Sorry for the video quality, the mpeg compression killed the clarity and added that annoying clicking sound. Sorry for the short video, we both were pressed for time.

Some thoughts...

The Fluke imager uses cores based on Honeywell technology and they seem to visually outperform a FLIR offering of the same resolution. With FLIR's you can still see some blockiness to outlines, but the Fluke was sharp and crisply defined. The Fluke wins on image quality (not that you can tell from this crappy video), but the FLIR's are more flexible (mpeg video out over usb). The Fluke is built like a tank, I believe you could use it for a blunt weapon, lol...Some Fluke vs. Flir comparisons that I am crunching on:

Image quality vs. video out, ruggedness and better warranty vs. tripod mount and battery life.

I never want to have to buy another one of these things again...lol.

Andy

Pure water at sea level (30 in Hg) will boil at 212° F (100° C), change the barometric pressure or the contaminants in the water and the temperature will change. Pure water will boil at 85° C at about 4000 m. The container and the amount of water also affects when the water will boil. In a clean smooth glass container water will boil at above 100° C - superheating. In the video a tea kettle is used and probably has some mineral deposits.

Measuring the temperature of water with infrared is tricky, often you are measuring the temperature of the bottom of the container and not the water. And as you implied setup and calibration could be the offender.

Also incorrect emissivity value selection can throw temp readings off as well. Just rewatched the video and the emissivity value is hidden via menu selection, so hard to tell. Also the calibration cycle of these units is every 2 years and costs 1.1k. At that point it becomes more of a qualitative then quantitative device. Still useful though...

Andy

Some things I noticed on the video.....

The steam is not visible coming out of the tea pot --- supporting the 'it can't read hot/cold air pockets' statements.......

The temp reading maxed at 85C, but water boils at 100C ---- calibration or set up error?

Pure water at sea level (30 in Hg) will boil at 212° F (100° C), change the barometric pressure or the contaminants in the water and the temperature will change. Pure water will boil at 85° C at about 4000 m. The container and the amount of water also affects when the water will boil. In a clean smooth glass container water will boil at above 100° C - superheating. In the video a tea kettle is used and probably has some mineral deposits.

Measuring the temperature of water with infrared is tricky, often you are measuring the temperature of the bottom of the container and not the water. And as you implied setup and calibration could be the offender.

The steam is not visible coming out of the tea pot --- supporting the 'it can't read hot/cold air pockets' statements.......

The temp reading maxed at 85C, but water boils at 100C ---- calibration or set up error?

The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will be invisible with sufficient mass or density.

Oops, typo, my bad..

Should have read "The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will not be visible without sufficient mass or density."

To register, a target must either be emitting or reflecting. I dont know specific density for open air mass reading, but I would bet that the density would be sufficient for whatever it is to be visible in regular light. Only exception to this would be a shorter wavelength imager like the GasFindIR series. I am not sure of the specifics of that technology but they can detect gas leaks and such.

I don't see how it would be possible for an imager to detect open air anomalies. I do believe that you will be able to detect the tertiary temp. changes on items that are in direct contact with thermal anomalies. In the same way that you will see your warm butt print in a chair you have been sitting in for awhile, the opposite should be true.

Given the confusion the statement I have made here and others have made elsewhere about "only working with solid surfaces" I should amend that statement. It is a rule of thumb, but there are obvious exceptions such as fire, the sun, stars (some people report actually seeing stars on TIC's, but I cannot imagine it on anything but the highest resolution imagers), liquids, or anything in any state that is a strong enough longwave IR emitter. The statement is generally made to show folks that it is impossible to "see" roving open-air cold spots with this technology. That 10 degree temperature drop "bubble" that you feel moving down the hallway will remain, unfortunately, invisible.

Andy

EDIT: I found this cool little vid showing coffee being made. This is from the same series imager I am getting shortly, the FLIR infracam/BCAM SD series. Pretty neat little vid...

I never see stuff others do either, usually something either jumps out at me or I never can see it.

I just checked out the thread in question over at Syfy. I don't have an account with them to post, but I had to crack up at the "why are flames visible" post. Fire is a pretty efficient emitter of infrared radiation, lol. Heated water is visible but also is not a solid. The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will be invisible with sufficient mass or density.

The use of thermal imagers on GH is laughable, as they have no idea of function and theory. Even more laughable is Steve and Tango professing to be experts on GHA when it comes to thermal imaging. It is a mystery to me why they always insist on using the rainbow or more often the rainbow high-contrast palettes when using their imager. Those are diagnostic palettes meant to accentuate subtle temp differences in everything from moisture intrusion of structures to equine thermography. Not a suitable palette for any area larger than a few feet. Best is monochrome or ironbow, makes for a lot more natural looking scene and a lot easier to interpret what you are looking at. Just my opinion though...

I still maintain that if a spirit has the ability to affect temperature such as when we feel drastic temperature shifts on our skin, that should be visible to longwave IR. Tertiary changes measured on other objects are just as good to me as being able to see the anomaly itself. That is why I have a whole battery of tactile experiments planned when I get my imager. Which should be in the next 3 weeks (Gawd this waiting is KILLING me).

Andy

HUH? Invisible or visible? I'm a little confused by what you said there. How much mass and density? Because honestly, I have used TIC's in very heavy fire and smoke conditions, when the smoke itself was hot enough to burn (Like prior to a flashover), and I could still see through it. Is it something that seems more noticable with different models, or types?

I never see stuff others do either, usually something either jumps out at me or I never can see it.

and here I thought it was just me /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

It is a mystery to me why they always insist on using the rainbow or more often the rainbow high-contrast palettes when using their imager.

my guess would be two reasons...one, it's prettier on tv /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> and two, more importantly because

it IS difficult to make things out they can claim non paranormal things are paranormal /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

i've looked at it again after reading your description, and i still dont see a person.

i see the darker spots that appear to move, but with the movement of the camera

it's hard to really tell. i didnt see anything that looked like someone dragging a hand

along the railing.

that being said, i almost never see what people claim to see in pics/videos haha

I never see stuff others do either, usually something either jumps out at me or I never can see it.

I just checked out the thread in question over at Syfy. I don't have an account with them to post, but I had to crack up at the "why are flames visible" post. Fire is a pretty efficient emitter of infrared radiation, lol. Heated water is visible but also is not a solid. The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will not be isible without sufficient mass or density.

The use of thermal imagers on GH is laughable, as they have no idea of function and theory. Even more laughable is Steve and Tango professing to be experts on GHA when it comes to thermal imaging. It is a mystery to me why they always insist on using the rainbow or more often the rainbow high-contrast palettes when using their imager. Those are diagnostic palettes meant to accentuate subtle temp differences in everything from moisture intrusion of structures to equine thermography. Not a suitable palette for any area larger than a few feet. Best is monochrome or ironbow, makes for a lot more natural looking scene and a lot easier to interpret what you are looking at. Just my opinion though...

I still maintain that if a spirit has the ability to affect temperature such as when we feel drastic temperature shifts on our skin, that should be visible to longwave IR. Tertiary changes measured on other objects are just as good to me as being able to see the anomaly itself. That is why I have a whole battery of tactile experiments planned when I get my imager. Which should be in the next 3 weeks (Gawd this waiting is KILLING me).

Andy

Edit, fixed critical typo, lol...

to me it looks like a person walking along the catwalk dragging their hand along the railing. At a certain point the camera dips and all you can see are the "legs" moving. Might just be stellar matrixing, lol...

Andy

i've looked at it again after reading your description, and i still dont see a person.

i see the darker spots that appear to move, but with the movement of the camera

it's hard to really tell. i didnt see anything that looked like someone dragging a hand

along the railing.

that being said, i almost never see what people claim to see in pics/videos haha

I watched the slower one, and honestly I dont really see anything still.

I can see what you're refering to, but it doesnt look human shaped to

me, it doesnt really have any descernable shape to me at least.

to me it looks like a person walking along the catwalk dragging their hand along the railing. At a certain point the camera dips and all you can see are the "legs" moving. Might just be stellar matrixing, lol...

Andy

They have another video that is 50% speed, but right now my comp. isn't cooperating with me...

http://argparanormal.com/evide.....e_tip.html

might have to right click/download to see it...

Andy

I watched the slower one, and honestly I dont really see anything still.

I can see what you're refering to, but it doesnt look human shaped to

me, it doesnt really have any descernable shape to me at least.

Andy

Here is the problem.... the delta T (temperature difference between two targets usually of comparable targets under comparable conditions) between a person and the metal catwalk rails should be enough that the person "pops" as a very bright target. Themographers recommend a ∆T value of +/-15 degrees to have good thermal definition from ambient. Only explanation is that the person would have to be within roughly +/-5 degrees of that surrounding environment to be rendered that "invisible" or cool. The measured scale indicates a top temp. of 72 degrees during the event. Even if emissivity value wasn't correct, I don't see how it would make that big of a visual difference (I don't know yet, that is why I can't wait to get mine). Also bear in mind this is a FLIR BX-320 that they are using, and it has the highest resolution array commonly available to the building inspection line. There is a lot less chance of temperature averaging due to distance on this imager (lower resolution imagers can average as distances increase).

Here is the only logical, non-paranormal explanation that I can think of to describe that anomaly. The figure is a temperature-acclimated mannequin or dummy. It would be consistent with it's measured temp value and the ∆T value of it's surrounding environment. Or it's a ghost, lol...

This is yet another instance where knowledge of technology and practice can vary, and why we need standards and protocols for thermography in the field. I hope to achieve that. At least with everyone on the same page we can see what is environmental, explainable, or anomalous.

Andy