Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/30/2008
Posts: 0
Location: UK
|
We are trying to understand the relationship between the visual identification of the leak, with that found, when using the standard fugitive emission detectors, (those that provide a ppm reading).
From our experience, the cameras are useful, allowing quick identification of potential leaks; however the variation of results when compared with standard ppm results is wide with no discernable correlation. Requiring us to test using conventionally methods, so as to identify the “larger” leakers and make best use of tight maintenance budgets.
Does anybody else have experience with this issue?
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/17/2009
Posts: 0
Location: france
|
We experienced in many sites the IR camera.
We compared it to sniffing method (EPA 21 EN 15446) and observed that a huge number of big leakers was not found by the camera.
So we think that for many reasons the technology is not finalised for the moment (problems of : contrast tuning, aromatics detection, wind...no methodology (speed of screening, distance from the equipment, thermical scene ...) and we do not recommend to use it as it is not intrinsically safe at all, what happens if you meet a cloud of explosive atmosphere ? you will not have time to hear your explosimeter …
|
