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?