Thermal cameras ?

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Why do you ask? Must one leave the association to be critical of some of its leaders' actions?

Jeez, JB!!! Then you join the ranks of Lewis, Dan, Ray, Roy.......others????

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Jeez, JB!!! Then you join the ranks of Lewis, Dan, Ray, Roy.......others????

You forgot the to list yourself.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Rudolf Reusse

My question why colleagues are suddenly feel the need to use IR cameras to carry out their home inspections has still not been convincingly answered. I still maintain that the usage of the expensive diagnostic equipment is counterproductive when performing ordinary residential inspections which have been "visual" in nature for decades. Unless one can collect a substantial extra charge when employing these cameras - the entire exercise is - in my view - an absolute waste of money and effort.

RUDOLF REUSSE - Home Inspector since 1976 - TORONTO

Like licensing laws, technology fads are driven more by the vendors who profit from them than the actual consumer.

In an attempt to develop a need for the product, problems needed to be invented that the IR camera could address. Then..."benefits" were developed to solve the problems.

These vendors are offering "benefits" to answer any objection....everything from making the "substantial extra charge" that you mention, or adding the service for free to provide more service than their competitors, to using the camera as a means of "thinning the herd".

Any benefit will do...as long as it creates the desire to purchase a camera and then purchase the education.

Last March, a commercial tenant at a nearby shopping center complained of the smell of "hot wiring". The fire department was contacted and they arrived with their IR camera. Since it was purchased by tax payers, I will bet that it was one of the more expensive versions.

I watched the fire fighter walk the inside of the store (and adjoining stores) and walk the roof as he looked through the lense of his IR camera. He found nothing. The firemen left.

A week later, the electricians who had been previously scheduled to work on the building, noted that one of the tenants had run "lamp cord" wiring to an outdoor sign which had previously burned.

Looking through his lense, the fireman missed the burnt (and no longer burning) wire while searching for one that was hot. Using his eyes and his system of tracing from point to point, the electrician found the problem that the fireman and his sophisticated equipment missed.



I read some hyperbole regarding the IR camera that said something on the order that "The IR camera will find a leak in the roof that the inspector without a camera could not find if he were standing on it". I laughed my a$hi off as I considered that no one can find a leak they are "standing on" (aside from very obvious and visible roof damage)....but if they were in the attic looking up and underneath the area they were standing...they would find the evidence of past/present moisture intrusion with the naked eye.

It's all a game.

[William R. DeVries, CMHI]

Originally Posted by gluck

So, after struggling through eight pages this is what I got;

1 - I.R. is more of a promotional tool than an actual benefit to the inspector.

2 - I.R. may ( probably does) expose the inspector to additional liability.

3 - I.R. performs as a 'confirmation' of what a visual inspection reveals.

4 - I.R. may exceed the S.O.P. and place our E + O insurance in jeopardy.

I was the first in my area to go completely computerized. I was one of the first ( if not the first) to offer digital pictures in my area. I believe that I am the first in my area to offer a DVD of home maintenance tips and procedures with me as the S*T*A*R* ( I am ready for my close up now Mr. Demille ). I am thinking about I.R. but cannot find a reason other than it's promotional possibilities to include this in my offerings.

I am still waiting.
</IMG></IMG>

Hi George;
As for publicity why not, you did when you went computerized reporting it was a new hype and helped to deliver a more superior product.
If IR can do the same and can help seperate some inspectors as " Cutting Edge" then why not

2) As for liability, there may be a possibility if the inspector is not properly trained in 1) Use 2) being able to understand what is shown 3) properly being able to interpert the findings. With training and stick time the possibility of liability drops.
3) Maybe more confirmation then a moisture meter and then the ability to prove your findings with a photo, this in my opinion would reduce liability.
4) No it is another tool that aids the HI in inspecting the property. As for E&O I have asked my carrier and they have no problem with it.
As for sop a moisture meter could technically be considered exceeeding the SOP.

Your a star now, holy crap when did this happen, your fina;lly gonna give that fella Mike a run for his money? Well Kudo's to your George, you'll have to show me the movie when your ready, I'd like to see it.
Billy

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

dHarris -

Already had that exact offer from some local ASHI guys AND we've already got ASHI guys doing just that - its a real hoot. The last 4 stucco jobs I went on, when I asked the homeowner how they got my name they told me the stucco distributor, the HBA, the attorney, the home inspector, etc.

Seems they paid a local home inspector (2 different inspectors on the 4 houses) to use his IR camera seeking moisture related issues (so they didn't have to probe or put holes in their stucco - their agents advice). In each case the inspector told them they had signs of high moisture due to the IR photos.

In each case they had moisture - just mostly not where the photos showed.

One of the more humorous ones was the inspector's picture showing a dark blue area on the outside of the house wall running the entire length of one wall of the house. The inspector ID'd it as probable moisture.

When I entered the dwelling this section was a garage wall. Once I moved the kids toys, lawnmower, storage boxes - the moist area turned out to be the 10" concrete footer wall running the length of the garage.

Owner tells me the guy doing the IR scan never went in the house but did the scan outside the house while the homeowner was at work - cool.

I'm not gonna disk them to the clients, it just means more business for me.
One of the inspectors I like, so I called him and walked him through where his interpretation of the camera photos was tripping him up and where the real moisture was at - so he could key in the next time out.

The other inspector ...............

[William R. DeVries, CMHI]

Originally Posted by gluck

Bill, I think that you misunderstood dbowers post. I think he was observing conditions and circumstances extant in his area, NOT supporting or accepting them.

I know what Dan is saying, here is his question
"Am I recommending a contractor tear into the wall, floor, or ceiling to check out something that MIGHT still be a problem? Am I recommending they tear out the existing materials that got wet at some point in time, so they don't develop mold? What are you doing next?"

If you found the moisture with a meter what would you do???
Refer it to a specialized contractor, were still the generalist we find the problems and defer to get the right and proper answer.

Then "In this slow housing market - USA - I can see us raising a whole lot of questions we have no answer or solution for. That translates into killing a whole lot of deals for houses that have been on the market 6-10 months. AND that translates out to MANY very angry and vindicative people."

would this not be the same if it was a visual problem that may or may not be active???

"In many areas that I work in, I can see a lot of commissioned sales people not just not using you - BUT - bending over backwards to make sure that nobody they know uses you. I can see very vindicative sellers also??

In our SLOW market I'm running into situations like the seller suing the inspector for probing wood rot and putting his fingers through the wood (holes); I just did an inspection on a house and found cracked flue tiles in the chimney - seller and listing agents response was they'd install a gas log set for the buyer but had no intention of spending money to repair or reline the chimney. When the buyer said, but you'll have to disclose it to the next buyer if you don't deal with me - they said "no we won't, we'll just wait and see if the next buyer finds it like your inspector did".

Our market is bringing out VERY aggressive and nasty traits in many people

Dan how is this or as you put what your going through any different.
At least your finding the items, sellers and Agents will always complain, as for the agent making the above statement I would report them to the realestate board for failure to disclose information.

Just because we are in a softer market or rather a buyers market as there are far more houses on the market then buyers at the moment, this is even more why we need to have everything at out disposal to give OUR clients what they expect.

I have no doubt that you preform a top notch inspection and I am sorry that you are one of the "deal killers" but I to fall in this catagory and have no problems giving the hard facts on ever inspection.

I don't see where IR would cause any more grief than a non IR inspection other then with IR i am able to confirm find and prove what I suspected.

Dan again no offence meant to you and I do enjoy your postings hence the reason I am answering your in perticular, you did ask for it .

[William R. DeVries, CMHI]

Originally Posted by Rudolf Reusse

My question why colleagues are suddenly feel the need to use IR cameras to carry out their home inspections has still not been convincingly answered. I still maintain that the usage of the expensive diagnostic equipment is counterproductive when performing ordinary residential inspections which have been "visual" in nature for decades. Unless one can collect a substantial extra charge when employing these cameras - the entire exercise is - in my view - an absolute waste of money and effort.

RUDOLF REUSSE - Home Inspector since 1976 - TORONTO

Rudolf
Unfortunatly the "visual" you refer to has creeped into the year 2000 and has along the way fallen into a technical rhelm where as "Professional Property Inspectors" it is becoming expected that we stay technically advanced to preform our basic duties with proper, professional equpiment.
This means that a flashlight and screwdriver are no longer being considered as acceptable, one must now become more advanced to "PROVE" our findings as litigation is always on the backstep.
I have been asked to provide proof of pictures of my moisture meter showing moisture in a basement, why?? the sellers said it didnt exsist, I did happen to have one and the thing was dropped and sellers concided and did the requested repairs.
Why I have no idea but this is what seems to be the way it is going, technology allows more information so we are having to provide this information, the web provides even more information, Mike Holmes himself states, Do not hire an inspector that is not using IR. , he is considered Canadas most trusted Contractor . Sooner or later you will be forced to step up or step out, and statements like Mike's is why.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Like licensing laws, technology fads are driven more by the vendors who profit from them than the actual consumer.

In an attempt to develop a need for the product, problems needed to be invented that the IR camera could address. Then..."benefits" were developed to solve the problems.

If you are correct then all the hundreds of inspectors who are not VENDORS,
but still enthusiastically promote the IR camera for all of it's benefits, are
indeed under the spell and delusion that the VENDORS have put on them.

By default that would imply that all the inspectors who keep promoting the
IR camera are stupid idiots and continue believing that the IR camera is really
helping them and the consumer, when in fact it is not.

You are profoundly arrogant in your contempt of your fellow inspectors
ability to discern practical matters of common sense. I think your out of
touch with reality, with such an extreme views, as stated in your post listed
above. You have created a conspiracy theory that fails to take into account
that your fellow inspectors are not as stupid as you imply. You esteem
yourself too highly, James.

What is actually happening is that hundreds of inspectors are experiencing
real benefits from the IR camera and finding defects that cannot be seen
with the naked eye. For some reason you are afraid of that simple and
obvious truth. No one is saying all defects can be found with an IR camera,
or, for that matter, any tool.

But to go to the extreme and say all the benefits are just a lie and we are all
living in a state of delusion, is just absurd and arrogant. Get a life.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

If you are correct then all the hundreds of inspectors who are not VENDORS,
but still enthusiastically promote the IR camera for all of it's benefits, are
indeed under the spell and delusion that the VENDORS have put on them.

By default that would imply that all the inspectors who keep promoting the
IR camera are stupid idiots and continue believing that the IR camera is really
helping them and the consumer, when in fact it is not.

You are profoundly arrogant in your contempt of your fellow inspectors
ability to discern practical matters of common sense. I think your out of
touch with reality, with such an extreme views, as stated in your post listed
above. You have created a conspiracy theory that fails to take into account
that your fellow inspectors are not as stupid as you imply. You esteem
yourself too highly, James.

What is actually happening is that hundreds of inspectors are experiencing
real benefits from the IR camera and finding defects that cannot be seen
with the naked eye. For some reason you are afraid of that simple and
obvious truth. No one is saying all defects can be found with an IR camera,
or, for that matter, any tool.

But to go to the extreme and say all the benefits are just a lie and we are all
living in a state of delusion, is just absurd and arrogant. Get a life.

As a vendor who is paid by the head, you have a right to object to my post --- but please do not mischaracterize my statements. I do not object to the use of the IR camera and actually plan to buy one when a certain manufacturer comes through with their $1000 model next year.

But I will not insist that it makes me a better home inspector and will not suggest that it's use could "raise the bar" and keep others from entering the profession.

I have not heard this from many of the owners of IR cameras.....just the profiteers.

Get over yourself, John.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

But I will not insist that it makes me a better home inspector and will not suggest
that it's use could "raise the bar" and keep others from entering the profession.

I have not heard this from many of the owners of IR cameras.....just the profiteers.

Get over yourself, John.

Will you find things that the eyes cannot see? yes.
Will some think that you are exalting yourself because you make such a claim? yes.

No one is claiming anyone is better than someone else, but the IR camera does indeed
reveal certain issues that might not be known without it.

That is all that is being said by me or Nick or anyone else for that matter. No big
insults are being implied.

Regarding Nicks comments that IR camera carries with it an added expense
and, with that expense, it may cause some reaction within the HI industry:

1- Inspectors who pay for expensive tools might think twice about jumping
out of the business because they have a higher invested interest motivation
to endure (whereas some who spend little to get into the profession, jump
out more easily because there is nothing lost if they decide to quite).

2- Factor #1 has a stabilizing affect on the HI industry and may filter out
those who try to fake the high tech image in the market place, when indeed
they will find it hard to fake the actual results that an IR camera can produce.

These are just common sense observations Nick made. It does not imply
that anyone is being treated unfairly or anyone is better than someone
else. Everyone knows that the HI industry is filled with people who try
to present themselves as being bigger than what they really are. The IR
camera is so expensive, it will keep some of these imposters from being able
to project much, in this regard.

I'm sure when you get your IR camera that you will have more wisdom than
us and make your fellow inspectors feel good, and no one will think that
you trying to make them look inferior.

I hope...

BTW... tell me more about this $1000 IR camera you are going to buy...

Also... when you offer your HI service for sale, that makes you a VENDOR.
I would challenge you to prove why you are a saint and others are not. This
self righteous presumption on your part is a little condescending.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

BTW... tell me more about this $1000 IR camera you are going to buy...

I am not at liberty to do that just yet. Just so you know, in 1974 I did not run out and pay $180 for the new digital calculator, either. The one my bank gave me for free would have run about $200 back then.

Also... when you offer your HI service for sale, that makes you a VENDOR.
I would challenge you to prove why you are a saint and others are not. This
self righteous presumption on your part is a little condescending.

I am one of the many home inspectors here who make money from consumers of home inspections. Unlike you, I do not attempt to make money from other home inspectors. Those who do are held under intense light. Many do not pass the muster.

You will learn that, at NACHI, we have traditionally held our vendors feet to the fire to ensure that the services they provided were of consistent value. You may have heard of Mike Rowan....a vendor who, before you became a member, told Nick to get rid of me and Joe Farsetta for interfering with his business plans. Looking at who is here and who is not will tell you how that went. He returned, briefly, in an attempt to rape the CMI program....and that did not go well for him either.

There have been and will be others.

Along with this new toy has come the usual "must haves" and the usual vendors to provide them.

You will be challenged. If your service is truly of value, you will survive the challenge.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I am one of the many home inspectors here who make money from consumers of home inspections. Unlike you, I do not attempt to make money from other home inspectors. Those who do are held under intense light. Many do not pass the muster.

You just demand Nick finance your political views. Some earn a living, some just want a hand out.

You will learn that, at NACHI, we have traditionally held our vendors feet to the fire to ensure that the services they provided were of consistent value. You may have heard of Mike Rowan....a vendor who, before you became a member, .....He returned, briefly, in an attempt to rape the CMI program....and that did not go well for him either.

You forgot that it was I who flamed Mr Rowen, as well, and took his place as President of CMI.

You too are not above having your feet held to the fire.

Along with this new toy has come the usual "must haves" and the usual vendors to provide them.

You will be challenged. If your service is truly of value, you will survive the challenge.

Since you are buying an IR camera, it looks like your coming around to
to our side and you may indeed survive as well.

I am here to help.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

[


George,

Wrong on 1,2 and 3 my friend.

#1

If the camera is used as a promotional tool in conjunction with its abilities, I see nothing wrong with that. My camera and courses have/will cost me $20K by the end of this year, I feel entitled to use it as a marketing tool as well as the best inspection tool in my bag.

#2 IMO It actually reduces my liability

#3
Its the other way around my friend!
I confirm what the camera can see with a moisture meter or a visual inspection or further evaluation that could include a destructive or intrusive inspection if warranted. Most anomalies that are found are not visible with the naked eye or with a visual inspection.

Bottom line IMO, The old timers in this Industry will discount this technology as a usefull tool, but trust me, all the new guys will be using it, and will be better inspectors for it! The old timers are creatures of habit and are set in their stone age inspection methods, its time to move forward [get on board] and realize that this technology is here to stay.

That's all I have to say on this topic.

Well said!!

Kevin

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

It seems to me that the IR camera, the digital camera and the flashlight are fundamentally the same tool. The only differences are one records and shows the different colours of the light spectrum and the other records and shows the different temperatures of the heat spectrum. They are only tools and their usefulness is provided by the knowledgeable and intelligent interpretation of the information they show. JB's main point seems to be his objection to the high cost but all new technology costs. R & D is expensive and that cost has to be repaid otherwise there will be no new developments.
This industry is new and is just developing and new technology is aiding that development. Also I believe that if you are going to survive and prosper then you have to expand your horizons and become knowledgeable building inspectors that have the knowledge and equipment to provide a complete report on all aspects and conditions of the building.
As has been said many times before "Adapt or die".

After all who needs these new finagled flashlights anyway. I've been using candles and my ancestors used them for thousands of years and if it was good enough for them them it's good enough for me. Yea Right.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

I am here to help.

No, thanks.

Again, your misrepresentation of the facts has become a normal feature. I hope there is more truth represented in the classes you charge people to attend than in your posts. It is really getting bad, John.