User talk:Opticks3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello Opticks3, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Opticks3, good luck, and have fun. --Kilmer-san (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Firewall (construction) has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Kilmer-san (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Opticks3. You have new messages at Kilmer-san's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reversionproofing

Hi Opticks3!

I saw the following exchange:

Firewall (Construction)

Hello, Thanks for taking the time to send me a message. I appreciate knowing why something has been edited/removed. I do have a specific question regarding recent edits. Under the "Innovations" section, a recent deletion removed reference to "Trufire Wall". This is a precast refrectory concrete firewall. It was removed once before with the reason given that it was not listed within the SWRi follow up program, and was blatent advertising. It has been tested through SWRi and also exceeds every requirement for firewall codes as well as outperforms every related ASTM test for firewall. This is the ONLY 4 hr rated firewall available that can withstand temps well over 2000F, 45psi water jet blast at highest temp,and UL standard 752 level 3 for projectile blast and impact resistance. All in lightweight precast panels.

How is this not "Innovation"? How is referencing the name here any different than "Durasteel"? How is "Durasteel", with links to many "Durasteel" images, not blatent advertising?

If we really are providing the public with valuable content,and not just promoting "Durasteel", then explaining innovative new firewall materials under the section "Innovations" is well within the guidelines. Please explain to me how listing "Trufirewall" is any different than listing "Durasteel".

Thank You (Opticks3 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

  • Opticks3, That's a good question that I believe has been answered by the deletion of the material related to Durasteel by another editor on the Firewall (Construction) article. As a comment, the purpose of WP is not to provide the public with valuable content, but to provide encyclopedic entries which meet the criteria for Notability and adequate sourcing. Welcome to WP, and let me know if I can help further. Kilmer-san (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

http://www.oldcastleliterature.com/power_energy/documents/brochures/opi_trufirewall_brochure.pdf

says that the system is Certified 4 Hour Fire Rating Certified by Southwest Research Institute per ASTM E-119 and compliant with IEEE Std 979, IBC, CBC, UBC construction codes.

Certified means that the system is actually listed by the institute. That would mean when one does a search on the SWRi website, it would turn up as a listed product. This would presume that preceding the fire test, SWRi would have sent an inspector or engineer, armed with the submittor's process standard, and witnessed the manufacture of the test sample materials. Upon witnessing of the manufacture of the test sample materials, the SWRi staffer would have placed a seal on those goods and then those goods would have been sent directly to the lab. That way, it is known what was actually being tested. The seal gets cracked open by the lab and then it is installed in the test frame and then tested. If the seal is cracked before the sample materials arrive in the lab, the sample is declined. After a successful test, the manufacturer would enter into a certification agreement with the laboratory, which had better be accredited for that purpose in the countries it is doing business in, such as the Standards Council of Canada or the American National Standards Institute for the US or Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik in Germany. The nationally accredited certification organisation then performs 4 unannounced annual factory audits to make sure that the product that was tested is still identical to what is being sold. The basis for this is the original process standard that was submitted before the test and the follow-up procedure that was authored by the certifying body. Continued compliance against this and only this regime enables the submittor to label the product with the certifier's label, such as ULI or SWRi or Braunschweig University of Technology. If variances occur that the manufacturer is unable, incapable or unwilling to resolve, then the certifier has the right for all labels to be removed, at the manufacturer's expense, from stock on hand, literature, distributors's store shelves as well as labelled materials stored on construction sites for the purpose of installation. Simply running a test, outside of the certification regime, does not imply certification. Stating that one is certified when in fact one is merely tested outside the available certification regime is inadvisable. Testing outside of the certification regime is run simply for the information of the submittor. It is not suitable to obtain approvals locally from an Authority Having Jurisdiction because nobody can verify what was even tested, let alone what was sold later on, apart from trust in the word of the vendor or the vendor's ethics. I would like to stress that I am not offering any judgment about this or any vendor's ethics. I don't know those people and have never met them. I am merely stating relevant public domain information to assist you.

Trust in passive fire protection vendors' ethics has caused major issues in North America before. This is precisely the reason why the product certification programmes came about. Otherwise nobody would bother with them. Here are two prominent examples of consequences related to simply trusting the ethics of a passive fire protection vendor instead of relying on product certification and Bounding:

This is the same reason why when you walk into a department store and purchase a toaster or coffee machine, you will see the label of the certifying organisation on that device, be it Underwriters Laboratories or otherwise. The only way the department store will buy it from that vendor, is that it is duly certified, under a nationally accredited follow-up programme such as UL's. If not, you might get zapped and then start litigation, which nobody wants. This is why if you owned a store chain, you would not even consider purchasing uncertified products. Instead, you would only purchase products bearing the certification mark or UL label. As a passive fire protection vendor, legally, one ought reasonably to know that certified means UL or ULC or SWRi (etc.) labelled and listed, not just tested. Testing without certifying is OK for instance, if you want to test the water in your house to check for toxins. You don't stand to gain from cheating. If, on the other hand, you start bottling that water and selling it commercially, you would be better off going a bit deeper in providing third party nationally accredited and certified products because now you stand to gain from the outcome of the test and it would be unreasonable to just take the vendor's word about the fitness for purpose.

When I looked for evidence of SWRi certification of the product you mentioned, I could not find any. My question to you is: how come?

Also, you stated that this particular vendor is the only one that has a 4 hour wall with a 45PSI/3.1 bar hose stream test in addition to impact testing. That is not accurate.

Example:

Durasteel walls, since you mentioned them, have also undergone direct impacts during fire testing with ballast bags in testing in Germany and The Netherlands, which has qualified them for use a real firewalls, able to subdivide buildings. Durasteel ductwork and walls have also undergone blast testing and have resulted in Lloyd's approved software based on a large number of blast tests that enable computerised blast wall designs where one enters the desired room geometry and size of blast to be defeated, resulting in pre-approved blast-resistant designs.

In summary, when you can point to a pedigree based on product certification and Bounding, then your edits involving products are less likely to be reverted. In kindest regards, --Achim (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can clear a few things up here and hopefully answer a few of your questions at the same time.
SWRI does not offer ANY type of product certification other than that provided when a product passes a given test performed by SWRI. The after test program that is offered by SWRI is called the Listing and Label program and merely performs ongoing quarterly tests of the product manufacturing process as well as provide an online listing in the SWRI directory. After thirty minutes on the phone with a manager at the SWRI testing facility, not the listing and label office, they made it very clear that participation in the Listing and Label program DOES NOT earn a Certification from SWRI. In addition, they stated that a company can use the term certified 4 hour fire rated if the product in question has in fact passed the required test through SWRI.
OK, Opticks3, you are supposed to sign when you make entries on talk pages. Your statement about what certification means to SWRi is irrelevant and misleading. Check this page: http://www.swri.org/4org/d01/fire/firetech/accreditation.htm This page clearly indicates that the organisation is only accredited nationally and internationally for TESTING, not for certification. Product certification is a defined term on Wikipedia and it also reflects the industry's terminology. The fact of the matter is that the vendor knows better as a result of being a multiple listee with UL for common concrete blocks. That means that the vendor is under UL follow-up for other things and knows what certified means. Certified is listed, not tested. The UL label on the product is the only evidence of compliance. The vendor chose deliberately, knowingly, and purposely to only test and not list with SWRi. I also confirmed this with the Standards Council of Canada. By virtue of SWRi's national and international accreditation for testing, it is OK in Canada for testing, meaning for information purposes only, but because SWRi lacks the national and international accreditation for certification, it is NOT acceptable for use in Canada for product certification. So even if this vendor had chosen to FIRST disclose the process standard, then engage in a follow-up programme, then test and then list, so that there would be back-up evidence to say that what was tested is what is being sold, then it would still not be allowed to be used for that in Canada. You may have some organisations in the US buying into SWRi's certification programme, but it is not nationally accredited for that. That means it is no good for code compliance. Because the vendor is a UL multiple listee, the vendor knows the difference and you know the difference. That difference is made abundantly clear on Wikipedia articles, which have survived extensive review. You know better and the vendor knows better than to say certified, when the product is only tested and not listed or certified. That is how it works and you ought reasonably to know better. Maybe the person you claim to have spoken to at SWRi does not know the difference and the obvious implication of the term certified. But that should also not surprise anyone because SWRi is NOT accredited for this service. And when you check the SWRi certification directory: http://www.swri.org/4org/d01/fire/listlab/listprod/construc.asp#SearchResults and check for the product or the vendor's name you are representing here, you come up with NOTHING. If you check the category called Fire-rated wall assemblies, you come up with only 6 listings total, divided by 2 companies. Two listees and that's it. That should tell you something about the acceptance level of SWRi's certification or listing programme. How many companies list rated walls with UL or Intertek? Therein collapses your argument--Achim (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the testing performed on the Oldcastle Precast Trufire Wall product, the testing was performed for Thermalimits on Dec 15 2006 in accordance with ASTM E 119 and IEEE STD. 979-1994 Guide For Substation Fire Protection. Oldcastle Precast was the manufacturer of the wall that was tested and subsequently aquired the Product and Intellectual Property rights to this product from Thermalimits. Any and all test results transfer to Oldcastle Precast, as the method of manufacture is the same now as it was when the wall was tested, whether we participate in the SWRI Listing and Label program or not.

And the fact of the matter is that your customers have only your word for that. That is not good enough when you have to comply with the code. You are now admitting that you expect your customers to believe that the product tested is identical to the product being sold on the basis of trust in the ethics of this vendor as well as the licensor for the technology. In passive fire proetction, you are supposed to provide listings, as in third party accredited evidence of compliance. What you are offering is the statement: "Trust me...".--Achim (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Durasteel Walls and the use as a Firewall- The code being used to claim a 4 hour fire rating,BS 476: Part 22: 1987, refers to standard non-load bearing structural fires that burn at a max temperature of approximately 1200F, and does not reference or test to the high temperatures found in a transformer fire or hydrocarbon pool fire tested for in ASTM E1529. While I am sure that Durasteel can perform very well in a standard building structure fire that does not burn above 1200F, claiming that Durasteel can be used in substation transformer applications and perform under real world conditions of a transformer fire for a duration of 4 hours at 2100F and then perform as a blast barrier after such prolonged exposure is misleading.

Opticks3, you have not done your homework. Durasteel has been tested to German standards, British and US, hydrocarbon, building elements curve and jetfire and blast.--Achim (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Firewall" as it is being used in relation to Oldcastle Precast Trufire Wall, refers to use in an electrical substation environment where a Hydrocarbon Pool fire can burn at temperatures around 2100F for 4 hours plus. The use of refractory concrete allows Trufire Wall to not only withstand the temperatures and duration of the fire, but to also perform as a blast barrier after such extreme exposure and in most cases will not have to be replaced after such a fire. The patent pending steel & refractory concrete mix behaves in a manner similar to a firing kiln. No offense to Durasteel intended, but unless I have overlooked a new product in the market, this is currently the only product that can perform in this manner under the extreme conditions of a transformer oil fire.

Opticks3, the use of refractory cement has a long beard. Calcium aluminate cements go back to a 1908 French patent. If that's the extent of your new technology, may I remind you that this is pre-World War I. That started in 1914, 6 years after this cement was invented. 1934 Durasteel was invented and since then, there has been no claim against the fire protection efficacy of this product. The first hydrocarbon test for Durasteel goes back to a FIRTO test 1983, tested to SOLAS 74, which led to a Lloyd's approval. It has been in use on ships and platforms as well as buildings where hydrocarbon fires can occur. For your information, sometimes transformers are placed inside of buildings too, where they are typically required to have a 3 hour fire resistance rating because of the hazard posed by mineral oils for cooling common transformers. So this is not exactly new. The difference here is that Durasteel is under follow-up by Canadian, German, British and US authorities, whereas you say: "Trust me" instead. The fact of the matter is that the certification regime is mandatory not just for Durasteel, but also for your concrete blocks, fire doors, spray fireproofing, gypsum wallboards, calcium silicate boards, etc. "Trust me" is not acceptable to an Authority Having Jurisdiction. Using the term certified, when it is not, that is misleading, especially for a vendor who manufactures certified concrete blocks under UL follow up, who can be demonstrated to know better. Not using Product certification has led directly to the Thermo-lag scandal, among others. That is why you can't meet the code and satisfy the AHJ in any other way. And you know better.--Achim (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Concrete

According to DIN4102 Part 1, its British cousin BS476 and other such documents, concrete is an "old" product. This is not a bad thing. It does NOT mean that there is anything wrong with it by any means - your concrete or anybody else's concrete. What it means though is that it is generically described by listing organisations in all listings. It's just plain old concrete. Even if yours is platinum-plated and blessed by every available cleric in all religions on planet Earth and mentioned in sacred texts and discussed on daytime talk shows: it's still plain old concrete to many people. The only differentiation that is made over many decades now in listings and in codes is the density. That also has a looooooong beard. Check out some online floor listings from UL, for example and you will see what I mean. The problem you face, no matter how wonderful your concrete, is that people will will simply copy it on the basis of your listing. By the same token, you could make concrete from all the old systems, such as all concrete systems listed in the NBCC, in the back. Nobody can prevent you from doing that. You could benefit by selling somebody concrete based on testing done 40 years ago at the Portland Cement Association, as an example. You cannot be entirely sure that other precast companies won't supply people on the basis of your listing, if you actually have one. All these old systems are public domain. Once listed, your system is public domain too. So even if you give it a fancy name, rely on trade secrets for the mix design or patents, you may be inadvertently providing a license to others to take the same advantage that you can by providing any concrete product to suit all the old systems that have been in the building codes and standards for many decades. Whilst you try to recover your development and testing investments, copycats out there are not similarly encumbered and their mix designs may be at a lower cost per cubic yard than yours to begin with. Customers faced with a lower bid than yours for say a heavier precast panel than yours, can be credibly made to believe based on a mountain of existing test data on concrete the world over that a heavier density is actually safer. I have unfortunately seen such shenanigans all to often in the passive fire protection business. In the eighties and earlier, for instance, in Canada, the building code used to say that all firestops had to be tested to ULC-S101, which is the same as the ASTM E119 that you claim you tested to. So, contractors interpreted that this way: Concrete was tested to S101. Therefore, they backfilled openings to be firestopped with concrete. Inspectors bought off on this utter illegal nonsense for decades. As a firestopper with beaucoup investment in testing and listings, you'd be told to go and fly a kite with your firestops because in their interpretations, they met the intent of the code. So if you were a guy selling concrete in those days, theoretically, you could have benefitted from this too. It took an enormous effort to fight such nonsense. It killed some companies because there was no return on the test investment. Firestopping with concrete is a much bigger stretch than for someone to just be a copycat to what you do (which would not be right or legal and I would not support it for one microsecond) because of all the existing data on concrete in tested wall and floor assemblies. Even if you have not seen that yet, that does not mean that you won't. Good luck with that. --Achim (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to West Memphis Three has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Trusilver 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on West Memphis Three. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SudoGhost 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please note that you have been reported for violating 3RR here. - SudoGhost 04:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted seven times in the past twenty-four hours. You've reverted three times in the past hour alone, yet you haven't engaged in discussion on the talk page at all in that time period. If you'll take the time to visit the talk page, you'll see that I've explained why the 8k site is not a reliable source. Despite this, you've taken to edit warring on the article, with edit summaries saying REFER TO TALK PAGE. Instead of edit warring, I strongly suggest you stop and use the talk page. The source you're using isn't reliable as it is considered a self-published source. Until you can establish a consensus that the site is reliable (which you have not), the content will be reverted, as it appears to violate WP:BLP. - SudoGhost 05:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Memphis Three. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:West Memphis Three. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SudoGhost 22:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Misrepresentation of precast concrete product

Hello Opticks3!

  • Your edit that added pictures of the trufire brand precast concrete fire separation was not constructive and was, therefore, reverted, same as your inclusion of a copyrighted picture of this product at a test that took place at SWRi, which was clearly not under SWRi's certification programme, in the certification listing page, in a gallery that was entitled as an example of a fire door undergoing testing that led to a certification. First of all, a wall is not a door. Secondly, the product is definitley NOT certified, despite assertions to the contrary. This was already explained to you previously. The vendor whose pictures you used without authorisation, contrary to the copyright notice on the website of the vendor, indicates that the one wall fire test that was done, was done at SWRi. If you enter either the product name or the manufacturer's name on SWRi's certification directory page, you get no hits. That means that SWRi does NOT certifiy the product. It was only tested, not listed. I can also inform you that I went ahead and asked SWRi if the product is under follow-up or will be under follow-up. They wrote to me that this product is not under their follow-up programme and thus NOT certified. Let me repeat that for you, Opticks3: SWRi wrote to me that the trifire product is NOT CERTIFIIED. It is only tested. That means that there is no evidence that the product in the test report is the same as what is being sold apart from trust in the ethics of the vendor, which is insufficient for code compliance. SWRi is also not accredited for certification, only for testing. So particularly in Canada, where the product is also marketed, it has no evidence whatsoever of being in compliance with building or fire codes. There are two organisations in North America that are accredited for certification of passive fire protection products. That is Intertek, whose directory is here. I did a search there under both the name of the vendor and the name of the product that you are misrepresenting here and I got 0 results. The gold standard in certification of passive fire protection products is UL. You can find UL's online certification directory here. I did a search under the company name and came up with multiple listings (amongst a total of 7 vendors for the same product) for hollow core normal weight concrete units, not the refractory concrete you refer to. This brings up another point for the vendor. The vendor clearly knows the difference between testing and listings. The vendor is under UL follow-up for concrete blocks. So when the vendor claims to be CERTIFIED, when he is in fact just tested and is NOT listed by SWRi, he knows that his claim about being certified is false. For you then to go further and deliberately place a picture about a product that is only tested but not listed, not certified, on a page that concerns certification listings, is not advisable. If you are not just trying to push one vendor's product, and are truly trying to help the passive fire protection related pages here, then why not take and place pictures of other items with whom you are not affiliated, such as spray fireproofing or expansion joint firestopping or mineral insulated copper clad cables? We could use some more graphics on those things. But if you continue to misrepresent a product, you will be called out on it.

--Achim (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Opticks3"