4 ms·

I guess it is too expensive to have a fm-200 based fire suppression system? They say they have sprinklers as a last resort but I’m guessing it would destroy mos

I guess it is too expensive to have a fm-200 based fire suppression system? They say they have sprinklers as a last resort but I’m guessing it would destroy most of the art if you needed to use them.

Schiendelman 2y ago
Most art is sealed into covered frames. You also design fire suppression sprinklers to start in outer rooms. Smoke is a far greater danger to art in a fire.
- popalchemist 2y ago
  The art at the Getty is not sealed.
cududa 2y ago
Did some googling, and from what I can find, there’s one fm-200 based museum suppression system in Cincinnati - which is also the home of Proctor and Gamble, a manufacturer of Hydrofluorocarbons. I’m guessing there’s a pretty good reason no one put these in museums/ they tried and they didn’t work. I tend to think of property insurance companies having goals that are the most “morally aligned” with the goals of civilization. They don’t want fires, floods, etc to happen, or they lose money. They spend a lot of money researching climate patterns and construction standards, lobby for climate policies and new building standards, etc. I’m sure insuring a museum and the risk of a payout is a dicey endeavor. The companies insuring them have probably lit many mock-museums on fire to decide what suppression system/ designs they’ll insure
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  FM200 is not the only system available - Inergen, Novec 1230, CO2, etc (nobody has used Halon in ages if they can avoid it, as it's toxic.) Gaseous fire suppression systems have numerous requirements that make them unsuited for a large publicly accessible space. There's oxygen displacement; most of them are "nontoxic" to breathe but still displace oxygen, so you have to have various measures to keep from killing people - that could range from delayed discharge up to SCBA stations (and staff training, maintenance, etc.) The other problem is that you need sufficient concentration of the agent; the concentration varies, and some need higher concentrations (and better sealing) than others. That means quite a lot of work if the space/building wasn't built with it in mind. Even for a relatively small and simple server room, gaseous fire suppression installation is expensive and a general pain in the ass. The systems are intended for spaces that aren't normally occupied. Vaults/storage for example, and industrial spaces (electrical substations, for example.)
  - cduzz 2y ago
    I thought halon was "harmless" to people, but mixing halon with fire produces nasty poisons. The vast majority of fire suppression events I've heard of (in a DC or similar environment) are unintentional, meaning the halon wouldn't be toxic (according to my potentially flawed memory). Certainly, if there's been a legit fire suppression event, you wait for people with the hard-hats to clear the facility. Of course, you should do the same if there's been a no-fire suppression event, but ideally your fire suppression mechanism doesn't kill the people in the room needlessly...
Spooky23 2y ago
That’s not really for this sort of threat. Those systems displace oxygen in a confined space and into the are intended to stop combustion originating in that space. They may have a system like that in a vault but not for the whole facility.
cge 2y ago
In addition to other comments: there are also specialized sprinklers to minimize both the risk of inadvertent damage (they point out their sprinkler systems are dry by default, which is not typical), and to minimize damage on correct activation: eg, typical sprinklers turn on permanently, often by a vial breaking, but if I recall specialized museum/library sprinklers exist that can turn on and off depending on conditions.

Schiendelman 2y ago

Most art is sealed into covered frames. You also design fire suppression sprinklers to start in outer rooms. Smoke is a far greater danger to art in a fire.

popalchemist 2y ago
The art at the Getty is not sealed.

cududa 2y ago

Did some googling, and from what I can find, there’s one fm-200 based museum suppression system in Cincinnati - which is also the home of Proctor and Gamble, a manufacturer of Hydrofluorocarbons. I’m guessing there’s a pretty good reason no one put these in museums/ they tried and they didn’t work. I tend to think of property insurance companies having goals that are the most “morally aligned” with the goals of civilization. They don’t want fires, floods, etc to happen, or they lose money. They spend a lot of money researching climate patterns and construction standards, lobby for climate policies and new building standards, etc. I’m sure insuring a museum and the risk of a payout is a dicey endeavor. The companies insuring them have probably lit many mock-museums on fire to decide what suppression system/ designs they’ll insure

KennyBlanken 2y ago
FM200 is not the only system available - Inergen, Novec 1230, CO2, etc (nobody has used Halon in ages if they can avoid it, as it's toxic.) Gaseous fire suppression systems have numerous requirements that make them unsuited for a large publicly accessible space. There's oxygen displacement; most of them are "nontoxic" to breathe but still displace oxygen, so you have to have various measures to keep from killing people - that could range from delayed discharge up to SCBA stations (and staff training, maintenance, etc.) The other problem is that you need sufficient concentration of the agent; the concentration varies, and some need higher concentrations (and better sealing) than others. That means quite a lot of work if the space/building wasn't built with it in mind. Even for a relatively small and simple server room, gaseous fire suppression installation is expensive and a general pain in the ass. The systems are intended for spaces that aren't normally occupied. Vaults/storage for example, and industrial spaces (electrical substations, for example.)
- cduzz 2y ago
  I thought halon was "harmless" to people, but mixing halon with fire produces nasty poisons. The vast majority of fire suppression events I've heard of (in a DC or similar environment) are unintentional, meaning the halon wouldn't be toxic (according to my potentially flawed memory). Certainly, if there's been a legit fire suppression event, you wait for people with the hard-hats to clear the facility. Of course, you should do the same if there's been a no-fire suppression event, but ideally your fire suppression mechanism doesn't kill the people in the room needlessly...

Spooky23 2y ago

That’s not really for this sort of threat. Those systems displace oxygen in a confined space and into the are intended to stop combustion originating in that space. They may have a system like that in a vault but not for the whole facility.

cge 2y ago

In addition to other comments: there are also specialized sprinklers to minimize both the risk of inadvertent damage (they point out their sprinkler systems are dry by default, which is not typical), and to minimize damage on correct activation: eg, typical sprinklers turn on permanently, often by a vial breaking, but if I recall specialized museum/library sprinklers exist that can turn on and off depending on conditions.