IR cam found roof leak 2

[Chris Bernhardt]

I found another roof leak that I would have missed.

Image Insert:

72.58 KB

Image Insert:

73.2 KB

Dead valley drains off to the right side of the house (chimney side)

Image Insert:

72.94 KB

Comes around the corner. Trim & fasica has decay.

Image Insert:

75.14 KB

Stains, streaking and blistered paint on eave.

Image Insert:

61.82 KB

View of bedroom wall behind path of runoff.

Image Insert:

28.84 KB

What IR picked up on wall. Hit it with my moisture meter and Bingo!

Image Insert:

27.94 KB

What IR saw above this area in the attic.

Image Insert:

74.55 KB

Forced myself out to the corner to take a look and sure enough the plywood roof deck over the skip sheathing is darkened and there are stains on the top plate.

Now, I say I would have missed it. That doesn't mean a prudent inspector would have. I showed this to Jim Katen and Jim explained that he takes the time to consider how water is running off the building and where spaces are before he gets into the house, then pays attention to those areas. What IR is teaching me to do is what Jim already does without an IR camera.

Chris, Oregon

[Chris Bernhardt]

Now, let me add that I was not smart enough to consider that the roof might be leaking there. Nor did I purposefully target the area in the interior.

At some point in each inspection I will stop the visual inspection and start scanning the house with my IR cam. It was on passing thru the bedroom that I picked up the anomaly and then checked it with my moisture meter then headed to the attic. Now when I got into the attic I decided to take a look at what it looked like on IR, which I normally don't do. Since it was indicating strongly, I forced myself out to the apex to take an up close look, again which I normally don't do. Why? because it hurts balancing yourself on knees and elbows on the tops of 2"x while holding flashlights and cameras etc.

And they say that inspecting is not a physically demanding job.

Chris, Oregon

[Les]

Chris, I am liking your attitude about IR and it's benefit. I like your story.

[Chris Bernhardt]

Thanks Les!

That is what I am trying to show. I feel there has been some hysteria placed out there that using an IR cam without paying thousands of dollars in training will get you into trouble.

I am trying to demonstrate that is BS. Thats why I am pushing for our best to get cameras so they can further demonstrate that it takes a mediocre HI like me and makes them better at performing visual inspections.

Chris, Oregon

[Jim95340]

This article has sold me on IR ..........Thank you.

[Richard Moore]

I got to try out the various Flir models last year at a moisture seminar. Naturally, I really liked the most expensive hi-res models. The "disadvantage" of side by side comparisons.

Chris, if you had to do it again, would you still settle for the one you have? In other words...do you think the lower-res units are good enough for the way you are using it? It seems that way.

When (used to be "if") I spring for one, like you, it would also be my intention to use it as an ancillary tool. I basically do home inspections one way and have no plans or desire to offer extra or add-on IR services. Nothing wrong with those that do, but I'm happy and busy enough just sticking to the basics. Not having to go for the Lexus model and the training is starting to make these financially sensible.

Keep the photos coming!

[Brian G]

Chris, either stop posting these enticing photos or send me the money to buy a camera, will ya'? [:-weepn]

Brian G.

Riding Out the Tool Jones [:-drool]

[Scottpat]

I forgot who told me to always look at a home from every angle as if you were an endless supply of water wanting to get in!

[Chris Bernhardt]

Chris, if you had to do it again, would you still settle for the one you have? In other words...do you think the lower-res units are good enough for the way you are using it? It seems that way.

The resolution of the Bcam is adequate for general HI work. It does a fine job on picking out insulation and air leakage issues but is a little weak when it comes to differentiating moisture related thermal anomalies.

Where as insulation and air leakage tend to have delta T's of several degrees, moisture related thermal anomalies tend to be less than a degree and tend to have cloudy mottled looking patterns. A higher resolution camera would help image things better.

With a low res unit you are going to see pretty much any anomaly that a high res unit can in general HI work. The difference is that with the higher res units you will be able to distinguish more quickly between anomalies besides being able to print prettier pics.

But I don't think thats worth spending another $8k to $10k or waiting another year or two till you can afford it by which time your competitors will be eating your lunch with their low res units.

Chris, Oregon

[drcr]

I like the idea of inspectors with ir cameras. I can't count the times new homeowners discover roof leaks that were painted over by the previous homeowner.

[Dale McNutt]

I have a Fluke Ti-30 (Raytek) I bought it from the distributor in Portland in 2004. (no sales tax) [:-slaphap

I have used the camera mainly for my commercial clients. It's a lot tougher to get what you are worth with residential use.

The same basic arguments against IR were used 10 years ago with digital photography. There will always be those who are anti-camera. I think it has something to do with the phrase, "vague is good". Good pictures be they regular or IR are very compelling in an inspection report. It really cuts down on the use of the word "appears".

[davidlord]

I agree that you don't need to run out and take a $2000.00 course to learn how to use an IR camera. Just by using the camera it dosen't take long to figure out what your looking at.

I will probably attend one of the courses at some point when things are slow but I don't feel its necessary to use the camera properly.

[ozofprev]

The courses are wayyyy overpriced, but understanding IR is not intuitive. Take a look at the following web page - SCROLL DOWN to see the man holding the plastic bag and pay attention to his glasses. LINK

You can see through glass, but your IR cam cannot.

[Brian G]

You can see through glass, but your IR cam cannot.

So if we're looking for leaks between panes of a window, it ain't gonna work? [:-dev3]

Brian G.

Bad Brian, Bad! [:I]

[randynavarro]

What's the "we?"

Either you got a turd in your pocket or you bought a camera.

C'mon, fess up.

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by Dale McNutt

I have a Fluke Ti-30 (Raytek) I bought it from the distributor in Portland in 2004. (no sales tax) [:-slaphap

The same basic arguments against IR were used 10 years ago with digital photography. There will always be those who are anti-camera. I think it has something to do with the phrase, "vague is good". Good pictures be they regular or IR are very compelling in an inspection report. It really cuts down on the use of the word "appears".

I agree

This is one of the few things I have Realtors do during a presentation for amusement.

Image Insert:

26.55 KB

[Brian G]

Originally posted by randynavarro

What's the "we?"

My bad.....nope, I don't have one yet. Yet.

Brian G.

Contributions Accepted [:-dev3]

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by Brian G

You can see through glass, but your IR cam cannot.

So if we're looking for leaks between panes of a window, it ain't gonna work? [:-dev3]

Brian G.

Bad Brian, Bad! [:I]

I do like your wit.