X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [71.42.21.121] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.3c3) with HTTP id 4026468 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:49:11 -0500 From: marv@lancair.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Intumescent firwall coating To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.3c3 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:49:11 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <254321ea0912171010g2e6c268cyf555bdb5f118f360@mail.gmail.com> References: <254321ea0912171010g2e6c268cyf555bdb5f118f360@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Posted for John McMahon <blackoaks@gmail.com>:

 Marv,
 Do you have the temp and duration specs available to show what kind of
 protection this product will provide??
 
[Go to www.nu-chemusa.com, click on the products link and see the data sheet for Thermo-Lag 3000.  We actually use 3002, a slightly thicker product, tested to jet fire standards.  Their docs claim a 1.5 hour rating for a .210" thick coating... our attitude is that we need to hold back the flames for 15 minutes. or about 15% of the time the material is rated for.  A 6X safety factor feels prudent, given that we are not coating steel beams.  Best thing is to read their data yourself and make your own decision.    <Marv>    ]



 On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 6:47 AM, <marv@lancair.net> wrote:
 
> Posted for cfi@instructor.net:
>
>  Marv,
>     How heavy is the coating?   3 gallons seems to me would be more than 20
>
>