to have an indepenent confirmation, thank you safe guy.

900F

900F,

U.L. Is stupid expensive, but an independent lab is probably not nearly as bad. Even a test like the one Fort Knox posted may suffice for many people, check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1emdpdLWhH4

We have a verification of temperature from the firemen (is it where the safe is? I don't know), we know it's standing next to another purposefully lower rated safe. We know they hosed it off, which is kind of a no-no and many other things. HOWEVER... having seen the video and seeing how it survived gives one at least some confidence that a few blurry pictures from Sturdy and a lot of lip service doesn't.

Additionally, I contend that having a U.L. label will sell many more safes than not having one so that cost could be made up in quantity and a small increase in price for fire protection. If you know the fire protection works, you're more willing to pay for it.

Although, I guess TheSafeGuy's experience proved otherwise, so who knows. I guess it would be a niche, no different than Sturdy's current niche. However, unlike AMSEC, they don't need to move 100,000 units to make a production run worthwhile.

 

[a1abdj]

smaller manufacturer's, like Graffunder, simply don't see the benefit/cost ratio working in their favor.

They just made my list today, and will no longer be a safe manufacturer that I recommend.

 

[NotAGunNut]

Ruh roh? Care to share the details?

 

[guggep]

Definitely interested to see what got Graffunder on the list

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

I think I can state that the problem that A1abdj has with Graffunder is not a product quality issue. I believe it to be a business issue.

900F

 

[NotAGunNut]

I'll speculate based on the context of this thread... the Graffunder may have been pulled out of a fire and given how much steel there is, it absorbed all the heat and proceeded to cook everything inside.

Or... it's a business thing, which is probably more likely.

 

[guggep]

Calcination of gypsum board starts at 80C (176F). A temperature of 120C (248F) will drive the calcination to conclusion. This property ensures that active thermal management engages at temperatures below that which will damage paper.

 

[Simson]

Calcination of gypsum board starts at 80C (176F). A temperature of 120C (248F) will drive the calcination to conclusion. This property ensures that active thermal management engages at temperatures below that which will damage paper.

Thanks Guggep, I would like to understand the chemistry better. Very interesting topic.

 

[TheSafeGuy]

Gypsum Board, aka Drywall, is a very effective insulator for fire safes. It has it's weaknesses, but in general the water/steam content is rather mind blowing. You think of a material like that to be very dry, and when you work with it, it sucks all the moisture out of your hands. But, that is the very property that makes it good. It has a hyper-affinity to hold water.

When your home catches fire, a typical 2x4 wood wall with gyp-board on either side becomes a steam bath that protects the wood from ignition. Until structural breeches expose the wood, that wall acts as a highly effective fire stop that is self regulating internal temperatures at a little over 212ºF.

In the safe, the vulnerabilities are on the edges and corners. The raw, cut edges never fit perfectly together there. The heat energy along the vertical corners of the safe body are experiencing the energy influx from two surfaces, and therefore magnify and accelerate the calcination. Since the raw materials are not very structurally sound, they begin to crumble and fracture as they decay and release the steam.

In a filled safe, the homogenous integrity of the fill reduces the vulnerability considerably, and also stand better structurally because the constituent structure is much more robust, that being a cementacious base. These cement based poured barriers survive much longer before breeches cause the final catastrophic failure. You will note that high-quality drywall board can be bought to include fiber reinforcement. That is there to help hold the material together as it decays in the fire. Reputable safe makers use this higher grade material if they have a clue about fire protection. (most don't)...

 

[Simson]

Thanks TheSafeGuy. Gypsum has half it's volume in water ... wow pretty amazing. Can a cementacious mix approach that high a level of water content?

I guess the thought of a massive amount of steam being generated within a gun safe I own makes me a bit uneasy. I'm not sure it's necessarily the lesser of two evils if your collection is well insured to not just have them burn verses boil in steam.

Brown puts their fire lining around the safe inner shell so would that suggest steam would not enter the chamber of the safe during a fire?

It appears that the AMSEC HS might be constructed in a similar manner so would that suggest no steam will enter the chamber in the cause of the HS? Are there other means on AMSEC safes to channel the steam generated away from the contents or is it just not an issue?

Maybe I'm just being paranoid but I've seen some photos of drywall lined gun safes that "survived" a fire and the contents didn't look pretty. I cringe at the thought of having to refinish some of the antique fire arms I own but maybe with the right choices up front, the risks will be lower of that happening.

 

[guggep]

For anyone who wants to read some serious research on the mechanics I found these two papers on then net:
1) http://josbrouwers.bwk.tue.nl/publications/Journal75x.pdf

2) http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07089.pdf

 

[Simson]

guggep, those are excellent studies especially the NIST article from a practicality standpoint.

 

[solidheart]

Lagard 6441

I'm not sure if this info was mentioned. I didn't read it on a skim through of the thread. Regarding the redundant lock by Lagard, the lock is very much in production. Notice the non plural reference as lock. This is in fact a single mechanical 4 wheel lock rather than the standard 3 wheel locks that are installed on the majority of safes. The 4 wheel lock is a group 1 lock. The 3 wheel lock is available in group2 and group1 with group 1 being higher security.Group 1 is often referred to as manipulation proof. The 4 wheel Lagard group 1 lock has an electronic over ride which allows the user to enter 8 digits on a push button keypad and then turn the dial counter clockwise to the left until the dial stops. This counter clockwise turnis what lines the 4 wheels in place and engages the lock to retract. This lock also has whats called a hold up feature which I am only sum-what educated on. From what I understand, this feature allows the user to dial a code which unlocks the safe and also sends a signal of a hold up or forced entry. This is done by dialing 10 higher on the first number. So if the combo was 10-20-30-40 the user would dial 20-20-30-40. The lock is very much in production and can be purchased only through one gun safe manufacturer that I am aware of. There was a short time period where this safe manufacturer was using a similar redundant lock system in place of the Lagard 4 wheel but are currently offering the Lagard again. I'm not sure the reasoning behind this but let me say this. If there is a quality lock on the free market Amsec will allow it as an option for purchase. Amsec does not offer this lock to my knowledge unless it is a new option they have added after the first of 2013. Amsec advertised the release of the duet lock which can be found on Cannon 2013 models but have not been able to offer the lock from what I believe to be an exclusive offerbuy out purchased by Cannon Safe. This lock offered by Cannon is third redundant lock mentioned here in this post. As for the comparison in Sturdy and Amsec I will easily suggest the BF series as an elite contender. Amsec has been building safes for 60+ years and has the ability to build a product that qualifies as a vault rather than a just a successful sprint from 1st base to 2nd base (safe). This word is very casually used in many different terms and should not be looked at as a high line of security. In the event of a breaking and entering your firearms are in the criminals top three priorities. It goes cash, gold and guns in that order. However, when it comes to the protection of our youth any 12 gauge safe with a U.L. listed lock is adequate for peace of mind.

 

[justindo]

I went through this same process around five years ago and also in the last month. Based on my research at the time and now, I think that the Sturdy and the Amsec BF are at the top of their class in this price range and you could do a lot worse for the same, or more, money.

That written, I purchased an Amsec BF five years ago and have ordered another. The only advantage the Sturdy has, in my opinion, is the body's steel thickness, and that single advantage has grown with the new 4 gauge body and 3/8" door upgrade. (If you go for the Sturdy, this is a mandatory option.) This single advantage is significant, as the body is the most vulnerable part of these containers, but the Amsec BF wins in every other category, which is what swayed me twice. If you don't have to worry about the safe's sides, that makes the Amsec an even easier choice.

 

[TheSafeGuy]

Gypsum has half it's volume in water ... wow pretty amazing. Can a cementacious mix approach that high a level of water content?

Oh yes, absolutely. Our fill material we call "Fire Clay", which is not a clay at all, is much more effective. Although the mix formula is a secret I can't reveal, the base material and primary mix component is a particular grade of cement (there are many grades, all providing different cast properties). That mix as evolved from decades of refinements testing high-end long duration rated fire safes. That material is one of the key elements that I used to get a 2-hour UL Class 350 rating on our primary firesafe line. The BF Gunsafe formula was derived from that mix design, but enhanced with materials that reduced the dry density from 60 lbs per cu ft to around 20 lbs per cu ft.

Brown puts their fire lining around the safe inner shell so would that suggest steam would not enter the chamber of the safe during a fire?

If they are sealing the steam from entering the inner container, they are defeating the purpose of the steam effect. The conduction of heat into the steam bearing material creates eh steam, but the heat energy still conducts thru the material. The steam bath carries the heat away from high temperature areas like a cooling heat exchanger.

If there is a hot spot that gets the inside wall very hot, and the steam is not able to bathe that surface and absorb the heat so it can be spread and carried away, that hot spot will just get hotter and hotter. If the interior has no steam circulating and condensing on the walls, then that hot spot is heating the interior thru convection and radiation. Without the steam, those hot spots, which are present in every safe design, will cause an early failure.

It appears that the AMSEC HS might be constructed in a similar manner so would that suggest no steam will enter the chamber in the cause of the HS? Are there other means on AMSEC safes to channel the steam generated away from the contents or is it just not an issue?

The HS safe is designed to exploit the steam. There are measures employed to assure effective steam saturation inside the safe. I'll be vague on any more detail than that. Some things need to be left unsaid.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid but I've seen some photos of drywall lined gun safes that "survived" a fire and the contents didn't look pretty. I cringe at the thought of having to refinish some of the antique fire arms I own but maybe with the right choices up front, the risks will be lower of that happening.

One of the things that make safes that survive a fire look so bad is the materials in the safe. The carpeting, valuer, adhesives and plastics are all in an advanced state of decay at temperatures above 300 degrees. The thermal decay is int he form of two primary observations, melting and the release of soot and heavy gasses. That decay makes the interior look really terrible at times. That is why you see fire demonstration pictures where the interior is left bare wood to look more pristine. That's also one way that some companies do side-by-side comparisons and make the competitor look so bad... the other guy's sample is left covered with all the materials that decay at temperatures that we judge to be survival level.

 

[Ken70]

I've got an AMSEC, looking it over, morons or kids that don't have a clue will try to pry the door open. If you spend a few minutes looking at any safe, the easy way in is to cut the side open. It's only .125" thick, bring a 7 1/4" electric saw with a metal cutting friction blade. Probably less than 10 minutes to cut a 1'x3' hole in the side. Get a real safe, then bring the cutting torch. My house has sprinklers, so no fire threat. I spend most of my time at home and nobody knows about the gun safes....

 

[justindo]

Does anybody know when the 1/4" body for the Amsec BFs will be available?