New Use for FLIR

[rkenney]

I don't do thermography, as the need hasn't yet arisen, but I am always interested in new ways to solve old problems.

Stumbled upon this article today, and was wondering (from the guys that actually do this stuff) about the practicality of this approach; drawbacks?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/ ... invisible/

Please, no comments on the politics of global warming, climate change, etc., just the facts and capabilities of the equipment you use and your estimate/experience of its suitability for this type of observation..

[kurt]

I've used mine to see all the things shown in the video. I can't "see the gas", but I can see the heat effect.

People breathing, automobile exhaust, chimney exhausts in winter, the heat plume that comes off my rice cooker, etc.

[David Meiland]

The long-wave cameras that are common for inspection don't see much at all in the way of gases. FLIR makes a very cool line of mid-wave cameras that see different gases. The CO model would be neat to play with.

http://www.flir.com/thermography/americ ... /?id=18294

[rkenney]

Thanks, wavelength was the thing I had not considered.

I'll have to explore that link in its entirety.

[Marc]

My take is that it's a horribly written article. Greenhouses gases absorb and then re-radiate infrared. The catch is that the re-radiated infrared is in all directions, regardless of the direction that the original infrared came from, such as the sun, bonfire or whatever you're looking at with the IR camera. When a mass of greenhouse gases are within the view of an IR camera but do not fill that view then you can see that effect. The intensity of infrared from the areas where the greenhouse gases are is reduced because much of the infrared heading for the camera from behind the gases becomes re-radiated in directions other than the camera.

Perhaps I'm not making much sense myself.[:-paperba

Marc

[rkenney]

I concur completely (Confusing Confluence of Contradictory Conclusions).

Terribly written, but my intent was merely to explore the concept of FLIR use for gases.

The site posted suggests alternate uses for gas emission testing than just a horribly random scenic photo that identifies nothing specific.

Perhaps we should throw-out our CO 'sniffers' in favor of an FLIR camera tuned for the gas of interest?

[GAHI of KC]

The notion sounds good. However, a refurbished model would run you $30,000 easy.

When in my Level 1 course, I asked about using my e60bx model for gas. It's not fancy enough.

[Scott Wood]

To better understand "..not fancy enough" they should have describe the gas finder better. David above has mentioned the detector wavelength as a requirement for gas detection.

The longwave imagers (E60BX) are not able to detect the wavelengths that gases absorb at, nor are they sensitive enough for detection of low levels of gases. These $30K plus imagers, unlike the room temperature detectors common for building applications, are cooled detectors and specially filtered. This allows the user to "see" the specific wavelengths required for gas observations.

FLIR does have a radiometric version that can function for both gas finding and temperature evaluations. An advantage of these imagers is the thermal sensitivity (NEDT) is a whole lot better then the building application imagers (<15mK)!

I've used them for exterior viewing of the building cladding. With that sensitivity they provide more patterning, helping to evaluate of the cladding system. On the flip side they are cost prohibitive for most to justify the expense.

If anyone is interested FLIR has additional information and training for the specific applications of gas finding. Adding gas finding to your business may help justify the cost.

[David Meiland]

Funny, this topic came up today on the radio.

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/185993899 ... up-its-air

[Scott Wood]

NPR can provide great information, like this one, excellent. Thanks for the link David.