Thread: If i ever saw 2 sides of a coin

If ever i saw 2 sides of a coin. Or something that exposes both sides of a coin. The Infrared camera is it. I have had Real Estate Agents just get in there cars and drive off from an inspection because they did not know what to say to there sellers when the buying agent had me doing an Infrared scan to a home with a vaulted ceiling and exposing all the missing insulation and roof leaks. The seller just walking out the back door standing in the back yard.

Then i see One H.I. On one side of the Infrared camera and then we See others that don't want anything to do with them. Just amazing.

This will be one of the most interesting things to see play out over the next 5 years or so. As it stand now I'm the only Structural Pest Building Inspector North of San Francisco. The first time i saw an Infrared camera i just about fell out of my chair. I have been inspecting homes for some 30 years now and this tool I.R Is by far the best tool for an inspector to have in his hipbag. I completely understand both side and both points of view.

The only thing i can say is that if you want to make a few more bucks I.R. Is the way to go... For me I'm making an extra $ 2.000.00 a month from it as a stand alone extra and I'm just getting started in my area... That's an extra $ 24K A year the first year...

I don't sell it as I'm better than any other inspector. But and this is the big one. Everyday i find things other inspectors have over look. If any one over looks that point then i don't know what to say... But ( i ) do a better job with the camera then ( i ) DO with out it. And I'm making more money with it.

Best

Ron

Similar Threads:

• Multiple Distribution Wires into panel sides
• "To coin a phrase"
• Symmetrical Stucco Cracks On Both Sides of House
• Looking at both sides of the pre-sales home inspection coin - Sun Publications Chicag

Ron...

You are preaching to the choir here! I don't think anyone on this board does not think that IR scans is not a good thing when doing a home inspection.

But I think what you are missing is that is it not required when doing a visual inspection. That is why the SOP's call it visual.

The house you refer to in you post with the missing insulation is a good example of why not to use a IR scan. The seller now is legally bound to disclose to every potential buyer that there is missing insulation. You are not making any friends with the local RE agents in my opinion. I've been a deal buster lots of times but I have never made a house impossible to sell without the seller having to lie! Just my 2 cents...

"You are not making any friends with the local RE agents in my opinion."

Are we supposed to be?

I say if it has missing insulation regardless of how it was found, the seller should replace it.

Any tool one can use or choose to use is at his own discretion.

I think once the price of the camera's drop down in price your going to see one in every toolbag in the future.

The only drawback is if you do have a camera and then you'd better not miss anything with it. The judge and jury won't understand why.

JMHO

rick

First and for most home inspections are visual and not technically exhaustive. When you bring in technical equipment to find problems, that places you under a whole different inspection realm. I believe if you find a problem with something other than visual and there develops other technical problems in any other area such as low freon on the A/C unit, you could be sued for not being technically exhaustive in all areas of your inspection. If you want to use IR cameras, moisture meters, gas detectors, a/c gauges, duct cameras and the like you should become a technical inspector and leave the visual home inspector trade. I believe if someone used a IR camera on my house and found areas that were not insulated and I lost the sale I could own that home inspectors company, simply because efficiency's are not apart of the home inspection process. Second if you say that your IR camera found moisture on some part of my house that showed no signs of moisture without tearing out something. The buyer then insisted that the sheet rock be removed and I did it and found nothing once the damage was done and they still did not buy my house, I will own your company. Taking home inspections to a new level, that is way above the norm or SOP is not in any ones best interest. That's my rant, I'm greased and ready. Tony M.

Ditto, Rick

I think once the price of the camera's drop down in price your going to see one in every toolbag in the future.

The only drawback is if you do have a camera and then you'd better not miss anything with it. The judge and jury won't understand why.

Ditto..Tony

And I was saying he was going to have no business....but you already knew that!

You guys on that "visual inspection" kick need to get real.

Do you use flashlights to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you use outlet testers (even the three light types) to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you use thermometers (talking the regular type here as well as IR thermometers) to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you use picks or probes to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you use screw drivers to remove covers to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you use moisture meters to enhance what you cannot see?

Do you ... the list could go on and on, the point is, EVERY home inspector, including (I'm guessing) TM above, uses SOME TYPE of assistance to enhance what they cannot see.

See, "visual" is not really "visual", is it?

An infrared camera is really more "visual" than a probe or a screw driver to remove covers, you do not have to "probe" or "remove" anything, you "visually" see what the infrared camera sees - and does not intrude on/in anything in the process, unlike probes and screw drivers.

JP....you are wrong. No need to tell you how you are wrong because i am not up for it!

Ditto.. Jerry... This i think is going to be one heck of a ride. IR like all things will work it way out. the law firms, courts, buyers and sellers. Real Estate Agents.

I had a buyer on Mondays inspection saw some IR information on a TV SHOW. He was a $ 200.00 IR scan on top of my inspection fee.

It is someting that Buyers want.

One of these cameras in the hands of a good any good inspector.
is good for all home buyers and building owners.


Best

Ron

In my opinion which means nothing is this. Ron and Jerry live in places with LOTS of disposable income, lots of rich people. When I lived in Naples Florida it was not out the ordinary to see several Bentleys in one day. Put Ron and Jerry in Detroit lets see how many times they used the IR camera. I have lived in 3 different locations in this country, vastly different. I have also done inspections in 3 different locations. Ron and Jerry, dont judge the whole country with what worked for you. 600K for an ok house in CA. or FL. or 60K for a nice house in Detroit, its not rocket science.

Well stated paul. i have lived in portland oregon and in redding calif.

the cost of things has a lot to do with what work in one are and will not work in another. but at the same time I had open heart bypast in redding with One of the best heart doc. in country and got the best care.

That was $ 285K In redding calif.

Best

Ron

Thats the point I was trying to make Ron. My charges here are an average of $80-$120 dollars less than I was getting in Florida. I am the highest price here so noone has to say to raise my prices. Also basements and furnaces here, so more involved and takes longer. Thats OK it was my choice, I am not complaining. On the good side 86% of my inspections also have a radon test which makes up the differance. The radon test obviously requires a trip back, but this time of year grab the Harley, and a fishing pole and a camera for big Elk or Bear etc. and its all good. I think my market is probably 2-3 years away from being able to support the cost of a camera. My main competitor here who is a fellow ASHI member and a great guy has been here 30 years. Here is a little secret... the Realtors and customers are getting tired of checklist reports, and no pictures......

Paul just an idea. i got my camera off ebay. it was $ 12,500 new A YEAR AGO I got for $ 5,500 one year old its a FLIR B2 160X120 If you have some hi-end homes in your area they will support the camera. it will open other area of work for you. "INSURANCE" these camera are droping in price fast. A FLIR B2 Used will be down under 5K next year. but dont go under a 160x120 RES. Get one with a wide lens.

FLHSTC 2002. RIDE SAFE.


BEST

RON

Originally Posted by Paul Kondzich

Ron and Jerry, dont judge the whole country with what worked for you.

Paul,

We're not the ones doing the judging, there are others here who are judging that using an infrared camera is no longer visual, and "visual" is the same regardless of where you are located.

Whether you use it or not, that is a different question, which some do not seem to want to address, other than claiming that it is not "visual".

My point is that it is still *just as visual* as using circuit testers.

As to your point, price of the market, to some degree, yes, that affects the prices of the inspectors toys ... er ... tools.

However, if an inspector in a lower price market were to start using in infrared camera, I suspect they would create a marketing jump ahead of those who steadfastly refuse to use new things.

But that was said about moisture meters 'back then', and the other 'tools found in most inspectors tool boxes or bags today'.

When this profession started, HIs used basically 6 tools ... sight, smell, touch, hearing, taste, and their brain ... combined with a flashlight to allow one to see better, and a ladder to allow one to reach higher places (roofs and attics), and a screw driver to allow one to look behind closed covers.

A "moisture meter" as 'ummm ... that spot looks wet, it feels wet, I held a piece of tissue against it and the tissue got wet ... it's wet'

Maybe we dont' need to spend 5-12K on a camera after all.

Take Infrared Pictures With Your Digital Camera - Instructables - DIY, How To, tech

Well ... he did add a 'filter' to it, but I doubt that it is "infrared" compatible, I suspect it is just a lavender color caused by the color of the processed negative film.

Doesn't look like an infrared photo to me, just looks 'colored' by a filter.

But what do I know, when I was a young kid I ordered a pair of those 'X-ray' glasses ...

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Maybe we dont' need to spend 5-12K on a camera after all.

Take Infrared Pictures With Your Digital Camera - Instructables - DIY, How To, tech

Rick, this an entirely different thing. That special film or lens filters only pick up the "near infrared". they are cool looking sometimes but not the same thing we are talking about here.
Dana
PS, I love "Instructables" too.