Foam Factory (Foam by Mail) Dilemma

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by VoiceManMike

Foam does not belong in any setting in any form. It's just too dangerous - I don't care what the rating is.

The foam in the Station fire was just the catalyst for this disaster. Within a 60 seconds of the fire starting, the first screams of panic began.

THis video should put the fear of foam in you.
YouTube - ‪The Station Nightclub Fire‬‏

There is a VO studio in LA that just installed some cheap foam, I've tried to worn him, but my warning fell upon deaf ears.

Sorry Mike - but you do not have a clue what you're talking about here.

The foam used in the Station was packing foam - it was not fire ******ant in the least - had a low flash point - and one it caught fire the spread was amazingly fast.

But it was (and I really feel the need to emphasize this) NOT - acoustic foam.

I don't suppose you have a problem with wood treatments in a studio - yet (from the perspective of a fire) wood will contribute more fuel to a fire than a Class "B" foam.

Ratings are not something that someone just decides they will call their product.

They are the results from actual flame tests performed in facilities certified to preform the tests.

The methods of testing are very stringent - described in the ASTM or NFPA standards as to the quantity of product to be tested as well as the mounting methods to be used - which is specific for each type of material being tested.

They even specifically address Acoustical Treatments.

Now - the tests preformed determine the Flame Spread Index (FSI) and the Smoke Developed Index (SDI) - with the SDI further broken down into categories for SDI 200 or less- SDI greater than 200.

The FSI is the rated of spread for the fire - while the SDI is a determination of how much smoke it introduces.

Following are the 3 classes - with the allowable flame spread and smoke developed listed in that order.

Class A FSI 0-25: SDI 0-450

Class B FSI 25-75: SDI 0-450

Class C FSI 76-200: SDI 0-450

As you can see - the FSI of any product listed as Class A will have a lower spread of flame than the other 2 classes (Wood is a Class C Material)

Thus, any Class A foam is just as safe as any other Class A material, etc., etc., etc.

No one has any reason whatsoever to be afraid of a material simply because of it's physical makeup - and your attempt to introduce a "fear factor" element into this thread (as part of the equation) by placing flame ******ant acoustic foams: designed specifically for exposed indoor spaces, in the same category as the untreated packing foams put in place inside of the Station, which helped cause 100 deaths (the principal cause being the illegal use of pyrotechnics inside of the club) is almost actionable.

Your statement comes off as fact - when it is (rather) simply an opinion - one not supported by facts.

In the world of construction we tend to avoid opinions - opinions in this regard are literally meaningless - we need to see actual test results..... then the facts speak for themselves.

You might well be passionate about your personal beliefs in this matter - but you are dead wrong right out of the gate.

Sincerely,

Rod

[xaMdaM]

OK, now that I'm ankle deep in this...

I think the "fear factor" is all too easy of a card to play, considering this misconception that foam is foam... when it clearly is not the case.

To reiterate my stand, it is unconscionable to use a non certified material in a public access facility, especially when it is used in a method contrary to its intended use. e.g. to use a non fire rated (ASTM/NFPA) packing foam as a replacement for a rated acoustic foam.

Granted the use of the pyro was illegal, and the use of packing foam was in part negligence, but I also find fault with the fact that the fire marshal failed to catch the installation of the foam product and let it go unchallenged in the tragic events at The Station.

But what I, (and IMHO) others are primarily pointing out is the use of highly inflammable materials is the dangerous aspect. Using rated materials still poses the potential for disaster, but there is at least a truly calculated risk... not just an unknown.

IOW, when I see situations where someone lines an entire room with packing foam, or some other product that is extremely questionable, I fear for the innocent individuals who could perish quickly in case of an accident. But if someone lines a room entirely with a rated foam, I may not understand their reasoning from an acoustical standpoint, but at least they are using a material that has a known risk value... which then establishes a risk assessment for their insurance underwriter.

[Rod Gervais]

Originally Posted by xaMdaM

OK, now that I'm ankle deep in this...

I think the "fear factor" is all too easy of a card to play, considering this misconception that foam is foam... when it clearly is not the case.

To reiterate my stand, it is unconscionable to use a non certified material in a public access facility, especially when it is used in a method contrary to its intended use. e.g. to use a non fire rated (ASTM/NFPA) packing foam as a replacement for a rated acoustic foam.

I would go further to say it is unconscionable to use packing foam for anything other than packing - regardless of whether it is commercial or residential.

Granted the use of the pyro was illegal, and the use of packing foam was in part negligence, but I also find fault with the fact that the fire marshal failed to catch the installation of the foam product and let it go unchallenged in the tragic events at The Station.

Sorry my friend - I am usually on the same page as yu - but not this particular one.

Not only was the pyro illegal - but the use of the packing foam was as well.

This is not a case of negligence...... They were a commercial establishment - there are rules to play by..... and it is their responsibility to to follow those rules.

This is not a case of their failing to use proper care - this is a case of their deliberate and willful failure to follow the requirements proscribed by law.

Due to the fact that they never notified the Fire Marshall about this use - at which time he would have requested the proper documents to review - you cannot lay any of this at his feet.

We have no way of knowing exactly when this material was put in place...... but let's look a little deeper at the question.

How often should a Fire Marshall inspect these establishments? What if I were the FM and did an inspection - and then the following day they did something stupid (like this) - how would I know?

Should I inspect ever establishment ever day just to make sure?

If the info you're relying on in this case is from Wikipedia there are some inaccurate statements made there placing part of the blame on the Fire Marshall.

What they state is this:

In fact, the building had undergone an occupancy change when it was converted from a restaurant to a nightclub. This change dissolved its exemption from the law, a fact that West Warwick fire inspectors never noticed.

This a completely wrong..... the code requires any buildings that are going to have a change in Use Group meet the current building code as if they were being constructed today. In which case that nightclub might have required a sprinkler system.

But that is not the case here.....

What the Code says is this:

Section 110.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change ion the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.

The Code further goes on to say this:

Section 3406.1 Conformance. No Changes in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy, or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies. Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all of the new requirements of this code for those groups. Provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.

Now - what this says is that a building shall not be occupied without a certificate of occupancy - it does not state that there cannot be multiple owners or tenants of that space without a new certificate being issued, as long as there is no change in the Occupancy Classification of the building.

When there is a change in occupancy classification the building must be inspected and a new certificate of occupancy is to be issued. That would be to confirm the building still complies with the existing building codes.

BUT – as long as that occupancy classification is within the original use group (or sub-group as the case may be) the building does not have to be brought up to code.

It is only when the Use Group changes that this is set into motion.

You have both a Use Group and Occupancy Classification.

That is key here - the use of the word classification.

In other words - if I buy a church (Use Group A-3) and convert it to a nightclub - (Use Group A-2) then everything about the building would have to meet code as if it were a new building being constructed today.

But - If i decided to convert that church to any one of the following occupancies that would not be the case:

Amusement Arcades, Art Gallery, Bowling Alley, Community Hall, Courtroom, Dance Hall (not including food or drink consumption), Exhibition Hall, Funeral Parlor, Gymnasium, Indoor Swimming Pool, Lecture Hall, Library, Museum, Pool Hall.

That's because all of these uses are the same Use Group, Sub-group, Classification, although a change of Occupancy Classification exists - a change in Use Group does not.

A night club is assembly group A-2.

A restaurant is assembly class A-2.

As are taverns, bars and banquet halls.

Any of one can become another without ever having to bring the building up to code.

An example where the allowable exception noted in 3406.1 would come into play would be an apartment building or hotel being converted into an office building.

Seeing as the life safety and fire risk is much greater with an occupancy where people sleep – than a building where they don’t – one could apply (and easily receive) a modification to the new construction requirements. However – they could not even consider accepting a modification for review if it were the reverse.

I am going to shoot a correction off to Wikipedia to see if they can’t get that corrected.

Sincerely,

Rod

[xaMdaM]

Rod,

Thanks for the clarification... and thus we're pretty much exactly in agreement, as I was indeed working from the wiki information, and based upon my own conversations with my local fire marshal and as owner of a commercial facility.

In that I will be subject to a full fire safety inspection every 24 months, unless I change the land/building use, or significantly change any portion of the building. In which case, I will be subject to re-inspection/approval at such time as I reapply for new land/building use or final inspection of any permits to complete any changes. (We technically have land use as opposed to strict zoning.)

[kinkykow]

I'm pretty sure this says it all about foam-by-mail... Taken from their site:

"Unless otherwise specified, all products are sold AS IS, and no warranty will be made concerning the performance of our products."

WHY NOT?!?!?!


Also...

"Foam Factory does not warrant that this website or the server that makes this website available are free of viruses or other harmful components"

Can't even trust their page!!!

[collinTHEbrewer]

Newbie to GS membership, but I found this thread and thought everyone should see this...

Wedge Foam NRC Rating - Acoustic Foam, Sound Proofing Wedge Foam

It appears legitimate. Experts can read into it more than myself!

My two cents on the whole matter though...

Budget wisely in any studio. If you are fretting over spending several hundred dollars on a bass trap or foam, then you should probably be investing your money in some better gear (the GS mindset?) and work with a little less pretty solutions such as the OC 703 boards or 48 layers of mattress foam for now. Once your ears are more mature and your needs justify it, spend the money on the solution that fits you best. Suggesting that the differences in foam brands is going to be the only detrimental factor in your home studio is a ridiculous argument... especially if you're running an MXL LDC through a 2-channel M-Audio USB interface for all your recording needs.

Your studio is what you make it and will probably be reflective of your budget unfortunately. It's a hard fact to learn, but it's pretty similar in every industry. You don't see a salvaged Ford Taurus winning too many drag races... I personally love the bang for buck options, but they aren't always best.

But before the pros all clobber me... the room is incredibly important. Never neglect to treat it appropriately.

Also try not to risk the safety of your customers. Don't store your gasoline canisters on a teetering tower of Styrofoam. It may look awesome, but I doubt your customers will feel comfortable...

That being said, Weenie is trying to make a point that I think a ton of people at GS will agree with... There is more than one solution for almost every problem. Similarly, there are other solutions to acoustical treatments besides acoustical foam. Foam is great because it's small, compact, effective, and it looks freakin' cool, but with some nice fabric and good design, so can the OC 703 solutions. You don't have to have high dollar solutions to impress a client and extract a good performance. (Sometimes they do perform better in a cooler looking environment though! )

To the big name guys selling the acoustic treatments, try and understand it's hard for us gearslutz to listen to a man invested in the arguement!

Just be smart!

[collinTHEbrewer]

Originally Posted by collinTHEbrewer

Wedge Foam NRC Rating - Acoustic Foam, Sound Proofing Wedge Foam

It appears legitimate. Experts can read into it more than myself!

The overall NRC rating for the 4" FBM wedge is similar to the 2" Auralex and for a lot less.

[windmillsound]

Foam is frickin foam. As long as it is open-cell foam and as long as the density is the same it'll sound as good as the most expensive brands. It costs pennies to make - so I never quite worked out how they have such a markup.

However 2inch foam is going to have a 1/4 wavelength resonance of around 1.5kHz - so its not going to do absorb much below this - generally it will just make your room less bright. - You might be better doubling it up and covering a lesser area of the walls.