Going IR

[hausdok]

Hi,

It was an honest question. We routinely do check the base of walls with a Protimeter and routinely do find issues like that without an IR camera. If you don't, that's all that you had to say; not sure why you felt I attacked you.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Scottpat]

Good find, Kevin.

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by hausdok

Hi,

It was an honest question. We routinely do check the base of walls with a Protimeter and routinely do find issues like that without an IR camera. If you don't, that's all that you had to say; not sure why you felt I attacked you.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

My mistake then.[:-banghea

[Bain]

What about walls and ceilings in finished basements? I find moisture problems behind decks and porches all the time in unfinished basements, but have to remain clueless when I'm surrounded by drywall. Have you located problems behind drywall with the IR camera, and if so, how do you determine the extent of damage?

At what point do you tell yourself a threshold requires caulk or instead recommend the removal of drywall to see what's up?

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Bain

At what point do you tell yourself a threshold requires caulk or instead recommend the removal of drywall to see what's up?

Thresholds never require caulk; they require pan flashings.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by Bain

What about walls and ceilings in finished basements? I find moisture problems behind decks and porches all the time in unfinished basements, but have to remain clueless when I'm surrounded by drywall. Have you located problems behind drywall with the IR camera, and if so, how do you determine the extent of damage?

At what point do you tell yourself a threshold requires caulk or instead recommend the removal of drywall to see what's up?

I haven't had my IR camera very long so I have to be very careful on determining what the IR camera is displaying and what is really there. I clearly inform my clients that I use the IR camera to help discover and not determine problems. When it comes to moisture in walls, I have not come across that yet.

The most interesting thing I came across was from a friend's house. An exterior wall in the bedroom was cold during the winter months and warm during the summer months. I made a small hole in the wall and discovered there was no insulation at that location. I used that area as a reference for my IR camera to determine that there was no insulation at that exterior wall. That was a 2 year old house.

[Bain]

I'm in Kentucky, Mike.

Pan flashings hardly exist here. A few--very few--conscientious builders install them, but the flashings are as rare as snipes.

[Chris Bernhardt]

You can't productively scan every wall, floor and ceiling surface in a house with a moisture meter.

And even if you tried to do it, you'll still miss spot areas that IR picked up.

For example I routinely will IR scan the ceilings under bathrooms, particularly under the fixture locations near as I can approximate them.

Then run water and pickup those small drip leaks on IR. When I try and scan them with my moisture meter, they are hard to find even when you know about where they are at because the area might be just the size of a fifty cent piece or even a quarter.

Also the opposite occurs. I'll find that my tramex will indicate high on a basement wall, and get nothing on IR, then use a surveymaster which will indicate nothing. It can be a real head banger at times trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the wall without opening it up and looking.

We've been talking about morons with IR cams making stupid calls, but that happens with moisture meters also. You can't just pick up these tools, turn them on and go "aha, there's moisture".

If you don't want to look like a moron, you'll need to experiment literally and self calibrate yourself to what your equipment might be indicating.

In other words, you can spend thousands of dollars on IR education and still end up looking like a moron.

Chris, Oregon

[Mike Lamb]

Originally posted by hausdok

Originally posted by Bain

At what point do you tell yourself a threshold requires caulk or instead recommend the removal of drywall to see what's up?

Thresholds never require caulk; they require pan flashings.

OT - OF!!!

M.

Besides the sill flashing, applying a sealant (caulk) is also needed.

[Terry G]

Yes it is important to experiment with your equipement. But that will not teach you everything you need to know. Anyone who invests in an IR camera and does not complete level I and level II is crazy in my opinion. Inspecting buildings is one of the most difficult things to do as a thermographer. It is very easy to make a mistake. I have spent the last 5 years educating realtors and homeowners about IR before it was "the in Thing". As soon as the price dropped it took a couple months for these "morons" to ruin 5 years of work. It amazes me that people think real training is optional. The good news is these guys are getting sued and are weeding themselves out. Becoming a good Thermographer is not something you can just pick up and know what your doing by taking an online course. You are putting your business at risk without investing in proper training. Infact it is even more important with these lower priced cameras. Because the resolutions and detectors are not as good.

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by Terry G

Yes it is important to experiment with your equipement. But that will not teach you everything you need to know. Anyone who invests in an IR camera and does not complete level I and level II is crazy in my opinion. Inspecting buildings is one of the most difficult things to do as a thermographer. It is very easy to make a mistake. I have spent the last 5 years educating realtors and homeowners about IR before it was "the in Thing". As soon as the price dropped it took a couple months for these "morons" to ruin 5 years of work. It amazes me that people think real training is optional. The good news is these guys are getting sued and are weeding themselves out. Becoming a good Thermographer is not something you can just pick up and know what your doing by taking an online course. You are putting your business at risk without investing in proper training. Infact it is even more important with these lower priced cameras. Because the resolutions and detectors are not as good.

Are you planning on being one of the few that will have the level III training?

[Terry G]

Level III is only needed for people who are setting up, training, and managing a preventive maintenance program.

[Chris Bernhardt]

It amazes me that people think real training is optional.

I'm people and education is not an option but paying for it is.

Chris, Oregon

[Terry G]

Sorry you took that so personally. It was a general statement directed at no one. If you want to self calibrate yourself be my guest. I'm just trying to give some honest advice. I'm sure you are an excellent inpector, I would just hate to see anybody "pay for it later".

Terry

[Chris Bernhardt]

No, I totally agree with you Terry. I used IR as an engineer back when there was no training beyond the rep showing you how to turn the equipment on and pour liquid nitrogen in it.

I haven't been able to imagine yet the justification of the cost of the cert I, II training. The proper use of IR is probably beyond 99% of the ability of inspectors out there even with training.

I've been trying to edge on the 1% to get a camera. I believe the intelligent use by that 1% would spill over and prevent a good chunk of the 99% from messin up.

Chris, Oregon

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by Chris Bernhardt

I haven't been able to imagine yet the justification of the cost of the cert I, II training. The proper use of IR is probably beyond 99% of the ability of inspectors out there even with training.

Chris, Oregon

Wow! 99% is a large number. Even with the cert II training under their belt, you feel that it is likely that they still don't have the ability to use the IR camera properly.

[Chris Bernhardt]

Wow! 99% is a large number. Even with the cert II training under their belt, you feel that it is likely that they still don't have the ability to use the IR camera properly.

Of course I'm exaggerating.

But if I had a couple of grand to blow on cert II training, I would rather blow it on air fare to hang out with Les or Kurt M. for a few days.

I bet you the payback shadowing one of these brethren far exceeds what can be garnered from the Cert training.

Chris, Oregon

[Chris Bernhardt]

Inspecting buildings is one of the most difficult things to do as a thermographer. It is very easy to make a mistakeid="blue">.

Terry would you elaborate on this?

For the life of me, I can't imagine why someone using IR in a home inspection would make a call based solely on an IR image.

Nobody does that with a moisture meter! Well, maybe some people.

Chris, Oregon

[Terry G]

I agree, but it happens and I know of guys that do it in my area. Any anomaly that I come across is documented as just that "an anomaly". An anomaly is an irregularity, a mis proportion, or something that is strange or unusual, or unique. Now based on experience I will give an opinion on what I think the anomaly is but I never state what it is with out confirmation through other means. I make sure before any inspection every begins that every customer is clear on the limitations of IR. It is even clearly written in my contract which is signed before the camera comes out of the case.

Terry

[davidlord]

Using IR as a tool for home inspections is just not that difficult IMHO. It takes very little practice to figure out most of the anomalies such as reflected light and so on. I'm sure in other applications advanced task specific training is needed. I'm not knocking training I just don't find it complicated for home inspections.

It takes practically no skill to figure out if something (like a service entrance wire) is outside of its normal operating temperature or the insulation is missing in an attic or wall.

As for using temperature markers on the photos my clients don't care if the temp is off a few degrees. One picture showing an insulated wall temperature of 78 degrees and one showing an uninsulated wall temperature of 102 degrees really helps them understand heat gain.

Now if I were scanning the external liquid fuel tank of the space shuttle during the fueling process I'm certain someone would care about a few degrees.

For the record I have taken no IR training to date and I'm not crazy. I don't have clients sign contracts or agreements for anything and I'm still not crazy. 9-10 years and counting and loving what I do for a living.

[Chris Bernhardt]

I have been looking for a decent syllabus on cert 1 and II training and I can't seem to find one. Near as I can figure out the training is based on NDT standards which are reported to be sorely lacking.

Cert I from what I can figure says that you know how to turn on your camera and use it's functions for qualitative work. It also indicates that you have been introduced to the basic science of IR and thermograpy.

Cert II from what I can figure says that not only can you turn your camera on and use it qualitatively that you can also use it quantitavely and that you're qualified to direct level I thermographers etc.

Now there's plenty of enough stuff on the internet for any studious experienced HI to learn the science behind using an IR cam in HI work. The rest a guy will learn by experimenting if he's smart. Well, so I say.

What I have been trying to say is that all this cert I, II, III biz doesn't apply to us and others are trying to make it apply. The NDT standards that this stuff is based on follows in the vein of the ISO standards and what a bunch of crap that is or so I say.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the science taught in cert training doesn't apply, I'm saying this cert biz is a bunch marlarkey.

And that all these cert promugaters have got the rest of you HI's shaking in your boots too afraid to buy cameras and turn them on.

If the cert promugators are so afraid of us running amok with IR cameras I challenge them to be clear on the actual mistakes being made by HI's instead of running around claiming doom & gloom for every HI who turns a camera on without first taking a cert I & II class.

My challenge to our industry is not to let these cert promugators control IR use in our industry and that is exactly what you guys are letting get established.

Again, I'm not trying to claim some dark take over, only that the cert thing is the wrong solution to the problem of uneducated use of IR and stupid unverified calls in our industry.

Chris, Oregon

[SonOfSwamp]

Just my humble opinion, but I think that any clear-thinking person with an IQ of 100 or better, who

*passed college Logic 101

*has a decent science education/background

*has good reading comprehension

could buy an IR camera and know how to use it in, oh I'd say about 30 days time.

And, just to be contrarian, I'd say that the above should qualify almost anybody to learn how to work almost anything.

Of course, I could be wrong,

WJ

[hausdok]

Hi All,

I can see that there are some strong feelings about whether or not it's necessary to attend training and become "certified" to use IR equipment. I submit that it's too late to gripe about the training and certification requirements because that train left the station years ago. I don't think it's the case at all that the IR industry is trying to foist requirements on us so much as it is us needing to recognize that if we want to use that piece of equipment the IR industry had established standards long before they ever began marketing to home inspectors.

IR has been used in the law enforcement for at least the past two decades and even longer in the military. Forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) was being used in aircraft by the military, the border patrol, the DEA, and the police more than 15 years ago - long before FLIR ever thought of marketing to home inspectors. The military requires that certain training parameters be adhered to for every piece of equipment and the original standards might have sprung from there. Then there's law enforcement; as a civilian you're probably not aware of it, but a cop has to be 'certified' on virtually every piece of equipment he uses except maybe a fountain pen.

The cop that writes you a ticket for speeding must be certified on how to properly use and calibrate that radar gun or you can successfully challenge him or her in court; it's the same with the Breathalyzer, the polygraph, taser, handgun, shotgun, drug testing equipment, and virtually everything else that a cop touches. So, it makes sense that, since IR has been used by law enforcement for longer than we've been using it, the industry had to come up with a system or educating users and "certifying" that users are qualified to use the equipment.

Why? Because defense lawyers make it a point to carefully study the operational aspects of every single piece of equipment used by the police and they will rip a cop apart on the witness stand if the cop doesn't know the equipment and every operational step backward and forward. Imagine a cop using a piece of IR equipment from a helicopter at night to spot a perp breaking into a building and the perp flees and is later captured. If that cop isn't "certified" in how to use that piece of equipment, a defense lawyer can get the case tossed on a technicality for lack of sufficient probable cause only because, despite what he knows, the cop couldn't prove that at the time he spotted the perp prying on that window he was really seeing what he thought he was seeing.

I think that once that genie was out of the box with law enforcement, the industry was pretty much forced to insist on those standards with anyone they train or certify to be trainers. Now, can you imagine how a cagey lawyer that's representing someone can use a "certified" thermographer's testimony against that of an "uncertified" thermographer's? I can. It is what it is; a tool from another profession that we want to adapt to our own use. If we're to do that, we need to accept the established standards for that piece of equipment or risk one day having our own credibility challenged.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[qhinspect]

Originally posted by hausdok

Hi All,

I can see that there are some strong feelings about whether or not it's necessary to attend training and become "certified" to use IR equipment. I submit that it's too late to gripe about the training and certification requirements because that train left the station years ago. I don't think it's the case at all that the IR industry is trying to foist requirements on us so much as it is us needing to recognize that if we want to use that piece of equipment the IR industry had established standards long before they ever began marketing to home inspectors.

IR has been used in the law enforcement for at least the past two decades and even longer in the military. Forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) was being used in aircraft by the military, the border patrol, the DEA, and the police more than 15 years ago - long before FLIR ever thought of marketing to home inspectors. The military requires that certain training parameters be adhered to for every piece of equipment and the original standards might have sprung from there. Then there's law enforcement; as a civilian you're probably not aware of it, but a cop has to be 'certified' on virtually every piece of equipment he uses except maybe a fountain pen.

The cop that writes you a ticket for speeding must be certified on how to properly use and calibrate that radar gun or you can successfully challenge him or her in court; it's the same with the Breathalyzer, the polygraph, taser, handgun, shotgun, drug testing equipment, and virtually everything else that a cop touches. So, it makes sense that, since IR has been used by law enforcement for longer than we've been using it, the industry had to come up with a system or educating users and "certifying" that users are qualified to use the equipment.

Why? Because defense lawyers make it a point to carefully study the operational aspects of every single piece of equipment used by the police and they will rip a cop apart on the witness stand if the cop doesn't know the equipment and every operational step backward and forward. Imagine a cop using a piece of IR equipment from a helicopter at night to spot a perp breaking into a building and the perp flees and is later captured. If that cop isn't "certified" in how to use that piece of equipment, a defense lawyer can get the case tossed on a technicality for lack of sufficient probable cause only because, despite what he knows, the cop couldn't prove that at the time he spotted the perp prying on that window he was really seeing what he thought he was seeing.

I think that once that genie was out of the box with law enforcement, the industry was pretty much forced to insist on those standards with anyone they train or certify to be trainers. Now, can you imagine how a cagey lawyer that's representing someone can use a "certified" thermographer's testimony against that of an "uncertified" thermographer's? I can. It is what it is; a tool from another profession that we want to adapt to our own use. If we're to do that, we need to accept the established standards for that piece of equipment or risk one day having our own credibility challenged.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

I understand what you are saying but your example is using the IR camera to make a call.

"Imagine a cop using a piece of IR equipment from a helicopter at night to spot a perp breaking into a building and the perp flees and is later captured. If that cop isn't "certified" in how to use that piece of equipment, a defense lawyer can get the case tossed on a technicality for lack of sufficient probable cause..."

Now if that cop uses the IR equipment to direct a police officer to a suspicious activity and the police officer was able to discover criminal activity through other means. I would think that lawyer would have a much harder time with that case.

[SonOfSwamp]

Well, looking at it from the civil side rather than the law-enforcement side: If an argument breaks out in a courtroom regarding IR findings, the expert who knows the most -- and can make people nod their heads in assent -- will win the day.

A guy who doesn't meet the "standards" I suggested above (a decent education including Logic 101) can walk in with all kinds of "credentials" and "certifications," but if he's wrong, if people don't understand him and agree with him, he's shot down in flames.

This reminds me of all the lame EIFS certs some years back, complete with built in warranties. Didn't matter who had certs, mattered who was better prepared and more persuasive in the depos and trials.

WJ