Chris Bernhardt Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bernhardt Posted March 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Chris, I am liking your attitude about IR and it's benefit. I like your story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bernhardt Posted March 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim95340 Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 This article has sold me on IR ..........Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian G Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bernhardt Posted March 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drcr Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale McNutt Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidlord Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian G Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randynavarro Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 What's the "we?" Either you got a turd in your pocket or you bought a camera. C'mon, fess up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qhinspect Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian G Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Originally posted by randynavarro What's the "we?" My bad.....nope, I don't have one yet. Yet. Brian G. Contributions Accepted [:-dev3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.