<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Green Building Forum - Thermal image nightmares?</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 01:51:31 +0100</lastBuildDate>
			<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3</generator>
			<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14773#Comment_14773</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14773#Comment_14773</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Check out the thermal image pictures of new houses in this article<br /><br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/18/eahomes118.xml" target="_self" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/18/eahomes118.xml</a><br /><br />Nightmares --  and all in new so called energy efficient construction.  --]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14779#Comment_14779</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14779#Comment_14779</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Mike George</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[This snippit made me chuckle <br /><br />"the reasons for this are "deeply embedded in the culture, processes and practice at all levels of the house building industry."<br /><br />I think the author needs to read our party line.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14781#Comment_14781</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14781#Comment_14781</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Saint</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Shouldn't the roof be showing a marked difference in colour i.e temperature to the walls?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14785#Comment_14785</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14785#Comment_14785</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:50:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Probably yes but then it is new house remember]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14796#Comment_14796</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14796#Comment_14796</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Chris Wardle</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[The builders don't deserve to be allowed to continue to develop these sites with this kind of performance.  We are saddled with hundreds of thousands of these boxes that will be a nightmare to improve and they are still building them.  Maybe the climate change people should be picketing building sites not airports?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14902#Comment_14902</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14902#Comment_14902</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>chuckey</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Thermal imaging iis very sensitive to the emisitivity (Sp.?) of the surface its looking at. If you look at the top of the gable end, the pattern in the brickwork is directly shown in the IR pic as a difference in surface temperature, which clearly its not!<br />    I used this kit to find out some overheating part in a 10' X 10' array of aluminium piping. It was totaly useless as the cast ali fitting all showed up as overheating due to their better emisitivity as they were matt silver as opposed to the pipe work that was polished. Its a start though. One way would be to spray the whole building with a matt black paint to give all surfaces a standard emisisivity.<br />          Frank]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14934#Comment_14934</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14934#Comment_14934</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Saint</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Sorry to be pedantic but I've zoomed in on that photo. Are we absolutely sure that house is occupied??<br />If it is occupied shouldn't the roof be showing green if the insulation is working well?<br />The major white "hotspot" appears to be the felt roof over a bay window which could have picked up some heat from solar gain although I'm guessing this picture was taken either side of midday on an occluded reasonably cool day. Certainly the ground temperature seems to be in the region of 5C<br />In fact what is this picture supposed to be telling us?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14945#Comment_14945</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14945#Comment_14945</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[What about the one with the railings then? <br /><br />I assume that the houses were heated and then the pictures taken<br /><br />The one with the bay roof could also be no insulation in the roofy bit?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14953#Comment_14953</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14953#Comment_14953</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Saint</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Hi Tony, I would guess that's some sort of high emissivity membrane or flashing same as the situation on the top of the bay window.  If what you suggest was the scenario, that still begs the question why is the roof showing such an apparently high heat loss when it should be insulated at ceiling level with 300mm (or thereabouts) mineral wool, or its "equivalent"?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14954#Comment_14954</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14954#Comment_14954</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[because it isnt!]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14957#Comment_14957</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14957#Comment_14957</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Mike George</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[It is very difficult to diagnose what is happpening here from the photographs alone. It would be very interesting to have access to the full report, which the Telegraph says was published last Wednesday. Even more interesting to have a look at the building close up.<br /><br />That said here's my thoughts. All total conjecture of course<br /><br />The red area at the front of the building is adjacent to several windows. While the cills are clearly the greatest thermal bridge, there is probably some bridging where the cavity is closed at reveals, although DPC with insulation stuck to it may have been used. Anyway, anyone who has ever laid a brick will tell you that it is these areas of the construction which are most difficult to insulate properly, especially with partial -fill. Also high potential for increased infiltration losses in these areas. <br /><br />Re insulation at ceiling level- do we even know if there is a flat ceiling?  The height of the windows in relation to the eaves indicates that ceilings are at least partially vaulted]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14958#Comment_14958</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14958#Comment_14958</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>DoctorJez</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[The thermal images were ripped by the Telegragh journalist (without permission) from a Stamford Brook PII project interim report available at <a href="http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/stamford/pdfs/del7coheating.pdf" target="_self" rel="nofollow">http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/stamford/pdfs/del7coheating.pdf</a><br />This report discusses the results of a series of coheating tests that investigated heat losses via uninsulated party walls.. The thermal images were indeed taken during on overcast and cold day - with high delta-T due to the elevated internal temperatures.<br />The executive summary of the final report (draft) is also available from the Stamford Brook project web page at<br /><a href="http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/stamford/pdfs/del8execsum.pdf" target="_self" rel="nofollow">http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/as/cebe/projects/stamford/pdfs/del8execsum.pdf</a><br />The interetation of thermal images is very difficult and can be influenced by a range of factors some of which are mentioned in the comments above.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Thermal image nightmares?</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14964#Comment_14964</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1281&amp;Focus=14964#Comment_14964</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Mike George</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Thank you Dr Jez. We should of course know better than to comment on quotations and ripped images, which often do not give the complete picture. No pun intended]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>