Hey everyone! I’m back today with a follow up post for the “safe within a safe” (SWAS) theory. For those of you that missed the first round of testing I have a full write up with videos and photos! You’ll notice in my last write up I teased looking at another brand of safe which is what I’m doing today. We’ll be looking at SureSeal by FireKing.
There were several reasons I wanted to look at SureSeal. First: the compression system on the safe looked to be way better than anything Sentry Safe offered by comparison. The model I’m using has dual compression latches. The more I thought about it, the more I realized if one latch failed the other could possibly hold the lid in place, so worth a go. This is actually pretty critical in terms of protection, open chest = compromised cards.
The second reason I’m looking at this brand is due to the packaging. More specifically where it states: “protects CD’s Flashdrives, and other digital media”. That claim should mean the internals of the chest stay below 150 degrees-something psa slabs need to survive-for the duration that the chest is fire rated for. It’s an interesting claim, as the fire chest itself is only rated by UL as UL 350, meaning the internals are allowed to hit 350 degrees. My expectations here are low, but we shall see.
The third and final reason I wanted to take a look at this brand was due to how the seal worked compared to our sentry safe friend. As you can see, the seal is secured between the plastic covering of the safe where the insulation is. Compared to Sentry, where we saw the seal placed on the outside kind of free floating between the plastic compartments. It should be noted that on the first test the seal actually failed to the point where it came right off. With this model that should not be possible as the seal is nested into the chest.
TEST SET UP AND LEARNING FROM TEST ONE:
So, I was pretty up front in my last set of testing results that mistakes were made. This by no means is a bad thing, I’ve been burned, so I have learned. So this time around I made sure to address the mistakes made in test one. Lets go over them quickly:
Weather conditions: Pittsburgh’s summer days allowed me to work with little to no wind for the entire test. Fluctuation on recorded and actual temperature was minimal.
Length of test: I’m reducing the burn time to UL’s tested rate of 30 minutes (no cool down period).
Internal temperature monitoring: Last time around I had no way to actively monitor the internal temperature. This time around I’ll be inserting a temperature probe into the fire chest to measure the internal temperature in real time, rather than figure out a maximum at the end.
NEW HYPOTHESIS:
If a UL 350 rated fire chest states it will last for half an hour at 1550 degrees, then the same UL chest should be able to maintain internal temperatures of 150 degrees or lower for a half hour. Especially considering the claims made by the manufacture, suggesting data is safe in a container like this.
ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS:
I may be reaching here, but I really want to see how this chest does at lower temperatures. Remember that for this test we want to see how a fire chest would do already placed inside a UL 350 safe. I want to see internal fire chest temps stay below 150 if the external temperature is at 350 the problem being, the chest is rated internally at 350. I think it’s fully possible we see a slower temperature increase inside, however I think we will blow straight past the 150 mark and into the high 170’s pretty quickly. Time to get our testing supplies put in the box!
THE TEST:
Testing supplies this time will consist of the following: One PSA slab (as I’m running out of volunteers for these missions). A small stack of CS1’s as they showed the most warping of any of the other previously tested supplies. A single raw card and a couple of single sleeved cards as a general control.
Temperature probe inserted into case with our supplies. My biggest concern here is breaking the seal with the wire from the temperature probe. However the benefit of recording in real time is that if the seal is broken, I’ll be able to see a radical temperature increase and stop the test.
Test conditions will be identical to last time: I’ll be lighting the grill as quickly as I can and then shutting the lid to the grill to trap as much heat as possible so I can simulate how an interior safe might function. I’ll be keeping a close eye on my external temperature probe to monitor and adjust the heat level as needed. I’ll also record my results every five minutes so we can see how the temperature fluctuates.
DATA GATHERED:
I have another amazing spread sheet here. I highly encourage you to take a look at the data I have but for those of you who want the short version it goes something like this:
FIRST TEN MINUTES:
I’ll be known as the genius with a grill who proved the SWAS theory to be true!
MINUTES 11 – 20:
I’ll be known as the idiot with a grill who proved the SWAS theory to be false!
Minutes 21 – 30:
I’ll be known as the idiot/genius with a grill who discovered the safe within a safe theory is plausible and needs more testing!
What we see from these results is pretty straight forward. The first 10 minutes of the test show a decrease in temperature, until finally the insulation around the safe starts to allow heat into the internal compartment of the safe at a fairly steady rate. The result at the end of the test shows us that these collectibles can survive for the time allotted. This is under the assumption of course that the fire chest is already sitting in a UL 350 safe.
RESULTS:
Taking a look at the exterior of safe. We notice some melting like we did with the sentry safe, but nowhere near as severe. I would also like to point out that the latches have stayed in place with no issue, absolutely no damage found except for the bottom of the safe. Time to take a look at the interior of the safe…
What we see from the picture above is that there is no detectable difference in the PSA slab, CS1’s or raw cards. Ladies and gentlemen, take note that on 7/30/18 the SWAS theory was found to be SUCCESSFUL on this testing run. Our rate of heat transfer was acceptable for the manufacture’s suggested rating. Furthermore, this test concludes that PSA slabs and other materials will not hit an internal temperature that is damaging during this time frame. I will have a video posted to my YouTube channel that goes over testing materials in more detail as well as some of my general thoughts in the future, check back for a link on this thread.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE:
I must say that as I type this up, I’m pretty excited. We finally have evidence that the SWAS theory is applicable to the protection of our collections! However, this is only one test we’ve done so far. More tests need to be completed, and they need to be tested in bigger containers with longer fire ratings that we as collectors might actually use in combination with existing safes.
What I purpose to test is as follows:
A one hour fire chest
If we can reproduce similar results to what I have tested here today, then we will have overwhelming evidence to support SWAS. Producing those results will save many of us a lot of money on safe purchases in the future. Or if proven false, would help many of us save a bunch of money on extra protection we don’t need. Either way it’s a good trade off.
I’ve been blessed with the time to be able to test SWAS and share my information with you guys. However I have not been so blessed financially, and will have to hold off on additional testing until I have the funds available to purchase other testing materials. So for now I’ll be pinching my pennies, but I’ll be posting new results as soon as I have anything.
As always guys, thank you so much for reading and keep an eye out for additional guides I’ll be writing in the future.
