Date:         Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:10:34 -0700
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Engine Fire and ITC
In-Reply-To:  <4454CC76.5070307@charter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> When I worked for the Corps of Engineers years ago, in buildings that
> were metal beam construction always had their beams treated with a spray
> -on protective coat of some some sort. The intent of this material was
> to protect from the heat of a fire to aid in preventing bending of the
> beams due to heat.


Ugh. Good ol' Monokote MK-6. Basically 95% gypsum held together with 5%
cementitious binder glop and sprayed on-- though "splodged on" might be a
better description. Dry monokote is chokey, dusty, dirty stuff. The only
thing more irritating to work around than dry Monokote is WET Monokote,
which is slimy, sticky, dirty stuff which you have to wait for to dry before
it can be effectively removed. When I worked high-rise electrical installs,
the Monokote guys would frequently "overspray" into our open junction boxes.
Jerks. Given the choice between Monokote in my engine compartment and
anything else, I think I'd choose "anything else".
That ITC ceramic coating stuff is interesting. Not sure how you'd get it to
stick to painted metal and/or a fiberglass composite deck lid. I suspect
something like a Nomex liner might be better suited to the vibrational
stress of an engine compartment than any spray-on or brush-on coating. I
think perhaps the only worthwhile solution is diligent fuel line maintenance
and (for those with money to burn) some sort of automated fire suppression.
Fireproofing a Vanagon engine compartment seems kinda like fireproofing a
coal mine: the most valuable efforts are on the prevention end, since once a
fire starts, the party is pretty much over unless it's stopped very quickly.


--
John Bange
'90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"