Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[John Snell]

Originally Posted by topher

John S,

It would have been nice if you could have gained some insight from the members of this board. Now you know where not to post the new standards.

If you like, you can post the IR standard updates where they'll certainly be appreciated by energy auditors, BPI, RESNET, HERS & LEED Contractors: www.energyauditortalk.org

Chris Mayes
AC Tool Supply, Inc.
www.energyauditortalk.org

Thank you. I will. While I respect that the discussion on patents is important, my post concerned a separate matter, in my opinion. Anyone who is interested in discussing the proposed RESNET infrared draft standard is welcome to visit our messageboard, www.IRTalk.com, and post there on a related thread.

Thank you,

John Snell
Snell Infrared
www.thesnellgroup.com
www.IRTalk.com
www.IRWebinars.com

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Please explain why this patent is good so I can join you in calling for the entire IR building industry to shut down... or should
all of us just trust you? Give all of something to go on
except your fears.

John, you are misrepresenting what I said. Knock it off.
You are asking us to trust you. Are you more trust worthy?

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

If you do give us an explanation of why the patent is for real and applies to us, your talking to deaf ears. We cannot trust
in only your opinion. Each person has to make up their own
mind.

The patent is real an as others have said seems to apply to us. and what makes your opinions more valid.

We cannot trust you opinion either in spite of its verbosity.

[David A. Andersen]

Well THANK YOU Mr. Maday!!!

After all that, you came through for me!

For those of you shooting off your mouth, I recommend you spend the $$$ I spent at ITC to learn this stuff before making up all this crap!

Their Standard:

1. A method to rapidly inspect residential building components for a designated entity comprising the steps of: preparing a residential building for inspection by creating a temperature differential of greater than 10.degree. F. between, the inside and the outside of said residential building and turning on substantially all light switches and substantially all exhaust blowers in said residential building; and then obtaining temperature profiles of the exterior residential building components

The standard John Snell posted.
802.4 Insulation Inspection
802.4.1 Procedures for Infrared Insulation Inspections
1. Qualitative analysis of installed insulation. Inspection used for determining
general areas of the inspected surfaces having anomalies without
quantification.
a. The ΔT between the inside and outside wall surfaces and as defined by the
surface being imaged must be a minimum of 10°C / 18°F or greater for a
period of 4 hours before the inspection. If the minimum ΔT is not present
for this type of inspection, the inspection must be rescheduled for a time
when the ΔT is present.

b. If the inspection is done in conjunction with a blower door used to
depressurize the building to highlight any thermal bypasses, the inspection
can be performed with a minimum ΔT of 6.7°C / 12°F,

Turning on lights "wash out" thermal anomalies and is not a recommended practice.

Turning on ventilators are are not required or recommended in every situation of testing. Turning on ventilators may wash out anomalies in insulation evaluation testing. De-pressurization of the building is for air infiltration testing only. Even then, testing without de-pressurization must be conducted first to determine change in the anomaly which indicates air infiltration from other types of anomalies.

Temp profiles are recommended to be taken from the interior of the structure to prevent the effects of reflection, solar loading, and wind. The use of building "Pressurization" (not de-pressurization) is the standard for exterior thermal scanning.

So what say ye?
Is it the same thus far?
Not.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mlarson

John, you are misrepresenting what I said. Knock it off.
You are asking us to trust you. Are you more trust worthy?

Please tell me how the patent applies to HI doing IR scans
and what needs corrected. We cannot just trust your
voice without facts. Do you like that better?

The patent is real an as others have said seems to apply to us. and what makes your opinions more valid.

Show me how it applies. What specs are you talking about?

We cannot trust you opinion either in spite of its verbosity.

Thousands use IR everyday, with or without you or me.
We need facts if that needs to be changed.

Just the facts. Tell us exactly what we are doing wrong, just
don't say we are wrong without details.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Just the facts. Tell us exactly what we are doing wrong, just
don't say we are wrong without details.

For one thing.....in your "classes" where you "teach" people how to use this technology for a fee, you have misrepresented a patent as being "invalid", "bogus" and otherwise moot.....which is untrue.

Where you collected fees to "train" people on this technology and then immediately misinformed them...according to you, you all laughed at the idea of the patent, referring to it as "bogus" and "invalid" which you have since retracted.

Now....after reading how Nick has claimed that the patent is valid....you have changed your tune. But what about those who paid to hear you "teach" them that this patent was "invalid" and laughed at it with you?

Do you think that was the wrong thing to do......now that, in order to agree with Nick as you always must, you have changed your position on the validity of the patent?

Do you think that the manufacturers of these products....and others, such as you, who are paid to promote them and train on them....have a duty, if not to observe and teach that the patent exists and the need to pay a royalty, then to teach and show why not? As Joe Farsetta has said...the manufacturers' silence on this is an admission that the patent is sound and relevant.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Just the facts. Tell us exactly what we are doing wrong, just
don't say we are wrong without details.

Here are the facts.

You are not paying attention.

You are being argumentative.

You are being pigheaded.

There is no reason to to continue this conversation as you have not added anything new since your first post on the topic.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by dandersen

a. The ΔT between the inside and outside wall surfaces and as defined by the
surface being imaged must be a minimum of 10°C / 18°F or greater for a
period of 4 hours before the inspection. If the minimum ΔT is not present
for this type of inspection, the inspection must be rescheduled for a time
when the ΔT is present.



Turning on ventilators are are not required or recommended in every situation of testing. Turning on ventilators may wash out anomalies in insulation evaluation testing. De-pressurization of the building is for air infiltration testing only. Even then, testing without de-pressurization must be conducted first to determine change in the anomaly which indicates air infiltration from other types of anomalies.

David I would say 802.4.1.a would border on the language in the patent held by HomeSafe (10F or C whatever was in it). The good news is that the blower door is already part of a Resnet/BPI (HERS) test anyway. Negative or Positive pressure is not patented by HomeSafe, although I will be filing my patent for the procedure tomorrow . However I am not greedy, I will only charge $1 per Pa that you take your door up to. Sorry, the conversion chart will not be allowed for my standard.

I am pretty sure you were referring to the ventilators during an IR scan. They would be sealed off for a blower door test.

Ya know this does bring up an interesting arguement. Why don't you all just go get Resnet certified and use a blower door or duct blaster during an IR inspection to get around the patent. And don't give me the cost arguement. I am just throwing it out there. Not to mention you could work in much lower delta T's, negate stack effect and wind effect.

Jason Kaylor – JJ
VP of Specialty Products
877/207-1244
AC Tool Supply
Fluke Thermal Cameras
Testo Infrared Cameras
HotShot Hi-Rez Infrared Cameras
Fluke TiR1 Resources
Retrotec Duct & Blower Door

[Joe Farsetta]

Mr McKenna,

I'd shred you in a court of law. I can draw far more parallels in your inspection process than differentiators. What furthers your utter pompousity is your nonsensical commentary regarding "providing details".

I dont have to provide anything. I merely need to watch your training video, and draw the parallels from it.

The point in all this, which has been side-stepped beautifully by Mr. Snell, is the silence regarding the validity of the patent, and its applicability.

He writes:

While I respect that the discussion on patents is important, my post concerned a separate matter, in my opinion.

What a cop out. Where and when do you plan to tell all to disregard the patent? Where is your firm's official opinion and position statement? Your clients deserve better!

Again, please tell us tell us, Mr. Snell... why havent you simply come out and stated that the patent isnt valid or enforceable.

For one, the cost for the right to use the patented process is far from onerous. They are not telling anyone they may not use it; they are simply informing those they allege to be violating their patent, to please pay a modest sum for the right to use it.

In the beginning, I truly believed the patent to be bogus. However, it was the SILENCE on the part of the manufacturers and trainers that raised my eyebrows.

Seems to me that those who sell and train have the most to lose in all of this.

By the way, HomeSafe's tagline regardng "seeing through walls" is a part of the overall problem, and I have gone on record with this.

Do I believe the patent can and should be overturned? Yes, I do. BUT, this should be accomlished by those with the most skin in the game, as opposed to unsuspecting inspectors.

And why are they kept in the dark? You tell me.

You say I should have done research before shooting my mouth off? Do some research on this very message board as to my position, you clown.

Your position on the matter is meritless and laughable. You put your foot in your mouth the moment you challenged my assertion to boycott those who sell the product and train on its use. And why is that? Because you have skin in the game, and following that advice affects your bottom line.

This is why yout tit is in a wringer. You have no place to turn, so you put up a 2nd grade defense. "I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you". Why not try this tag line in your next defense?

It follows the general logic and a total lack of patent understanding that you have shown here.

By the way, I am still suggesting those thermographers out there organize a boycott. The development of new standards by the folks with a vested interest does nothing to address the current situation.

Their apparent unwillingness to take this thing head on is mind boggling.

Please think about this folks... We have very bright people in the art of thermography. No doubt. After making huge investments in technology and trainng, you deserve answers.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by jbushart

As Joe Farsetta has said...the manufacturers' silence on this is an admission that the patent is sound and relevant.

I think you are forgetting that we live in a capitalist society here. Go pull FLIR's 10Q for the first quarter of 09 and last quarter of 08. If FLIR, and that is only one manufacture, honestly thought this was a threat they would have squashed or bought out the patent a long time ago.

While other companies are falling like dominos in this economy, FLIR is actually growing. They would never let something like this patent take that away from them.

You could turn that same arguement around and ask why HomeSafe isn't going after manufactures, and FLIR especially. That would be a huge payday for HomeSafe. What, they just don't want the money? I am not sure if you get Gary Orlove's ITC news letters, but FLIR just recently introduced even more training courses. One of which is residential energy auditing via IR. Now if that doesn't just completly stomp all over the patent I don't know what does. Why has HomeSafe not sued them? My money is on the fact that if they truly went after someone big their patent would get thrown out, then they couldn't use scare tactics on the little guys that are willing to shell out the fees to use it.

Lets see if they go after Resnet................yeah right.

Jason Kaylor – JJ
VP of Specialty Products
877/207-1244
AC Tool Supply
Fluke Thermal Cameras
Testo Infrared Cameras
HotShot Hi-Rez Infrared Cameras
Fluke TiR1 Resources
Retrotec Duct & Blower Door

[Joe Farsetta]

They can pick and choose as they wish. They need only prove a single patent infringement allegation.

Once there is precedent, the rest will soon fall. Including RESNET, I suspect.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

They can pick and choose as they wish. They need only prove a single patent infringement allegation.

Once there is precedent, the rest will soon fall. Including RESNET, I suspect.

So Joe, respectfully, tell me why that hasn't happened. It seems that the only discussion anywhere I can find about this is on this message board by people who do not use IR at all.

Also, I would never boycott the patent because I don't use their procedure, not even close. As Jason has stated many time's, most inspectors who get involved in IR move further away from home inspections because there's more money and much more diversification. I would much rather make $150.00 per hour, and that's good for my market, for a heat loss survey or moisture intrusion than do a home inspection. More money, less liability.

[ldapkus]

Originally Posted by prussell

it seems that the only discussion anywhere i can find about this is on this message board by people who do not use ir at all.

bingo!!!!

[David A. Andersen]

Ya know this does bring up an interesting arguement. Why don't you all just go get Resnet certified and use a blower door or duct blaster during an IR inspection to get around the patent. And don't give me the cost arguement. I am just throwing it out there. Not to mention you could work in much lower delta T's, negate stack effect and wind effect.

Once they get their standards straight, I will...

Right now I'm waiting to see where this all takes us.
I don't want to be in the same boat as Peter and have to be re-certified by yet another org.

At this point I modify HVAC equipment to overcome those effects.
Is that in the patent?
Maybe I should file for that...

[David A. Andersen]

Joe, my thoughts are in line with Peter's.
Again, "respectfully" why is Homesafe picking on Hi's struggeling to make a living in this economy when they can go after the companies that are flurishing with the program?

Yes, silence is deafening, but I'm a long way away from the front lines.
Do you go out an research patents on everything you buy at Wal-Mart?
I purchased a camera and training from a company that operates outside of the US.
I follow their training protocal. Where did it come from? I don't know and really don't have an interest to know. If I get sued, I'm at the end of the line.

I have exercised due diligence in requesting information on what the patent covers and exactly what acts I have committed against the patent. I received no response. I looked at their web site and saw that it is not what I do. They simply send out letters to HI's that have IR. I'm simply being harassed by homesafe. It sounds like just another one of those scams you get by e-mail and US postal mail on a daily basis.

My training manuals have a "copyright 2007 infrared training center, all rights reserved". These are the procedures that I adhere to. That is my defense. I didn't hijack anyone's program. They can simply follow the "paper trail".

Where did the information in this training manual come from? That's really not my concern. However, there are training programs out there that were derived from the same manuals. There are webinairs offered on the Internet reselling the information in these manuals. This copycat process goes on daily. You know who I'm talking about. The wording has simply been changed to protect the guilty. Where do we draw the line? At the specifics. As I previously posted, in one paragraph I found 4 things I do not do.

I seriously doubt that the court will uphold a patent infringement against me because I paid to take a course that I had no idea where it came from. I'm too far down the line. If homesafe were to aggressively pursue their patent infringement case against education providers rather than the end-user, I would be more inclined to agree with your position to boycott these companies.

There is silence from both lines. Until someone speaks up, I'll continue to march.
It is the responsibility of the patent holder to make the first move. Expecting Flir or Fluke or any of the trainers to stand up and "start a fight" to "squash" a company for no reason is absurd without the patent holders complaint against them specifically.

As Jason posted, Flir is capable and has a track record of "buying up" companies who's service they require. They do not sub-contract or lease. If they felt the need to own that patent, they would likely have bought it.

Just my perspective.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Joe, my thoughts are in line with Peter's.
Again, "respectfully" why is Homesafe picking on Hi's struggeling to make a living in this economy when they can go after the companies that are flurishing with the program?

David,

I apreciate your well thought out reply.

IMO, neither Homesafe or the major players in the IR industry has "moved" on this because of the uncertainty of winning. Just as a lawyer should never ask a question that he doesn't know the answer to, I doubt many lawyers would go to court unless they are highly likely to win.

There is much to loose for both sides, if they are wrong.

Homesafe is taking the "safe bet" that individual HIs won't have the resources to fight them. Besides, they have no basis to sue any manufacturers, as their patent alegedly covers the use (process) of the camera in a home inspection.