| Title | By | Posted On |
| 160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
moldsol |
9/21/2006 |
Does anyone have an opinion on the neccessity of a higher resolution camera for building science applications; specific to moisture intrusion. Thanks in advance for your comments.
|
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
JNTOOLS |
9/27/2006 |
I have been using an E-65 for about 2 years now and it works very well for detecting moisture. With prices on cameras dropping you can’t go wrong with a higher resolution camera (EX320). But to answer your question it is not absolutely necessary. Here in Maryland I always verify any found anomalies with a non-penetrating moisture meter, especially in the winter time. I have seen strange insulation deficiencies in the winter that looked a lot like moisture. Also most building science thermographers look for the traditional cool spot anomalies that can indicate moisture. I have seen issues where the moisture showed up hot due to steam infiltration. A higher resolution camera would have been nice for this situation (more detail). The picture below shows what appears to be a summer time insulation deficiency, in fact it is steam entering from just above the rim joist and condensation on the inside of the gypsum below grade, the humidity inside the wall was so high it never had time to evaporate, thus never showed the cool anomaly. I would have like the EX320 for this situation.
J. Nachman
Building Science Thermographer
Longwave Inspection
|
 |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
Avalon Inspection |
9/28/2006 |
J.,
What is the source of this steam in the walls? |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
JNTOOLS |
9/29/2006 |
You may click or cut and paste the following link to open a PDF file that will show how the steam migrated into the residence.
http://www.longwaveis.com/PDF%20Files/Pad%20reconstruction.pdf |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
San Patricio |
1/4/2009 |
JNTOOLS wrote:
been using an E-65 for about 2 years now and it works very well for detecting moisture. With prices on cameras dropping you can’t go wrong with a higher resolution camera (EX320). But to answer your question it is not absolutely necessary. Here in Maryland I always verify any found anomalies with a non-penetrating moisture meter, especially in the winter time. I have seen strange insulation deficiencies in the winter that looked a lot like moisture. Also most building science thermographers look for the traditional cool spot anomalies that can indicate moisture. I have seen issues where the moisture showed up hot due to steam infiltration. A higher resolution camera would have been nice for this situation (more detail). The picture below shows what appears to be a summer time insulation deficiency, in fact it is steam entering from just above the rim joist and condensation on the inside of the gypsum below grade, the humidity inside the wall was so high it never had time to evaporate, thus never showed the cool anomaly. I would have like the EX320 for this situation.
J. Nachman
Building Science Thermographer
Longwave Inspection
Dice que estuvo utilizando durante dos años una E-65. Me gustaria saber en que tipo de aplicaciones la utilizó, y en cuales le encontro mayor aplicacion. |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
Scott Wood Associates |
2/16/2009 |
| Resolution is only a piece of the specifications you should look at. Thermal sensitivity is a key consideration to building science thermography. I've used similar thermal images (same model) with different sensitivities, same resolution and have seen an obvious difference. For the lower resolution perform the inspections of the surface closer. In reality the thermal sensitivites of the higher resolution images is probably what you "see" more of allowing more patterns to appear. |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
RobertC |
2/16/2009 |
| Bad Link. |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
| Re:160x120 vs. 320x240 for moisture intrusion |
dmiller |
2/5/2010 |
moldsol wrote:
yone have an opinion on the neccessity of a higher resolution camera for building science applications; specific to moisture intrusion. Thanks in advance for your comments.
I have a FLIR BX320 that I have used for about three years now. It is a great camera for moisture and mold.There is one often overlooked part of the decision to buy a thermal imager. This is the print quality for your reports. The 320x240 is well worth the added price for this feature alone. You can usually make a determination with a 160x120 with what you see, but it will not be easy to show your customer what you mean when you hand them the report. Most all energy audit reports require a great printer for the normal and thermal images. I have a good printer but I do have to adjust the image sometimes to get clarity for the reports even with the 320x240. This alone, in my opion,is enough to justify the 320x240. If you really want your reports to be top notch and not spend lots of time adjusting your images and printer to show the definition you and your customer desire, this is the way to go. Your reports will be look top notch!
Hope this helps. |
| Quote Message and Reply |
| |
