Two quotes, same mesh, and neither of them mentions what the screen is bolted to
Mesh is the visible part, so it is the part that gets compared. The state's building guidance describes wind resistance as a continuous chain instead: pressure on the inside and outside of a home creates forces that must be transferred by structural members and connections all the way to the ground. In the failures that guidance illustrates, the sheeting, the battens, the trusses and the walls were not themselves the problem. How each was fixed to the next was. Read across to a screen and the corrosion question lands on the connection before it lands on the panel. The same guidance advises homes close to seawater to use components and connections with higher levels of corrosion resistance, states plainly that near saltwater the fasteners and connectors should be of a higher corrosion resistance than normal, and documents roof loss caused by screws that corroded and stopped holding. Corrosivity is a graded property of a place, described in bands running from very low up to an extreme category with a separate marine band near the top. Humidity keeps salt working on a surface: at the Bureau of Meteorology's Cairns Aero station the mean 9am relative humidity is 72 percent across the year and 78 percent from February to April. The settled part is what the screen itself is made of: 316 marine grade stainless mesh in T6 grade high tensile aluminium frames, and perforated aluminium the manufacturer states is corrosion resistant. Beyond the panel, Australia treats the installation of security screens as its own discipline with its own Australian Standard, separate from the product performance one. Where the guidance puts the documented failures at the connections rather than at the components, the reveal, the frame behind the opening and the wall it sits in are part of what a measure has to take in, not just the size of the hole. That is a fair question to put to anyone quoting on the opening, this business included.







