Thermal Imaging Camera's

[Amelanchier]

I would have thought that the picus format was a fair relation? does it not show as does the ti dysfunctional and therfore non dysfunctional tissue? sound wood as aposed to non sound? altered as apposed to non altered wood.

 

The PICUS doesn't record whether the material your testing is dead or not, just how well sound passes through it. Whereas the whole point of TI is to examine the thermal efficiency of the material - in plants living tissue distributes heat more rapidly via their vascular system.

 

So you cant see whether a part of a tree is decayed with TI anymore than you can see whether a tree is alive with a PICUS.

 

Its the interpretation that is the key - and that's the tricky bit!

[BatiArb]

Well I have some catching up to do, due to a computer collapse just before Christmas, combined with a bad memory that meant I forgot my pass word. Anyhow, more comments soon to follow. In the mean time have a look at the attached, which offers a good case study of what is possible to observe through thermal imaging.

 

Andrew

Epping Forest Demo Data Sheets IH 2 (2).pdf

[BootyArb]

 

I am sorry if there is something I am missing here, .......

 

 

 

Yes, you sad ++++++ did you not have anything better to do on New Year's eve.......

 

If it wasn't bad enough you were on your computer at close to midnight, you did not even send New Year wishes to anyone.......

 

Although Tony Sorensen was worse at 4 minutes past 12.....

 

You guys need to get a life.... or find yourself a girlfriend......

 

Happy New Year to all..... :beerchug:

 

And expect to hear more of me......

[Amelanchier]

Yes, you sad ++++++ did you not have anything better to do on New Year's eve.......

 

If it wasn't bad enough you were on your computer at close to midnight, you did not even send New Year wishes to anyone.......

 

Although Tony Sorensen was worse at 4 minutes past 12.....

 

You guys need to get a life.... or find yourself a girlfriend......

 

Happy New Year to all..... :beerchug:

 

And expect to hear more of me......

 

Not guilty m'lud - 06-01-10, 12:04 AM

 

Much as I would have dearly loved to see 2010 in whilst perusing the 'talk, I'm afraid I would have been entirely incapable of finding the power button on the computer let alone typing.

 

Nice first post though - wade on in guns blazing. Mind the richochets...

[BatiArb]

bats will be picked up as well.

 

A quick point of clarification here…

 

This was one of the first things that stimulated my ideas about thermal imaging when it was first brought over to the UK by Giorgio Catena nearly 10 years ago now (wow doesn’t time fly). However, it quickly became clear following discussions with Giorgio that it was not going to be possible with the techniques and technology currently available.

 

There are two reasons for this:

• Bats are not in tree features for long enough to influence the temperature.

• Bats choose roosts sites because they suite their biological requirements at the time. That is they select roosts because they offer a certain temperature, humidity or aspect.

 

It is possible to find birds nests in trees, observe insect activity (particularly wasp or bees nests) and other mammals can be spotted as well. As technology improves some of the more sensitive cameras may be able to pick out bats in trees, but we are not there yet.

 

We use our camera to observe bat flight activity and find bats roosting in the open (within building roofs). It is practical and effective to observe bats flying from roosts, and use thermal imaging to spot bats leaving their roost sites in trees.

[BatiArb]

Another massive problem with this is the fact it encourages users to stand far back from the tree, i wonder how many users actually then properly assess the tree or move on to save time.

 

 

Now you are just showing your own ignorance of the technology and how it is used effectively.

 

The whole point and advantage of thermal imaging is that it can be used at a distance from the tree and offers a quick method of spotting issues that require further investigation. In a similar way to a doctor taking our temperature and using the measurement as a tool to assess our current health, we can use temperature readings from trees to investigate their functional capacity for reactive growth.

 

When the information from the thermal image has been translated it can be used to evaluate the trees current condition and prompt further investigation as required. If an initial assessment of temperature readings indicates a potential issue with the tree, then the competent arborists should automatically look closer and I would agree that the Nylon Hammer is a very effective tool.

[BatiArb]

It's a false comparison really though, as the PICUS examines relative sound values to ascertain damage / decay whereas the Thermogadget is supposed to show the degree of function / dysfunctional tissue. The two aren't necessarily related.

 

 

 

I agree it is misleading to compare PICUS and Thermal Imaging, because as you say they are measuring different things.

 

The two tools offer us different means of investigating tree function and the progress of decay. It is a bit like a physician progressively using different scanning equipment to assess our health. The doctor will request Xrays, Ultrasound or MRI scans depending on the information gathered so far. Sometimes it is possible to get the necessary diagnostic information from one, but with more complex cases all will be required.

 

I believe that we need to consider how we use tree assessment tools and make more comparisons to how modern medical physicians use different scanning devises to assess our physiological condition. It is all about gaining more information about as many different aspects of a body’s function, in order to further inform a management decision about treatment. A physician will progressively ask for more scans to be completed depending on the results of others and how clear the information is.

 

When it comes to the cascade of assessments methods we have for trees I would loosely suggest that the following order should be considered:

• Visual Tree Assessment by an Arborist

• Acoustic hammer (Elison style)

• Thermal Imaging to observe functional heat flow

• PICUS / TreeTronic / Radar

• Resistograph / DDD / core sampling

 

The above list is ordered with a view to:

• Surveyor expertise

• Speed of application (therefore cost)

• Invasiveness of equipment

[Amelanchier]

Well I have some catching up to do, due to a computer collapse just before Christmas, combined with a bad memory that meant I forgot my pass word. Anyhow, more comments soon to follow. In the mean time have a look at the attached, which offers a good case study of what is possible to observe through thermal imaging.

 

Andrew

 

 

 

Taking the role of devils advocate further - I'm not convinced that most of that information couldn't have been proposed without the thermal image.

 

Cool spots between the pollard regrowth means there is a central core of decay in the main trunk? Its a pollard! Its almost certainly going to have a central core of decay!

 

I'll admit that the speckled white patches on the adaptive growth are intriguing. But why is the ground evenly white? Is the leaf litter really that warm in the shade of the tree or is this an artefact of the software?

 

My armchair psychology tells me that we know very well that we see patterns that aren't there (Apophenia) and that we typically interpret those patterns in a way that confirms our existing opinions

(Illusory correlation).

 

My sceptical gut reaction to all this is that TI is simply used to support pre-existing opinion. That's not to say that a deliberate effort is being made to fool or decieve, just an inevitable result of the methodology.

[Arborist Sites]

Andrew, could you explain why the market has been totally saturated with trained users, i myself was invited on a course at the begining with the promise that it would be exclusive to a region.

 

I personally didnt attend as i couldnt see the technology taking off as i honestly believe that 99% of clients wont pay for it. After speaking to course attendies not all are 100% happy and many more have been trained than first stated, this must have flooded the market. I still recive emails asking to attend a course.

 

 

I am sorry you think i am ignorant of the technique, i just dont see any of my domestic, commercial or LA clients willing to spend money on it.

[BatiArb]

The PICUS doesn't record whether the material your testing is dead or not, just how well sound passes through it. Whereas the whole point of TI is to examine the thermal efficiency of the material - in plants living tissue distributes heat more rapidly via their vascular system.

 

So you cant see whether a part of a tree is decayed with TI anymore than you can see whether a tree is alive with a PICUS.

 

Its the interpretation that is the key - and that's the tricky bit!

 

This is part of the key understanding that needs to be broadly adopted and respected.

 

PICUS is an effective decay detection tool that can be used to locate and map out decay patterns in the trunks of trees. It can be used to identify areas of ‘sound’ wood in proportion to areas of decay or degraded wood. It cannot be used to identify areas of physiologically functional tissue only structurally sound wood.

 

It is limited in application due to the unreliability of scans around deeply fluted buttresses, especially at or just above ground level. Bark inclusions can cause considerable issues on some tree species (like Cedar) and internal splitting can also be problematic. Not to mention the fact that it is time consuming to undertake an assessment and impractical to use higher up the trunk or in the canopy.

 

The PICUS TreeTronic on the other hand can be used to look at functional wood because it uses electrical waves that move through water in the wood. However, the results I have seen so far have been a bit unpredictable and appear to contradict the PICUS Sound Tomograph, and this could not me explained by Sorbus Int. when it was demonstrated to me.

 

Thermal Imaging works by using the movement of heat as a tool to observe areas of functional tissue. The simple principle is that heat moves through water filled cells with good conductivity (connectivity) between them. It is therefore not a decay detection device.

 

Areas (volumes) of wood without water, or where cavities/splits have formed, trap heat. Air is a poor conductor of heat in comparison to water, and air filled areas appear relatively hotter or colder than where heat is moving around the tree in functional tissue. Therefore by observing the different areas of temperature around the tree and the heat gradients between them it is possible to estimate volumes of functional verses dysfunctional areas of the tree.

 

Perhaps the most significant thing to consider with thermal imaging is that we are observing the trees ability to maintain its temperature and therefore it offers us an indication of its reactive capacity. That is, how well it might be able to respond to pruning work.

 

You could compare this to our susceptibility to colds and flue, when we go out in the cold without eating enough before hand or not wearing enough cloths. If we have insufficient energy to maintain our body temperature we are less likely to be able to counteract infection by a virus.

 

Temperature also has a significant influence on cell growth rates and therefore the trees ability to produce reactive growth in response to areas of weakness.

 

VTA can only ever observe a history of reactive growth and does not provide us with an accurate assessment of the trees current functional growth. It is quite possible to be looking at a reactive growth form produced by the tree in response to an area of weakness, but that has now no functional capability. VTA is a historic indicator and can be misleading as a result.