Thermal Imaging Camera's

[ScottF]

Andy the acknolwledgement is in their reports to clients, their summing up assessments and in their use of the information. I have a publication accepted by the arb journal that goes through this and which will be published soon. Also there is the paper I presented in Turin.

 

Tony these will make good bed-time reading to start with

 

Atkins P and de Paula J (2006) ‘Atkins’ Physical Chemistry-8th Edition. Oxford University Press.

 

Catena A and Catena G (2007) Overview of thermal imaging for tree assessment. Arboric Journal 31.

 

Herrington LP (1969). On temperature and heat flow in tree stems. Yale Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 73.

 

Hunt JF, Gu H and Lebow PK (2008) Theoretical thermal conductivity equation for uniform density wood cells. Wood and Fiber Science, 40(2): 167 – 180

 

Monteith, JL and Unsworth, MH (2007) Principles of Environmental Physics-Third Edition. Academic Press, London.

 

Potter BE and Andresen JA (2002) A finite-difference model of temperatures and heat flow within a tree stem. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 548–555.

 

Great. So of these cited references: the 2007 Catena one we're familiar with, caveats and all, Hunt and Lebow (2008) describe their work as "theoretical" in the title, Potter and Andresen (sic) (2002) mentions a "model" (a mathematical construct) in the title, 2 are textbooks and if the argument is that Catena's work isn't current enough, we can probably exclude the 1969 ref as being slightly out of date.

 

Any more? It's almost bedtime.

[Amelanchier]

Andy the acknolwledgement is in their reports to clients, their summing up assessments and in their use of the information. I have a publication accepted by the arb journal that goes through this and which will be published soon. Also there is the paper I presented in Turin.

 

Tony these will make good bed-time reading to start with

 

Atkins P and de Paula J (2006) ‘Atkins’ Physical Chemistry-8th Edition. Oxford University Press.

 

Catena A and Catena G (2007) Overview of thermal imaging for tree assessment. Arboric Journal 31.

 

Herrington LP (1969). On temperature and heat flow in tree stems. Yale Univ. Sch. For. Bull. 73.

 

Hunt JF, Gu H and Lebow PK (2008) Theoretical thermal conductivity equation for uniform density wood cells. Wood and Fiber Science, 40(2): 167 – 180

 

Monteith, JL and Unsworth, MH (2007) Principles of Environmental Physics-Third Edition. Academic Press, London.

 

Potter BE and Andresen JA (2002) A finite-difference model of temperatures and heat flow within a tree stem. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 548–555.

 

Great. So of these cited references: the 2007 Catena one we're familiar with, caveats and all, Hunt and Lebow (2008) describe their work as "theoretical" in the title, Potter and Andresen (sic) (2002) mentions a "model" (a mathematical construct) in the title, 2 are textbooks and if the argument is that Catena's work isn't current enough, we can probably exclude the 1969 ref as being slightly out of date.

 

Any more? It's almost bedtime.

 

Now how hard was that? As a result I found this paper (attached) via google by MBT. Which lists more, and one would suspect comprehensive, citations to support TI. Why not just post this and be done with it Marcus?

 

In examinining it we can see that the above sources with the exception of Catena 2007 (or 2008 if you look at the actual journal!) None actually contain reference to the applications of TI in examining trees - they support the theory, but the sole author of supporting research on application is Catena.

 

Now on further examination, it becomes apparent why - the claims of TI/TTMS is based upon original as yet unpublished research by MBT. The penny drops! Yet there is no problem with this IMO in terms of intellectual honesty (someone has to be first) and I wonder why it hasn't been simply stated before?

 

Time after time - when pushed, the response to requests for evidence has been that the literature supports the application and utility of the technique. It doesn't at the moment. I suggest that my orginal charge still stands - that the claims overreach the current research and have done for some time now!

 

The key to me seems to be the replication of results. I look forward to the publication of the data because despite my criticism I can see the future application being valuable.

 

I think the thing that put people on the defensive from the first instance was the language used in the marketing, 'dark ages' / 'doctors with leeches' etc. Basically, "Our tech is cutting edge and if you don't agree, you don't understand - ergo; you are less capable than our users who are enlightened souls doing proper tree management."

 

We do understand and we are still sceptical.

Thermal Imaging of Trees[1].pdf

Edited January 12, 2010 by Amelanchier
Sp.

[ScottF]

I'm with Tony on this one. One of the key points to note is that neither of us, and I imagine many others, is dismissive of the potential for this technology- I've never said that I think it doesn't work- but where's the evidence? I just don't see how anyone can roll out and market a "scientifically proven" process without it. Simply saying that it works just isn't sufficient, guys.

 

Also, as Tony points out, the depressingly arrogant tone adopted as a means of promoting this technique has probably worked against the Trees Project and others, fairly or unfairly.

 

As regards the "Thermal Imaging of Trees" paper written by Marcus B-T, I'd suggest that it's riddled with assumptions, baseless claims and represents the "favourable" information in a heavily biased manner. I'd be very surprised if much remained of this paper following diligent peer-review.

[Marcus B-T]

I think this is the first time I have been asked on this form to give a list of publications though I may have missed other postings. The ones I listed are the most relevent ones. The pdf Tony has posted is a technical summary and not a formal publication for peer review. The ones submitted for peer review are much more in-depth but you will just have to wait for the arb journal ot come out.

 

I can't ever remember using the terms leeches or witch craft or anything like that. Where on earth did you get that one from?

 

In terms of how the publications relate to the application of thermal imging. All the references relate to the relationship between intrenal wood thermal properties and surface temperature. Thermal imaging cameras are just big expensive thermometers that measure surface temperture. So the fact that thermal imaging is not in the title is neither here nor there but since this is covered in the publications I have submitted then wait and see. Please don't pre-judge them though when you haven't seen them; unless you are one of the referees in which case you probably shouldn't be expressing your opinions on them here anyhow.

 

In terms of the quality of the references posted for Tony they are all by scientists of the highest calibre. Atkins is astounding as a physical chemist and his book is in every university chemistry department in the world. Monteith (just google Penman-Monteith equation) Unworth (look up porometer on google). Or google either of them wth plant physiology.

 

In terms of the technology, all technology is based on mathematical models even VTA. The process is: literature/primary invetigation; develop model; test model; re-jig model; etc. Our model is under constant testing by its users on a daily basis as are all good models

[Amelanchier]

I think this is the first time I have been asked on this form to give a list of publications though I may have missed other postings. The ones I listed are the most relevent ones. The pdf Tony has posted is a technical summary and not a formal publication for peer review. The ones submitted for peer review are much more in-depth but you will just have to wait for the arb journal ot come out.

 

I appreciate that - but can you see how the presentation and marketing of the product has overtaken the literature? To the point where the publications are being produced after the fact?!

 

I can't ever remember using the terms leeches or witch craft or anything like that. Where on earth did you get that one from?

 

I have attached an article by AC which is representative of how many in the industry first came to learn of the technology.

 

I quote [my emphasis in bold]:

 

• "Back in the dark ages of human medicine, doctors amputated limbs without pain relief and treated people using leaches [sic]".
  
• "The parallels to medical research and development are numerous, with both accompanied by their fair share of scepticism, frequently fuelled by those who have a vested interest in techniques and technologies that are about to be superseded."
  
• "However, for those prepared to embrace new ideas there is the opportunity to explore..."
  

 

And I'm well aware that this is a frequently used method to elevate a USP but I consider it has compounded the scepticism felt by many.

 

In terms of how the publications relate to the application of thermal imging. All the references relate to the relationship between intrenal wood thermal properties and surface temperature. Thermal imaging cameras are just big expensive thermometers that measure surface temperture. So the fact that thermal imaging is not in the title is neither here nor there but since this is covered in the publications I have submitted then wait and see. Please don't pre-judge them though when you haven't seen them; unless you are one of the referees in which case you probably shouldn't be expressing your opinions on them here anyhow.

 

When will this be out? I still maintain that the claims made in the past (how long has this been around on market - 2/3 years?) overreached the available research.

 

In terms of the quality of the references posted for Tony they are all by scientists of the highest calibre. Atkins is astounding as a physical chemist and his book is in every university chemistry department in the world. Monteith (just google Penman-Monteith equation) Unworth (look up porometer on google). Or google either of them wth plant physiology.

 

In terms of the technology, all technology is based on mathematical models even VTA. The process is: literature/primary invetigation; develop model; test model; re-jig model; etc. Our model is under constant testing by its users on a daily basis as are all good models

 

I'm sure the citations are impeccable - people just want a peek in the box to see how it all works. At the moment its very 'Paul Daniels'.

ThermalRevolution.pdf

[Marcus B-T]

The first version of TTMS was created in 2005 and was then tested on real trees with some very adventurous local authorities. There have been minor tweeks along the way and we hve added some pests to the system as well. I cannot say when the publications will be out but will try to get an answer from the journal.

 

I understand that the popular press have 'got hold of the system' but there must be some common sense here. There are always going to be differences between what is science and what is in the press. It is difficult for me to respond though without specific examples of 'the claims'. I am happy to answer questions though.

 

In terms of what's in the box, this is a difficult one since the code is confidential. It would be a bit like asking the developers of PICUS or perhaps Microsoft to hand over their code? It would mean that cloning and potentialy misuse of the technology. However the science behind the workings is an easy one and is the subject of the publications, I think this is fair. Within TTMS BASIC there is a graphing option so you can actually see some of the outputs from the model without being able to see the code so you get an idea of what is happening without the confidential stuff of the actual mechanism.

 

One of the other problems with this is that Thermydamics is a big subject area and although the workings of it are established it considers many factors and I know of many chemists and physists that struggle with it. This is not to belittle anyone it is just to say it is one of those subjects that you sort of get or don't. If you do get it you find it fairly straight forward, if you don't then it is a struggle. I always had the same problem with particle theory, I just didn't get it and so always struggled with it.

 

If you want to borrow a copy of Monteith and Unsworth I would be happy to loan it Tony

[arb culture]

Marcus,

 

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts on the forum, it's interesting.

 

I understand the issue of confidentiality, but I am not asking how your program works. What I'm really interested in is how you decide whether or not a tree is likely to fail. And more importantly; how do you back this up with your scientific research.

 

I have no doubts that thermal imaging can show where there areas of decay or defective wood, but what I can't work out is what do you do with that information? Do you use a T/r ratio, how do you incorporate reaction growth, how do you factor in wind exposure, tree shape, open cavities, decay type, etc?

 

If this method of calculating the likelihood of failure (or even the proof that the mystery method works) is going to be included in your paper, then brilliant - I'll wait until it's published.

[Marcus B-T]

The way in which data can be used as an input into risk assessments is the subject of a separate paper though it is touched upon in one of the paper I submitted. It was also the subject of the paper presented in Turin. It intergrates into the VTA based risk assessment methodologies, this was deliberate to avoid a mismatch of methods. To summarise, you need to have some baseline data just as you do with VTA, i.e. what are expected values for the amount of functional wood under certain growing conditions. You can then compare your trees to the expected values to see if they are significantly different from the rest of the population. At which point you know that you have reached the point at which the balance between functional and non-functional wood is different, you can at this point look at the population and examine the limits to height and canopy density for example in the poulation and in comparison to expected values, and in this way you can keep separating out the trees until you have the rare cases that are highly significant and are most likely to fail (but still not destined to fail) you may still be able to correct the form of the tree to bring it in-line with the rest of the population (remedial work) or you may not (fell). This is exactly the same process that is followed in VTA. It is also a highly robust statistical methodology. However, this is still only a step in the process and there are other reasons for carrying out work to trees and these have to be considered as well and also the likelihood of failure analysis is still largely led by target not failure.

[Amelanchier]

I was unclear in my previous post - the black box I was alluding to was the bit in between obtaining the thermal image and drawing the conclusion (as indicated in part by arb culture above). Which thankfully you have clarified in your subsequent responses.

 

I still have some issues but I think on balance - I will await these future publications.

 

Thank you for the offer of the loan, I may take you up one that when the tax/report/coursework backlog dies down! I wonder if you could post your Turin paper?

[arb culture]

Thanks Marcus,

 

I think this is a very interesting subject, and I'd love to read about it in more detail.

 

How can I get hold of your papers on this?