Thermal Imaging Camera's

[Amelanchier]

Attached is a summary of three other papers I am working on/submitting to other journals that will take some time to see the light of day. It explains the whole process of how to use TI results but it s not a refereed paper. You can use the same methodology for VTA data. The summary only relates to basal dysfunction but I have the same model for branch unions and other attributes. There is a list of refs for the boundary layer method of analysis it well established in many fields including Forestry.

 

 

Attached is a worked example of how TTMS is used after a VTA inspection. THis one is fairly straight forward will dig out a more complex one.

 

Thank you for posting Marcus. It appears we asked and you have given - commendable. I haven't had time to have a detailed look so wouldn't want to misrepresent my responses.

[Amelanchier]

Someone made a critical exam of certain sentences that my daughter Alessandra wrote in the 2003 Arb. Journal article: well, I’m sorry, but that article described our viewpoint in 2000: even the 2008 paper is a bit out-of-date. Research goes on and brings with it a better understanding of the phenomenon.

 

Greetings Giorgio,

 

I guess that was me? Yet it was the 2008 article I referred to...

 

My point was to highlight the disparity between the published literature and the pre-existing claims.

 

I'm well aware that research is often ahead of the literature - this is to be expected. The problem arises when the pubicity and hype bypasses the review and scrutiny.

[TTHman]

Dear Tony Sorensen (but also ScottF and others),

I had prepared a shorter reply, but then I thought that it was better to provide an accurate and complete reply.

I understand your point of view, but I would like to stress that I have never advertised, or hyped anything, if not by publishing articles reviewed by Referees in various journals, and taking part in International Congresses: up to a few days ago no one could have found my comments in any Forum, blog and the like. For precision's sake, the 2008 article is a reworking of 2 presentations that I delivered for the TEP in 2005 in Richmond Park and Fountains Abbey.

 

Quite.

 

Giorgio's appears careful to caveat his findings and has generally referred to the "potential" of the technology in print, rather than it being "proven". /QUOTE]

 

First of all, I do not use any “caveats” to justify or sweeten my statements: the publication of a peer-reviewed article in a journal also entails the acceptance of the opinion of the other people involved (Referees and Editors). If anyone bothers to read what I personally wrote on my website Homepage Catena & Thermography "Treethermography" since 1984 they will notice that I haven't used any caveats, let alone clamour. Even invasive tools do not provide “truly quantitative” answers (do I have to show examples of this in articles not written by me? I think every tree expert knows what I'm talking about).

Moreover, I certainly do not refer to the technology’s “potential” when I say that I verified the accuracy of what the TIs showed in 300 cases. If anyone requires it, I will upload pages of TIs with a short comment, now that I can show my images on my site.

 

I

p 260 "Numerous case studies have been cited to show that extensive zones of decay are represented by correspondingly extensive 'cool zones' on thermal images. This relationship has not been investigated precisely, but it has been broadly verified by 300 general comparisons... Nothing is yet known about the relationships between thermal images and the different kinds and stages of decay (Catena 2003)."

 

You can find the relevant explanation in my publications starting from at least 1990 (e.g., papers, n°1, Eur. J. For. Path. – pag. 204, last paragraph, on my website). And it is exactly my experience and honesty as researcher that led me to write “(the) relationship has not been investigated precisely”, because I’m no physiopathologist and have not carried out research on tree tissue, nor have I learnt of others doing this starting from thermographic images. As an expert Thermographer, I can say that the phenomenon is due to the different thermal conductivity of healthy and decayed areas, as this has been proven in all the cases I know of in which thermography has been applied for years - just ask the British experts of (NDT). As far as “Nothing is yet known...” is concerned: even invasive tools do not seem to provide results in this sense, but at least TTH reveals decay also in case of Kretschmaria (=Ustulina) deusta (Arb. Journ. 2008, pag. 261), which invasive tools do not seem to detect.

 

p 261 "...thermal images cannot provide such measurements [extent of decay] precisely.

 

We can today provide a reliable and on-field assessment. I would like to seize the opportunity to state that according to my daughter and I, TTH is an on-field assessment method.

 

Also in certain cases, large cool zones have been found on stem bases that, once the tree was felled, showed only small volumes of decay above ground level."

 

The explanation can be found in the sentence that follows the one quoted “However further investigation revealed that the decay was more extensive below ground-level”. TTH detects decay in the root system, also when it has only slightly or has not affected the lower parts of the trunk, but has altered the thermal conductivity of tissue up to this area. If the various publications on the site are looked at, various situations found after felling trees examined with TTH can be found. In Ag Ricerca 2002 (Site URL /papers/12.pdf also in English), Fig. 12 shows a 10-cm high stump of a Celtis australis with visible, but not significant decay, and Fig. 7 shows a 40-cm high stump with Ganoderma on the trunk, that shows the wide area damaged by the mushroom. In the poster presented in Maastricht (Site URL /papers/16.pdf), on the top left, “A damaged Celtis australis”, a stump is show, in which small sized decay is visible at 50 cm from the ground, even if the area that TTH showed was damaged moved upward along the trunk (TI called A). I have an unpublished photo of a c. australis along the same line of trees, in which the 50-cm high stump has sound and apparently healthy, though decoloured tissue: in all these trees, the dendrodensimeter (whose measurements are all shown), wanted by the firm that had commissioned the research to my daughter (I only acted as assistant), had shown the presence of extensive decay/cavity at the root/underground level, which was at times revealed by digging around the tree.

 

p268 "the technique does not automatically distinguish between different kinds of alteration... ...with current knowledge, thermal images do not precisely measure the dimensions of features such as cavities."

 

“The technique…” I think I have already answered this point.

“…with current knowledge” first of all I have to say that after “as cavities” there is no period, but a comma and the sentence if quoted like this has a different meaning than that intended by the authors; if you read it as a whole, we believe it has a logical sense: “Although, with current knowledge, thermal images do not precisely measure the dimensions of features such as cavities, they provide enough information to help decide whether there is a need for remedial action or a more detailed kind of assessment.” The authors, back in 2005 wanted to say that even if it is not possible to precisely measure the size of a cavity, it is possible to decide whether to carry out a further, in-depth investigation or take action.Open http://www.treethermography.it/papers/16.pdf , you can find 5 images from A to E, relative to “A damaged lime tree" at the far right there: is there any difference between an empty cavity and a cavity filled with cellulose, produced as a consequence of the destruction of lignin caused by Ganoderma sp., in terms of tissue integrity, and therefore, structural capability? And how is it possible to "precisely" measure the cavity in image C, the one with an Arborist with a saw? And how would it be possible to measure a cavity that is not coaxial to the trunk or more or less cylindrical, such as those produced, for instance, by Ganoderma sp., but with pockets of decayed tissue alternate to or mixed with healthy tissue?

 

I do not want or have to convince anyone, I only want to state something: no one can say/prove that my daughter and/or I have felled healthy trees or left trees that shortly after collapsed standing, and this, I believe, bears witness to the effectiveness of the method. My current research also entails re-assessing plants that I assessed in the past, even 20 years ago.

May we now ask all interested Arboriculturists and tree Experts?

My name is Giorgio Catena and my job/research activity is to assess trees with Treethermography® (TTH), a method that is based on the thermography and sees the cooperation of Dr. Alessandra Catena (see relative CVs on the website). If anyone has criticism or complaints on my or my daughter's work or concerning our publications, please do not hesitate to state it, but, please do not associate us to other people we do not know the professional activity of (as we live in Italy). If anyone finds clamour or hypes in our behaviour (both in terms of aggressive advertisement and exaggeration), please, refer to us immediately, without thinking that we have something in common with others.

 

 

Now, to go back to Tony's post, let me stress that in the UKTC Forum at *** SPAM ***Re: Thermal Imaging, in the thread dated Jan 02 2010 15:52:32 sent by MBT, he says the following, among other things, and I quote (second paragraph) ”The system we use isn’t thermography although we use a thermal imaging camera thermography is somewhat different”. As far as AC is concerned, I received a few articles from him (because I couldn’t download them from his website) and three TIs relative to trees: from these materials, I couldn’t figure what he does (probably, my fault), how and who he learnt the technique from (I believe that very qualified Thermography/thermal imaging centres can be found in the UK).

 

The clamour Tony and others talk about may be due to the fact that someone has probably badly advertised their thermographic activities or activities in whatever they do?

 

What I can do is go to the UK and deliver another presentation on TTH; moreover, I am also willing to conduct a controlled analysis concerning how Treethermography works on trees chosen by an independent Group, that should, however, carry out all the necessary operations to verify the results obtained. Alternatively, we can offer the documentation relative to over 60 Celtis australis, for which we have photos, thermograms and measurements (three for each tree) taken with Resistograph directly by the firm that had assigned the job to us (Via Marzabotto – Bologna, Italy), as described in Agr. Ricerca 2002, my site, papers/12.pdf, already quoted above).

 

Everyone can find an e-mail address on my website, that can be used to ask for more information on the method and the images posted on the site, express their doubts and, why not, criticism: I only ask you, before you write me, to read the website, we shall then have a common basis to start from. I'll try and answer ASAP.

 

Thank you!!!

Giorgio e Alessandra Catena

[TTHman]

I want to add that my original post was too long for ARBTALK rules and I had to shorten it twice (30% less in total): because of this my answers could appear not exhaustive.

[Steve Bullman]

I want to add that my original post was too long for ARBTALK rules and I had to shorten it twice (30% less in total): because of this my answers could appear not exhaustive.

 

 

wasnt aware there was a limit!!!! i'll have to rectify that:001_smile:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Sometimes you just have to go with your gut, i am no scientist, and certainly dont read research papers or rather understand them fully, but I never needed to, i know that TI is a hot topic and is going to be around for a long, long time.

 

Wether cost will keep it from progressing as fast as it could is something we will only know in time.

 

one things is certain, if there isnt enough information and confirmation in this thread to convince you, your never going to be convinced of its practical or benificial use in our market.

 

I cant get all technical like you esteemed and learned folks, least not yet, but I will say this, if I had 13k I would buy one tommorow over anything else.

[Stephen Blair]

i looked at a thermal camera at an energy show, the guy was promoting it for showing where your house looses heat, so you knew what would be the best way to insulate it, it was really cool, my mate got a slagging and his face came up bright red ha ha, his camera was 25k though. Landlords are now going to have to show what grade their insulation is to their tennants as this will reflect on the rent that you can ask for. It could be a nice sideline Tony if you bought one.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

i looked at a thermal camera at an energy show, the guy was promoting it for showing where your house looses heat, so you knew what would be the best way to insulate it, it was really cool, my mate got a slagging and his face came up bright red ha ha, his camera was 25k though. Landlords are now going to have to show what grade their insulation is to their tennants as this will reflect on the rent that you can ask for. It could be a nice sideline Tony if you bought one.

 

Thanks SWB, that was some good info, and well worth looking into, that must be a huge potential market to bolster the confidance.

 

mmmmm tinking, the cogs are a whirring! it hurts too! lol:laugh1:

[Stephen Blair]

now when selling a house the owner has to show a house report rather than the buyer get a survey, insulation is a big thing when buying or renting a property. a £350 a month rural cottage that relies on logs for heating could cost the tennant a further £200 easily and still be cold, compared to a £400 x council house that has had a full make over that runs on £40 a month gas and electric.

 

I have rented the first and i own the latter so i know the massive diference in upkeep.

[Amelanchier]

Giorgio,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post. I understand and concede the points you have raised with regard to my use of your 2008 paper. My intention was not to critique your research or the utility of thermography.

 

Indeed I consider that the science is sound and there is a great deal of value to its application.

 

However, it would seem that the historic claims for the method (in the UK) are only recently being substantiated with the relevant research. Or that the research was 'out there' and that the sceptical should 'go and find it'. That was the focus of my criticism. I don't consider it relates to you or your work - more the industry press and marketing mentality.

 

Perhaps you might attach your full length response as a separate document? That way, your original response could be viewed in full.