Draft RESNET Standard now open for public comment

[David A. Andersen]

Method 2
Without the training as indicated in Method 1 above, four courses of action must be met
to obtain a certification through RESNET:

3. Documenting 1 year of thermal imaging experience, including submission of ten
thermography reports that conform to these guidelines for review by the RESNET
Infrared Certification Committee.

It is difficult to conform to these guidelines when they do not yet exist.
The combination use of the blower door and thermal imaging is being standardized here. Inspection methods should be examined for compliance with current Level I thermography training rather than these unpublished standards.

8. Exterior examination of a building
a. Verify that no direct solar radiation has heated the surfaces to be examined for
a period of approximately 3 hours for frame construction and for
approximately 8 hours for masonry veneer construction.
b. Plan exterior investigations for an appropriate time after sunset, before
sunrise, or on an overcast day when the influence of solar radiation can be
determined to be minimal.

I do not feel that an overcast day should be construed as an acceptable testing condition. Clouds do not block all electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Shadows are apparent in thermal imaging scans on a cloudy day just as they are on a clear day (at a lower intensity). This solar loading on a cloudy day may be significant enough to provide a false negative.

There are many conditions where exterior scanning is possible, however listing a "cloudy day" as acceptable may be misconstrued. Just as some anomalies may show up even on a solar loaded wall, the conditions of the scans taken during a cloudy day on a "would be" solar exposed wall should be covered in the report as if it were scanned when solar loaded on a clear day.

Exterior scans (which may be solar loaded) should be used in conjunction with interior scans to confirm or further evaluate an identified anomaly.

I'm a firm believer that the thermographer should not point their camera at any subject that they are not fully familiar with or have technical support by accompanied qualified personnel. A large number of energy auditors will come from the home inspection field with appropriate thermal imaging training, but there will be a percentage of applicants that will not be coming from the building professions or energy auditing associations. I feel that building science curriculum/experience should also be mandatory for those who are not already in the associated fields and cannot demonstrate proficiency in this area. In my opinion Level I training does not sufficiently cover building science principles. The majority of infrared training is based on electrical and mechanical inspections. Very few Level I,II or III thermographers have a significant background in building science, which is of paramount importance in energy auditing.

[James H. Bushart]

John makes money for selling the training like the manufacturers who sell the devices. Their claims are not credible.

A man with a patent and trademark has issued a fair warning and his lawyers, having the duty to protect his trademark, will determine when and how it will be appropriate to do so. At that time, the fleas will be jumping off the dog like it was a fire drill.....McKenna included.

Until such time that the manufacturers, themselves, end their silence and represent that there are no patents in existence to interfere with a user's right to apply their product in the processes herein described.....they should be boycotted.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Method 2
Without the training as indicated in Method 1 above, four courses of action must be met
to obtain a certification through RESNET:

3. Documenting 1 year of thermal imaging experience, including submission of ten
thermography reports that conform to these guidelines for review by the RESNET
Infrared Certification Committee.

It is difficult to conform to these guidelines when they do not yet exist.
The combination use of the blower door and thermal imaging is being standardized here. Inspection methods should be examined for compliance with current Level I thermography training rather than these unpublished standards.

8. Exterior examination of a building
a. Verify that no direct solar radiation has heated the surfaces to be examined for
a period of approximately 3 hours for frame construction and for
approximately 8 hours for masonry veneer construction.
b. Plan exterior investigations for an appropriate time after sunset, before
sunrise, or on an overcast day when the influence of solar radiation can be
determined to be minimal.

I do not feel that an overcast day should be construed as an acceptable testing condition. Clouds do not block all electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Shadows are apparent in thermal imaging scans on a cloudy day just as they are on a clear day (at a lower intensity). This solar loading on a cloudy day may be significant enough to provide a false negative.

There are many conditions where exterior scanning is possible, however listing a "cloudy day" as acceptable may be misconstrued. Just as some anomalies may show up even on a solar loaded wall, the conditions of the scans taken during a cloudy day on a "would be" solar exposed wall should be covered in the report as if it were scanned when solar loaded on a clear day.

Exterior scans (which may be solar loaded) should be used in conjunction with interior scans to confirm or further evaluate an identified anomaly.

I'm a firm believer that the thermographer should not point their camera at any subject that they are not fully familiar with or have technical support by accompanied qualified personnel. A large number of energy auditors will come from the home inspection field with appropriate thermal imaging training, but there will be a percentage of applicants that will not be coming from the building professions or energy auditing associations. I feel that building science curriculum/experience should also be mandatory for those who are not already in the associated fields and cannot demonstrate proficiency in this area. In my opinion Level I training does not sufficiently cover building science principles. The majority of infrared training is based on electrical and mechanical inspections. Very few Level I,II or III thermographers have a significant background in building science, which is of paramount importance in energy auditing.

Good point Dave, thanks for your insight. I also was wondering how can a standard be written to include weather conditions. Does this mean there can be added stipulations for different parts of the country too?

[David A. Andersen]

Peter,

Can you copy and post that?

I'm getting a mental block (too much vacation!). All I remember is reporting on previous and current weather conditions (which you can get from NOAA three-day history).

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

John makes money for selling the training like the manufacturers who sell the devices. Their claims are not credible.

A man with a patent and trademark has issued a fair warning and his lawyers, having the duty to protect his trademark, will determine when and how it will be appropriate to do so. At that time, the fleas will be jumping off the dog like it was a fire drill.....McKenna included.

Until such time that the manufacturers, themselves, end their silence and represent that there are no patents in existence to interfere with a user's right to apply their product in the processes herein described.....they should be boycotted.

The manufacturers of the IR cameras were making cameras
before this person claimed the "rights" on how it could be used.

I noticed that 'Mr Patent' has been spanked by FLIR before.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-74229/

Go ahead and try and rally a massive boycott and file a class
action law suite against InterNACHI if you like. It all seems
like big talk that will amount to nothing and is very funny.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Method 2
Without the training as indicated in Method 1 above, four courses of action must be met
to obtain a certification through RESNET:

3. Documenting 1 year of thermal imaging experience, including submission of ten
thermography reports that conform to these guidelines for review by the RESNET
Infrared Certification Committee.

It is difficult to conform to these guidelines when they do not yet exist.
The combination use of the blower door and thermal imaging is being standardized here. Inspection methods should be examined for compliance with current Level I thermography training rather than these unpublished standards.

8. Exterior examination of a building
a. Verify that no direct solar radiation has heated the surfaces to be examined for
a period of approximately 3 hours for frame construction and for
approximately 8 hours for masonry veneer construction.
b. Plan exterior investigations for an appropriate time after sunset, before
sunrise, or on an overcast day when the influence of solar radiation can be
determined to be minimal.

I do not feel that an overcast day should be construed as an acceptable testing condition. Clouds do not block all electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Shadows are apparent in thermal imaging scans on a cloudy day just as they are on a clear day (at a lower intensity). This solar loading on a cloudy day may be significant enough to provide a false negative.

There are many conditions where exterior scanning is possible, however listing a "cloudy day" as acceptable may be misconstrued. Just as some anomalies may show up even on a solar loaded wall, the conditions of the scans taken during a cloudy day on a "would be" solar exposed wall should be covered in the report as if it were scanned when solar loaded on a clear day.

Exterior scans (which may be solar loaded) should be used in conjunction with interior scans to confirm or further evaluate an identified anomaly.

I'm a firm believer that the thermographer should not point their camera at any subject that they are not fully familiar with or have technical support by accompanied qualified personnel. A large number of energy auditors will come from the home inspection field with appropriate thermal imaging training, but there will be a percentage of applicants that will not be coming from the building professions or energy auditing associations. I feel that building science curriculum/experience should also be mandatory for those who are not already in the associated fields and cannot demonstrate proficiency in this area. In my opinion Level I training does not sufficiently cover building science principles. The majority of infrared training is based on electrical and mechanical inspections. Very few Level I,II or III thermographers have a significant background in building science, which is of paramount importance in energy auditing.

Good post David.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Peter,

Can you copy and post that?

I'm getting a mental block (too much vacation!). All I remember is reporting on previous and current weather conditions (which you can get from NOAA three-day history).

I do report weather conditions but can a standard be written so that certain conditions have to be met for an inspection.

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

Here's the travesty:

We belong to what has been described by some as the worlds largest inspection organization.

We have dues paying members.

A group of those members work for Homesafe, and are in fact, patent holders.

Whether we want to believe it or not, and whether you want to recognize it or not, these patents are currently valid (as determined by the Federal Government) and as such, enforceable under Federal Law.

InterNACHI has been aware of the issue for some time now. FLIR, FLUKE, and Snell have also been aware of it for some time now.

Yet despite all this, NOT ONE OF THES ORGS, NACHI INCLUDED, has put their claim that the patent is bogus in a press release. Why is that?

Because that are NOT SURE whether they will be upheld or not.

NACHI finds it acceptable practice for an inspector at a trade show, who trashes NACHI, to be sued. NACHI chooses to enforce its CMI trademark, when many believe it is NOT enforceable and will likely be reviked if challenged.

YET, NACHI feels it important enough to chase a lowly inspector and scare the hell out of them.

So, now the hypocracy. Tell me, John; you are the president of the CMI board. If a group of inspectors started using CMI in their tag lines, but never paid the application fee or applies, SHOULD NACHI chase them?

Same issue here.

If the only way foor NACHI and others to sit up and take notice and ultimately do something, is by suing them, then so be it.

Manufacturers and education providers are culpable if they knowingly ignore and intentionally attempt to circumvent the law, while charging another money while doing so.

NACHI, its time to do something...

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-74229/

And what was the outcome of this case?

[David A. Andersen]

Originally Posted by prussell

I do report weather conditions but can a standard be written so that certain conditions have to be met for an inspection.

I would have to say; yes.

There are certain psychrometric properties of air that are specifically associated with heat content of normal air, its ability to absorb heat and its ability to cause heat transfer (and I am not just talking temperature). Under certain circumstances, thermal anomalies simply do not exist in the eyes of the camera!

It is also possible to get excellent thermal scans from a 0° Delta T. But you must have a Delta h! It is highly unlikely to come across this situation, but it is feasible.

I like the standard we must be able to identify structural members within the wall. That takes in all possible criteria without actually having to deal with qualitative assessment of the air. If you can't see the studs, somethings not right. If you can't see the difference in the thermal bridging, it's unlikely you're going to see the other anomalies that you're looking for as well.

I have thermal images taken during a home inspection where water was literally flowing through a CMU foundation wall below grade. There was extensive water damage to the garage ceiling and massive amounts of mold growth present. I could not see a single thermal anomaly anywhere within that space! The water in the ceiling was coming from a wall penetration above. Previous rainfall and weather conditions (high wind) prevented identification of the source and flow pattern.

Give me a chance to reread those standards again when I have time and I will comment further if I change my mind!

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

John,

Here's the travesty:

We belong to what has been described by some as the worlds largest inspection organization.

We have dues paying members.

A group of those members work for Homesafe, and are in fact, patent holders.

Whether we want to believe it or not, and whether you want to recognize it or not, these patents are currently valid (as determined by the Federal Government) and as such, enforceable under Federal Law.

There are many, many, many bogus patents that are NOT
enforceable (that is your foundational mistake).

InterNACHI has been aware of the issue for some time now. FLIR, FLUKE, and Snell have also been aware of it for some time now.

Yet despite all this, NOT ONE OF THES ORGS, NACHI INCLUDED, has put their claim that the patent is bogus in a press release. Why is that?

Why has no one challenged many many many bogus
patents? For the same reason you ignore patents that
say you cannot process a credit card online... etc...

Because that are NOT SURE whether they will be upheld or not.

NACHI finds it acceptable practice for an inspector at a trade show, who trashes NACHI, to be sued. NACHI chooses to enforce its CMI trademark, when many believe it is NOT enforceable and will likely be reviked if challenged.

So what?

YET, NACHI feels it important enough to chase a lowly inspector and scare the hell out of them.

Since you feel interNACHI needs to be sued and now they
are also chasing lowly inspectors for unjust reasons, then
it seems you belong to an assoc. that you no longer believe
in. What else do you feel is wrong with InterNACHI?

So, now the hypocracy. Tell me, John; you are the president of the CMI board. If a group of inspectors started using CMI in their tag lines, but never paid the application fee or applies, SHOULD NACHI chase them?

CMI is a trademark issue. Filing a patent on how you can
use a hammer (or IR camera) is bizarre and shares no
comparison.

Same issue here.

No

If the only way foor NACHI and others to sit up and take notice and ultimately do something, is by suing them, then so be it.

Go for it.

Manufacturers and education providers are culpable if they knowingly ignore and intentionally attempt to circumvent the law, while charging another money while doing so.

Sounds like you have taken a hostile position that will
be remembered for a long time as ridiculous. If you
really believe this, and it is not just talk, then go hire a
lawyer and get started.

BTW... there is no law.

NACHI, its time to do something...

Go for it.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by dandersen

I would have to say; yes.

There are certain psychrometric properties of air that are specifically associated with heat content of normal air, its ability to absorb heat and its ability to cause heat transfer (and I am not just talking temperature). Under certain circumstances, thermal anomalies simply do not exist in the eyes of the camera!

It is also possible to get excellent thermal scans from a 0° Delta T. But you must have a Delta h! It is highly unlikely to come across this situation, but it is feasible.

I like the standard we must be able to identify structural members within the wall. That takes in all possible criteria without actually having to deal with qualitative assessment of the air. If you can't see the studs, somethings not right. If you can't see the difference in the thermal bridging, it's unlikely you're going to see the other anomalies that you're looking for as well.

I have thermal images taken during a home inspection where water was literally flowing through a CMU foundation wall below grade. There was extensive water damage to the garage ceiling and massive amounts of mold growth present. I could not see a single thermal anomaly anywhere within that space! The water in the ceiling was coming from a wall penetration above. Previous rainfall and weather conditions (high wind) prevented identification of the source and flow pattern.

Give me a chance to reread those standards again when I have time and I will comment further if I change my mind!

I like the fact that the studs must be visible too, unfortunately now I want a better camera. B-CAM has served me well as an entry level camera but I need to upgrade, just worried about the market right now.

[David A. Andersen]

I hear ya!
I loved my BCAM but you can't beat the higher res and sens...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Go for it.

When you train people on how to use their IR camera for home inspections, do you advise them of the patent and the warning issued from the patent holders, or do you also conceal this from them?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

When you train people on how to use their IR camera for home inspections, do you advise them of the patent and the warning issued from the patent holders, or do you also conceal this from them?

Because you also advise people not use ANY tools outside
a screw driver and a flashlight, I understand your fears of
going beyond the SoP, and being sued, are at the level of
a phobia.

By all means, please do that which makes you feel safe.

BTW... our class has discussed the patent issue more than
once. Most people just chuckle. I tell everyone, if it
makes you afraid, then stay on the porch.

Thousands of inspectors and contractors know about it,
and they just don't agree with you. I cannot see the
entire IR building industry waking up in the morning and
saying "James is right, let's all stop using our IR cameras".
It is just pure fantasy at best. Your dreaming.