Help me out here

I am very uneducated regarding IR and the tools of the trade.
Robert Young sent me this link
What are everyone’s thoughts on this thing?

http://www.myflukestore.ca/p14281/fluke_vt02.php

Cheers

This pretty well says it all…

Don’t waste your money.

I don’t see a great benefit in this one compared to an IR thermometer.

My advice, take a class or do some real research on the capabilities of thermal imagers, and then decide how it will fit into your home inspection business. Then buy. I would not get any benefit from this one.

Now to be fair. I emailed Doug in reference to a continuing conversation I had and may have been mistaken on whom I was discussing this with.

It was about entering the word of IR.
I recommended the entry level 120X120.
The individual wanted something under 1,000.
By the way that model went for $1.100 not to long ago.

I use tools. I think that model is an excelmt tool to have in your arsenal if you do not wish to spend thousands YET want to find condition issues within the assembly.
Temp, dew point, and PIP.

So of you wish to keep close minded then so be it.
I have and will continue to upgrade and up date my tools.

Sorry Doug. Read these. http://en-us.fluke.com/products/visual-ir-thermometers/fluke-vt02-visual-ir-thermometer.html?trck=vt02#fbid=GGlGiSmmHvZ

If you want to start out with toys, this would be a better choice than an IR thermometer with colors.

http://www.flir.com/flirone/press/asset/Discover/FLIR%20ONE_Launch%20Release_FINAL.pdf

That is all good and well Robert… but DO NOT pass that off to unsuspecting beginners as Thermal (IR) Technology as it is NOT. There is a huge difference between the two. What you are recommending to Doug will only get him into trouble.

Not everyone is he is astute about the tools nor do they have the financial means Jeffery. You start somewhere and if it is beneficial to your business you upgrade.
To many homies are caught up in big ticket items.

Every tool has its limitation.
The idea is using an instrumentation or equipment for what it was engineered and manufactured for.
To me, anything that can determine an image beyond a humans visual spectrum is armed to describe the defect of deficiency more appropriately.

Look at moisture meters.
How many astute homies use $100 dollar moisture meters?

I have several instruments that are well over the $450 dollar price range. Many are from $100 to $500 dollars.
They all help me observe the structure, systems and their components to a better degree.

Just because you are in using entry level of equipment does not mean it is not beneficial for determining defects and deficiencies.

Long before I bought my IR camera I was using laser temperature meters. It helped me determine air leaks, possible moisture intrusion and by verifying with whatever you have at hand is sure better than glossing over the component. Just know its and your limitations!

Everyone starts somewhere. I would be proud to have that Fluke tool in my arsenal.

Thanks so much for the input Gents!

I was just asking for info about what was suggested.

we shall see what transpires down the road

Cheers

RESNET set a standard for energy audits at the 120x120 resolution level for a reason.

The problem is that the untrained find out the hard way what that reason is.

FLIR-ITC teaches the same standard for building inspections as well as other IR schools.

If you cannot see a defect and report that everything is OK… that is the pit you can fall into with an inferior IR camera on certain types of scans. It cost less to do it right than to do it over.

Now there is the slippery slope. Ever mothers son that does not use IR is liable? If you can not see it then it’s OK.

Now these tools are invented for a reason. There is a place for them in inspecting homes.

I never said that is what I recommend but it is what I would use in my tool box until I upgraded to a 3 or 4 thousand dollar camera.

Doug and I went from an E40 a 160x120 camera that was $4000, which to me was very expensive to sub 1000 camera’s I would note.
I paid $2150 for 160x120. The only thing I miss is PIP. I had to double the price for PIP . The Ti105 was not out yet.

As for the little Fluke it would be in my toolbox as a temperature leaser/Ir.photo tool and I would not push what it could not do.
Remember even with a 120x120 to 360x240, you verify by overlapping readings and measurements with other instrumentation for verification! Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.
PS: I also mentioned John McKenna did the InterNACHI course and that I did the course.

Now I am doing Infraspection’s Building Inspectors course and then level 1. From there its Infrared Roofing or Level 2.

We have great temperature swings in Quebec for the envelop and using my level and span I can get some nice results. Whats nice is my Ti100 160x120 has the best detector of the Ti100 series. Oddly enough Fluke was not finished rethinking the Ti100 series when I purchased my camera.
BUT
It’s nothing when I am indoors and everything is close to the same temps…:twisted:
When I tried the Fluke Ti400 it made me wish I had the contracts.

Thanks for the Infraspection partnership Jim and Nick.
Time to work on Infrared, Residential Thermography contracts and finally commercial inspecting.

Someone should write an article about choosing the right infrared camera…

great article Will. I have been considering IR for some time, and a lot of this is what is holding me back.

I want to get the right training and the right camera. No use in wasting money on something that simply will not do what I need it to do.

I am continuing to study on the subject, and save $$ toward the Ir, as I think it would add to my HI business, and help drive more clients to call.

Food for thought. This is what I just wrote in another thread

Great article Bill. I did notice something in it that may confuse others though. In the “Interchangeable lenses” section, you have wide-angle lenses as (10-15 degrees) FOV. That would be for telephoto lenses.

Good catch, Brad. Wide angle would, typically, be 45 degrees.

Thank you Larry and Brad.
That should have read mm instead of degrees