The Boys Be Musing About Infrared Technology

[Bain]

By the way, you've been awfully kind to share your experiences as a newbie IR owner with the rest of us while we straddle the do-we or don't-we buy a camera fence.

I didn't want you to think no one had noticed.

[Scottpat]

Originally posted by Bain

By the way, you've been awfully kind to share your experiences as a newbie IR owner with the rest of us while we straddle the do-we or don't-we buy a camera fence.

I didn't want you to think no one had noticed.

Yes, Thank You Chris!

[StevenT]

Chris,

I agree that if some of us had cams to experiment with, after experimenting enough, we would start to recognize different anomolies. I think that if I saw a reading that I thought meant something, I would investigate deeper to confirm my suspicions.

There are two things that I do know.

You made a very serious call. Are you sure of your suspicions. If you are... great!

1. I would have to be very comfortable with my IR ability before I called for someone to replace ALL of their siding.

Did you see other signs of this "rot" that confirmed your suspicions of replacing everything?

How was the flashing?

2. Taking a class... a real class... taught by EXPERIENCED professional instructors... not just some "crew" who one day decided ... "hey, I got an idea, let's start an IR school, " will teach you more in a shorter amount of time than you will learn by playing, experimenting, guessing what the readings mean.

I like the idea of a school that is recommended by the manufacturer. To me, it means that they have faith in the schools ability.

You talk about JK or KM or MO'H, perhaps you are right, maybe they could learn how to use the cam solo. But the way they would do it is by dismantling alot of things to see what the reading translated to. You are talking about a lot of time and ripping open.

Yes, If you see rot and then take a reading, you could then start to figure out what it looks like.

Just be careful. We are not talking about a wet spot in the ceiling, or hot air escaping through the window frames.

[StevenT]

Last week I posted that I lost a "good" job because I didn't have a cam.

The job entailed inspecting an EIFS house that might have damage. Since I've yet to see a residential EIFS installation that was done properly, the chances of damage was likely.

The inspection went beyond the norm of listing the errors. The client needed a report that was precise enough for a certified installer to bid on, to make the repairs. Including repairs to the substructure.

I think that this was an inspection that left me exposed to a tremendous liability.

Since I could not "machine gun" the house with probing to map the damage, I agreed with the client that the best way was in addition to the visual... which would have told a great deal, would be to have the house IR'd.

I spoke to the folks at Flir and Fluke, they both agreed that "under certain conditions" I could do this with an IRCam. But they both made it clear that I would need a cam with higher resolution and that I would need a higher understanding of interperting the scans.

I hope they are not pulling my yoyo. I would like to see the scans that made you feel the entire house should be ripped.

[Chris Bernhardt]

The siding was obviously moisture damaged. Didn't need an IR camera for anything other than to get image, if I could, to illustrate the extent of the moisture in the siding. I checked all of what you saw in the pictures with my moisture meter and it correlated well with the IR images I was getting.

You can't use what you see with the camera as the sole decision point. For now it's just icing on the cake.

I found the way it was written up a bit confusing. If I was a homeowner who knew nothing about construction, I would have a very hard time with your explanation.

I wish I could think the way you say someone without construction experience would be confused by what I wrote. Boy was that mangled or what!

Steven, how would you write it up?

[hausdok]

Hi,

I've been musing about that photo for days. While I agree that there should be a pan flashing under that door over the deck, flashing over the ledger and the ledger bolted, I also know that a hard wind can push rain as much as 4 inches up a wall behind clapboard siding where it then drains down the face of the paper behind the siding.

If that paper gets wet, it slowly dries out. Wouldn't wet building paper behind siding cause the same pattern to appear on an infrared imager? If so, that's a far cry from a rotting wall. No?

By the way, when wood is rotting it's essentially composting. Wouldn't wood that's rotting show a warmer temperature than the wood around it?

Sorry, lots of questions born out of very little understanding of these devices.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Chris Bernhardt]

I spoke to the folks at Flir and Fluke, they both agreed that "under certain conditions" I could do this with an IRCam. But they both made it clear that I would need a cam with higher resolution and that I would need a higher understanding of interperting the scans.

Trying to use an IR camera in inspection work by going and taking classes is like going to a lecture on how to ride a bike!

In the end you just have to get the camera and start using it. But that advice goes to only the very experienced HI brethren. I can't imagine someone being productive with the thing until they were very experienced and knowledgeable with buildings and building science.

By the way, when wood is rotting it's essentially composting. Wouldn't wood that's rotting show a warmer temperature than the wood around it?

Because of the many complexities and changing conditions you are right. The repeatability of obtaining images, particularly exterior ones is difficult to impossible past any one day or even an hour. All it takes is the sun to come out or the temperature or humidity etc. to change to make you look like an idiot.

Chris, Oregon

[StevenT]

Ok, I'll try.

Just remember, you were there... not me. I don't know what or how much you saw, So my "facts" may not be accurate.

High moisture levels were detected at multiple areas @ all elevations. The readings were particularly high @ the South elevation and @ the deck area.

It is very possible that the high moisture levels has caused damage to the structure below the siding. It may be necessary to replace all of the siding and repair the substructure. The only way to confirm this is by performing an intrusive inspection.

I recommend that you get 2-3 bids to determine the cost of replacing the siding.

OK... that was a quickie. I'm sure I could still "tweek" it a bit here and there.

[StevenT]

Chris,

I would like to add something else.

I have the greatest respect for you, both as a person and as an inspector. I have read a number of your posts and regard you as a true and dedicated professional.

I agree that picking up and using an IRCam by someone that is an experienced inspector should be easy... when you are looking at something that you already suspect and just want to confirm. But as I stated in my last post or so, I wish to do things that for now are impossible.

Just like reading an x-ray or a cat scan or an MRI. Any doctor should be able to look at an x-ray and easily see that the guys arm is busted... especially when they arm is hanging off backwards. But there are some things that they call in experts to read.

I want to be an expert. It is for that reason that I feel I will go Class 1... or 2... or even 3.

Maybe...

There is work that I wish to go after that I am not doing or able to do now.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by StevenT

Ok, I'll try.

Just remember, you were there... not me. I don't know what or how much you saw, So my "facts" may not be accurate.

High moisture levels were detected at multiple areas @ all elevations.

Aieeee! The passive voice . . . It burns! It burns us! It freezes! Nasty elves twisted it. Take it off us!

The readings were particularly high @ the South elevation and @ the deck area.

@?

It is very possible that the high moisture levels has caused damage to the structure below the siding.

"high moisture levels has . . . "

I think you has made a mistake in number agreement.

It may be necessary to replace all of the siding and repair the substructure.

What's a substructure? The structure in the crawlspace?

The only way to confirm this is by performing an invasive inspection.

What's that mean? Is it the same as removing some siding and looking in the wall?

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[StevenT]

Jim,

What / where was passive?

@=at

has... oops,I said it was a quickie

substructure crawlspace? isn't the entire building a structure? I guess I could have said sheathing or substrate, but the damage could go further than that. substructure = structure below

yes, removing some siding.

But as I said, I was not there and did not see what Chris saw. Perhaps he saw enough to call " all of the siding has rot damage".

Jim,

I usually spend more time thinking about how I will write something serious... or anything at all. Do you feel Chris' wording is clear?

[StevenT]

Jim,

I got a better idea.

How would you write it up?

[Chris Bernhardt]

Thanks, Steven

High moisture levels were detected at multiple areas @ all elevations. The readings were particularly high @ the South elevation and @ the deck area. It is very possible that the high moisture levels has caused damage to the structure below the siding. It may be necessary to replace all of the siding and repair the substructure. The only way to confirm this is by performing an intrusive inspection.

With hardboard siding elevated moisture readings are just icing on the cake. If the board is swollen and warped it's damaged. What it means is that the sealing of individual boards are inadequate for the degree of moisture it’s exposed to, in this case, and will most probably continue to deteriorate regardless of how well one tries to keep the exterior of the boards painted. Therefore if you don't want ugly looking siding getting uglier then replace it.

If I was inspecting this same house in the summer and I found the siding dry I still would have told the client to replace all of the siding.

Chris, Oregon

[StevenT]

Ahhhh,

As I previously mentioned, I did not see what you saw. I agree, if the siding was swollen and warped, it's shot.

[randynavarro]

Chris,

Thanks for posting what you wrote in the report. I really appreciate your efforts in keeping us up to speed with what you're learning.

I think what you did write was interesting and gets at the core of my dilemma with IR technology:

Does an IR image give us enough accurate information with which to make a definitive statement / finding?

or

Does an IR image just give us more data to merely support our *suspicions* that something is wrong?

[kurt]

Yes, this is awesome good discussion. Chris, thanx for being the guinea pig.

With all due respect for informed education, I have been wondering about the value of these very expensive classes. I think one has to have them to have credibility, but it's all paper to impress those that don't know anything else.

We're all going to have to have IR. Simple marketing & competitive advantage. We can all argue amongst ourselves how it really isn't necessary (because honestly, I'm still not convinced it is for this job), but it's necessary for all those reasons that only matter to civilians.

My main nervousness is folks using them in a general nature, as in shooting randomly while doing a standard HI. My understanding of thermography is it's something that isn't necessarily able to be done on a set schedule, i.e., sun, clouds, weather patterns, and hundreds of other variables will skew readings.

[Chris Bernhardt]

With all due respect for informed education, I have been wondering about the value of these very expensive classes. I think one has to have them to have credibility, but it's all paper to impress those that don't know anything else.

I imagine that the certification has some value for those heading into commercial waters. In my 9 year run in the biz so far I have never had a single client ask me for qualifications beyond whether or not I was licensed and certified by the State! I think it was Scott Patterson who said he use to maintain all these certifications for this and for that and has started to not renew them in light of their lack of usefulness.

Our credibility comes more from just being right. If your wrong it doesn't matter how many certifications you have.

Chris, Oregon

[randynavarro]

Our credibility comes more from just being right. If your wrong it doesn't matter how many certifications you have

Yes. Excellent thought.

I want that certification -- the one where I'm always right.

[Brian G]

I also think we're all gonna wind up in the IR boat eventually, primarily from marketing pressure. Hell I'd love to have one now (Chris is killing me with this thread), but the money and the timing are all wrong now. And while I would agree that one isn't necessary to do a good home inspection, they clearly bring a extra aspect to the job that can have real value (used correctly).

The discussion of classes is interesting. Up until now the concensus was that buying a camera and using it without proper training was nuts, and legally dangerous. Now the wind is blowing in the opposite direction; it's a waste of money. I haven't really looked at any, so I don't have a strong opinion on classes, but my guess is it comes down to value. One is bound to learn some useful things in such a class, especially if one is stepping off into IR for the first time, but is it enough to justify the rather steep cost?

I've let all of my "certifications" go, but I still have the knowledge I gained in the process of getting those certifications. The problem these days is that all these certifying outfits want to get paid every year, pretty darn well thank you, to say you're still certified. Taint wurf it.

Brian G.

Certified HI Toy Freak [:-dopey]

[kurt]

Originally posted by Chris Bernhardt

Our credibility comes more from just being right. If your wrong it doesn't matter how many certifications you have.

Chris, Oregon

So true. That's why I question the value of the classes.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by StevenT

Jim,

What / where was passive?

I'm talking about the passive voice sentence structure -- universally reviled as weak writing. Buy Bonnie Trenga's book or dust off a copy of Strunk & White and then read all about the joys of active voice.

@=at

Oh, I know. I was just yanking your chain.

substructure crawlspace? isn't the entire building a structure? I guess I could have said sheathing or substrate, but the damage could go further than that. substructure = structure below

I suppose. I guess it just didn't seem clear to me. It certainly wouldn't seem clear to a lay person. How about "studs" or "framing"?

I usually spend more time thinking about how I will write something serious... or anything at all. Do you feel Chris' wording is clear?

Actually, I thought it was pretty clear. The only improvement I'd suggest is defining words like "header" and "flashing" if the customer isn't familiar with them.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[StevenT]

Hi Jim,

I make an effort to not report in a passive style. I honestly don't see where I was passive... unless you mean where I qualified what I wrote by stating that I didn't see the what I was writing about and could be factually wrong.

I didn't feel comfortable with the way it was written. The "particularly so" combined with the "more so" and just how it felt when I read it. Was I wrong? Maybe. I can think of at least two or three times in my life that I have been wrong. No, I take that back, only once before. Anyway, I am suprised that I'm the only one that feels the sentence was a bit off.

As far as using the word "substructure", I thought that was pretty clear. I was going to use the word "studs", but the last time I used that word, my client asked me if I was referring to all the guys at TIJ.

As it turned out, after a bit more discussion, the reason that Chris called for total removal and replacement of the siding was due to swelling and warpage. Which is a visual/surface observation, not an IR observation.

I was under the impression that Chris' recommendations were based totally on IR readings. That was why I asked about flashings. I thought that he pointed his new cam at the house and said "rip it all off" I found that alarming.

Randy brought up a very good point re: using IR as a sole basis / or additional information for making decisions.

[Chris Bernhardt]

As it turned out, after a bit more discussion, the reason that Chris called for total removal and replacement of the siding was due to swelling and warpage. Which is a visual/surface observation, not an IR observation.

I was under the impression that Chris' recommendations were based totally on IR readings. That was why I asked about flashings. I thought that he pointed his new cam at the house and said "rip it all off" I found that alarming.

Randy brought up a very good point re: using IR as a sole basis / or additional information for making decisions.

The only decision that one makes when one finds an anomaly is to investigate it and substantiate it by other means. If you can't substantiate it then it's not admissable as evidence so to speak. Once substantiated and you're sure your IR image correlates well to what was found by other means and methods, only then should you use the image.

What I have been trying to stress all along is that so far I have not found anything important that I wouldn't have or couldn't have found visually or with my moisture meter durring an inspection.

House's are big and complex things and as good as we are it's hard to be sure we have scanned visually every square inch with the scrutiny needed to find every important issue.

What the IR camera can do is make us more efficient and effective. For example, after we have completed our cursory visual scan we go back and look at things from the IR dimension and then refocus on areas where anomalies are indicated.

All I have done so far and what you guys will do to when you get your camera is to look at stuff that you already know is messed up and if you can get a good and useful IR image then you might decide to include it in your findings.

What I am expecting from employing IR is an improved understanding of stuff I have been finding all along and I expect that to translate to giving better advice to the client.

2nd is improvements in the efficiency of the inspection which I expect to mostly translate into feeling good that I know that building.

3rd is I am expecting it to lead to more referrals.

I am not expecting IR to find anything that I couldn't have found by a careful visual inspection. If I did that would make me a dumbass.

Chris, Oregon

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by StevenT

Hi Jim,

I make an effort to not report in a passive style. I honestly don't see where I was passive... unless you mean where I qualified what I wrote by stating that I didn't see the what I was writing about and could be factually wrong.

This was the passive sentence:

"High moisture levels were detected at multiple areas @ all elevations. "

Using active voice would force you to say who or what did the detecting. For instance, "I detected hight moisture levels at multiple areas at all elevations."

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[StevenT]

Ahhhh,

I understand. Thank you.