Guess the Real World Emittance

Joe DeMonte
TEGG Corporation

ABSTRACT
Real world infrared needs real world emissivities. What is the emissivity of a certain manufacturer's
disconnect? How about an aluminum connection on the load or line side of a molded case breaker? High
voltage bolted connection? Different stages of corrosion on copper? This paper will create an emissivity table
for real world applications and use advantages like cavity effect and corroded locations along with a visual
picture embedded in the chart to help thermographers. Common emissivity tables are usually depicting
materials that are relatively simple in geometry and are therefore not applicable to the thermographer in the
field who deals with many shapes and surface textures.

INTRODUCTION
Thermal infrared devices and infrared temperature measurements have become more common in recent
years. The use of “laser” pyrometers (spot radiometers) and infrared cameras have spread across the globe
and can be purchased relatively cheaply compared to just 10 years ago. Medical facilities use IR
thermometers for patients, restaurants measure food temperature with spot radiometers, home inspectors use
IR cameras to search for deficiencies in insulation, and industrial sites keep a watchful eye on mechanical
and electrical components with IR cameras. Most common calibrations from manufacturers cite accuracies
as good as +/- 2⁰C or +/- 2% of reading for IR cameras.

However, with experience and proper training, the end user of the radiometer quickly finds that he or she can
suffer a larger temperature error than that quoted in the manufacturer specifications as a result of many
factors. One of the most important factors to consider when it comes to temperature accuracy using
radiometers is, of course, the emissivity setting. When set correctly, the user can sometimes find a very good
quantitative value. When set incorrectly, the errors can be much larger than allowable for the specific
application.

Many other factors will need to be considered such as; reflected apparent temperature, focus, MFOV
(measurement field of view), the camera or spot radiometer’s dynamic range, etc. Instead of covering every
variable, this paper will direct a bulk of its attention to the understanding of real world emittance. What value
of emissivity should a person use when you encounter a surface that is unknown? Do the traditional values
printed in text books work? What if we use the manufacturer supplied values included in some camera
menus?

The definition of emissivity is the ratio of radiant energy from an object with a flat, optically polished surface,
thick enough to be opaque at a given temperature and wavelength to that of a blackbody surface at the same
temperature and wavelength. The definition of emittance is the ratio of radiant energy from an object at a
given temperature and wavelength to that of a blackbody at the same temperature and wavelength. Note the
special case required for emissivity and the general case for emittance. Throughout the infrared community
these terms are typically used interchangeably. In actuality, emissivity is a special case and emittance refers
to real world targets with all their holes and blemishes.

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE

In order to give us all a better understanding of how improbable it is to “guess” the emissivity of a metal target
by just using our eyes, Table 1 lists pictures of all test specimens up front. Also, it includes a few emissivity
values found in table included in Holst1 and values found in my FLIR P65 camera menu (when included).

During the study and throughout this paper, I will compare my actual results to those found in the emissivity
tables and show if there would have been any errors using supplied emissivity values from the tables.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 Picture Description and Item # Emissivity Table FLIR Camera Table

Copper, Heavy
Item #1: Very corroded and
Oxidation: 0.78 @ Copper, oxidized:
green looking copper
25⁰C for MWIR and 0.78 for LWIR
electrical clamp
LWIR

Copper, light
Item #2: slightly corroded
oxidation: 0.65 for None Listed
copper connection
LWIR

Aluminum, lightly
Item #3: clean looking oxidized: 0.1 – 0.2
None Listed
aluminum bolt @25-600⁰C for
MWIR and LWIR

Copper, light
Item #4: Shiny but rough
oxidation: 0.65 for None Listed
appearing copper clamp
LWIR

Item #5: Very clean, but Aluminum, disk,

grooved, aluminum high roughened: 0.18 @ Disk, rough: 0.96
voltage connection 26⁰C for 10µm

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 Aluminum, lightly
Item #6: Very clean, slightly
oxidized: 0.1 – 0.2
oxidized, smooth aluminum None Listed
@25-600⁰C for
connection
MWIR and LWIR

Copper, light
Item #7: Lightly oxidized,
oxidation: 0.65 for None Listed
smooth copper disconnect
LWIR

Plastic, black: 0.95

Item #8: Black plastic
for 2-5.6µm (none None Listed
molded case breaker
listed for LWIR)

Item #9: Very clean, Aluminum, polished:

Aluminum, Foil
smooth, and polished 0.09 @ 100⁰C for 8-
(bright): 0.04
aluminum bolt 14µm

Table 1. Photos of test samples with description and referenced emissivity values where available.

THE TEST METHOD

For this study, I decided to use a very common and effective LWIR camera and a simple solution to heat up a
variety of targets. One important consideration is the choice of heating methods. I went with hot plates,
conventional ovens, and a convection toaster oven since I was using a surface modifying material (3M Scotch
Super 88 electrical tape; ε = 0.95 for LWIR) instead of a contact temperature device to measure actual
surface temperatures. Since the tape I am using is a selective radiator, other means of heating my target
such as a radiant lamp, could potentially heat the black tape differently than my target. This would completely
invalidate my findings since the surface modifying material MUST be at the same temperature as the
unknown emissivity surface. The procedure used to measure the surface emittance can be found in ASTM E
1933 – 99a2 or many of the infrared training vendor’s level 1 or 2 course manuals. In order to control and
more easily find the reflected apparent temperature, I used a variety of cardboard shields.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

The camera: FLIR P65

The heating method: hot plate, convection toaster oven and conventional oven.

The targets: many real world electrical components taken from the field after years of service.

The procedure: I won’t detail the procedure exactly since it can be obtained from a training vendor manual or
the ASTM website, but one thing needs to be detailed so that the heating part of the procedure is understood
as necessary. Although cooling the target can also work, condensation on the target and a great deal less
radiant energy from the target make this option the lesser of the two. Why not room temperature? We can
see in figure1 the infrared camera cannot discern any emittance differences between the electric tape, silver
tape, and the copper target because the total Emitted and Reflected power combined from each surface is
equivalent. Remember that all infrared devices receive infrared radiation from at least two sources if the
target is opaque:

M = εσTt4 + ρσTb4
Where:
M is the radiant Power
ε is emissivity
σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
ρ is the reflectivity
Tt is the absolute temperature of the target
Tb is the absolute temperature of the background
From reference 3.

When two targets are at the same temperature, yet both have different emissivity values, and the reflection
source is at the same temperature as the targets, the radiant power from the two different emissive targets
will be the same. Both targets will give off identical radiant energy and thus conceal the truth that the higher
emissivity target will radiate more energy at the same temperature (T).

Example #1:

Target 1 has an emittance of 0.95 and is at 25⁰C. Target two has an emittance of 0.15 and is also at
25⁰C. The surrounding objects are at 25⁰C.

Using the above equation for both:

MTarget 1 = 0.95(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4 + 0.05(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4

MTarget 1 = 425Wm-2 + 22Wm-2
MTarget 1 = 447Wm-2
MTarget 2 = 0.15(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4 + 0.85(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4
MTarget 2 = 67Wm-2 + 380Wm-2
MTarget 2 = 447Wm-2

Target 1 emits 425Wm-2 while Target 2 emits 67Wm-2 when both are 25⁰C. However, when you
include the background reflected energy from a source that is also 25⁰C, the camera receives an
equal 447Wm-2 from both surfaces.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

Figure 1. Several different material targets without heating showing equal radiance.

Now, if the target is heated, the infrared device will be able to confirm if areas of different emittance exist.
See the images in Figure 2 and the following example for confirmation.

Example #2:
Target #1 has an emittance of 0.95 and is at a temperature of 85⁰C. Target #2 has an emittance of
0.15 and is also at 85⁰C. The reflected apparent temperature is at 25⁰C.

MTarget 1 = 0.95(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(358K)4 + 0.05(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4

MTarget 1 = 885Wm-2 + 22Wm-2
MTarget 1 = 907Wm-2
MTarget 2 = 0.15(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(358K)4 + 0.85(5.67X10-8Wm-2K-4)(298K)4
MTarget 2 = 140Wm-2 + 380Wm-2
MTarget 2 = 520Wm-2

The camera will now receive more radiation from Target 1 than from Target 2. This includes any reflected
radiant power and having both targets at the same temperature. The camera will see a difference and we can
equate that difference to emittance or emissivity changes. As stated earlier and as stated in the ASTM
standard for measuring a target’s emissivity, your target must be at a different temperature than the
surroundings.

Figure 2. Several different material targets heated

to a temperature above the surroundings

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

ASTM E 1933 – 99a recommends at least a 10⁰C difference. Madding4 gives error budget analysis for
various parameter values when measuring emissivity. His paper shows for emissivities above 0.3 a 20⁰C ΔT
is adequate. What other considerations should be taken into account? As stated by Cronholm5, several
things can affect the target’s ability to emit radiation to the infrared device. He lists the following:
1. Material
2. Surface structure
3. Geometry of the target
4. Viewing angle
5. Wavelength of the camera
6. Temperature of the target

Because temperature of the target can sometimes change the emittance of the surface you are viewing, it is
highly recommended that if you decide to measure a targets emittance, you should always attempt the test at
or around the normal operating temperatures. This means that a 10⁰ or 20⁰C rise above background
reflection may not be enough. To cite an example, Figure 3 is from an exhaust coating study6 that I
developed for the 2004 Inframation conference:

182.2 °C

150

100
Sp1:temp 89.9

50

28.0

Figure 3. Hot headers from Joe’s race engine

In Figure 3, the uncorrected spot temperature shows 89.9⁰C. Actual temperatures were measured by an
Omegaette HH306 Data Logger Thermometer and an 88000 series high temperature type K probe. The
contact temperature turned out to be 267⁰C. Testing the emittance of this surface, we found it to have a value
of 0.18 to 0.26 and these values were correct when the engine was running and the header temperatures
were swinging from 210⁰C to 288⁰C. The results may have been quite different if the test had been
performed at only a 10⁰C rise above the surrounding reflected apparent temperatures as recommended in
most emissivity test procedures.

REAL WORLD TEST

The following electrical components have all seen extensive field use. They are weathered, some are
corroded, and there is some dust and dirt here and there. In other words, these pieces are not brand new.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

Item #1: Weathered and corroded copper 250-500MCM cable clamp

Figure 4. Weathered copper clamp

It is clear to see that the tape and the corroded/greenish copper blend together when heated above the
surrounding temps. This would indicate that since the tape in use has a gray body emissivity of 0.95 to the
LWIR camera in use, the copper has a similar 0.95 gray body emissivity for the same camera. \

Actual value: 0.95, temp: 77.4⁰C Table value: 0.78, temp: 85.5⁰C Error: + 8.1⁰C (+6.1 to 10.1 for
added camera accuracy)

Item #2: Clean but used indoor copper clamp

61.3 °C
60

Sp1:temp 58.0

Sp2:temp 58.1

40

27.9

Figure 5. Clean looking but dull copper clamp

The side of the clamp, where geometry4 has no real effect on emittance, still has a modest emissivity of 0.73.
Not the worst of conditions when performing infrared temperature measurement, but errors will be present if
the camera/software emissivity setting is left at 0.95 or some other constant high value. Fortunately, the
emittance will be higher when viewed from the front and in-between the bolted area. Although the test would
be more accurate with the cable clamped in place, my results will at least show that emissivity will be even
better when viewed normally from the front as shown in Figure 6.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 53.6 °C

Sp1:temp 52.2 50

Sp2:temp 48.8

40

35.4

Figure 6. Another look at the 0.73 emissivity copper with geometry/cavity effect helping
to increase the overall emittance. The actual temperature was 52⁰C as this clamp was
heated a 2nd time for this test. A high 0.9 value will do just fine from the front.
Side value: 0.73, temp: 58⁰C Table value: 0.65, temp: 62.8⁰C Error: + 4.8⁰C (+2.8 to 6.8)
Cavity value: 0.98, temp 52.2⁰C Table value: 0.65, temp: 62.8⁰C Error: +10.6⁰C(+8.6 to +12.6)

Item #3: 250V, 30A fuse holder that looks new

226.4 °C

200

Sp1:temp 105.5

Sp2:temp 105.0 100

24.9

Figure 7. Almost new looking, but used fuse clip holder.

Looking at this small fuse clip holder in Figure 7, we finally have a bit of a problematic and lower emissivity on
the aluminum bolt. It took an emissivity value of 0.31 to match the tape’s 105.5 ⁰C reading, so repeated
accuracy should not be expected without some help. The insulated cables that connect to the aluminum bolt
provide that help and makes it easy to identify the severity of any issue. 0.95 would therefore be a good
value when using the insulation to measure temperatures with the understanding that if there is a problem at
the bolt, temperatures will be a touch lower on the insulation as the heat conducts away from the source to
the insulated cable. 0.95 could not be used with any confidence on the bolt.

Actual value: 0.31, temp: 105⁰C Table value: .1 - .2, temp: Error: + 103.6⁰C (+101.6 to 105.6)
208.6⁰C to 136.4⁰C to +31.4⁰C (+29.4 to 33.4)

For the clip side, we will have a fuse and fuse body. The fuse body will almost always be a good emitter as
shown in Figure 8. Stay away from the copper fuse end cap and you will be accurate in measurement.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 65.8 °C

60

50

40
39.2

Figure 8. Small 3 amp fuse: The tape has completely blended in.

Item #4: Clean looking copper clamp

88.8 °C

80
Sp1:temp 80.1

Sp2:temp 80.3
60

44.5

Figure 9. Clean copper clamp with low corrosion.

Figure 9 looked to me like a fairly low emittance target at first. You can see the darker areas at the side of the
“shiny” bolts, and those would be problematic. However, the body itself had a rough finish to it which gave
this piece a 0.60 emissivity at Spot 2. Surprisingly high in my opinion. We could expect an insulated cable to
help us out here, so this is not an impossible measurement at the insulation.

Actual value: 0.60, temp: 80.3⁰C Table value: 0.65, temp: 79.1⁰C Error: - 1.2⁰C (-3.2 to +1.2)

Item #5: Low corrosion high voltage aluminum four bolt connection.

73.5 °C

Sp3:temp 81.2
60
Sp2:temp 81.4

Sp1:temp 81.7 40

30.3

Figure 10. Very clean high voltage aluminum connection

The surface at Spot 3 has a fairly low 0.28 emissivity. The rough area at the Spot 1 location is higher due to
surface condition and has an emittance value of approximately 0.39. Not an easy target at all. Four bolts and
a cable attached will help some by creating a cavity. I did not measure inside the bolt holes since they will not
be available when this connection is put together.

Actual value: 0.28, temp: 81.2⁰C Table value: 0.18, temp: 105.3⁰C Error: + 24.1⁰C (+22.1 to 26.1)

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

Item #6: Clean looking aluminum Allen bolt lug.

75.3 °C
Sp2:temp 75.4

Sp3:temp 75.8 60

Sp1:temp 76.0
40

24.0

Figure 11. Not very good on the surface, but the cavity…

Cavities have their uses, and if the cable that gets bolted to this lug is un-insulated (which it was in this case),
all we can do is go for the MOST accurate spot. The surface emissivity at the highest point shown by Spot 2
(this is not a different reflection) is a low 0.28. Measuring in the cavity of the Allen bolt at Spot 3, I found a
very good 0.69. Most likely, the thermographer will end up with a lower value than 0.69 if the MFOV of the
infrared camera for the 1” opening is violated by standing physically too far away. This is also a safety issue,
and I wouldn’t recommend standing dangerously close just to take advantage of the cavity. You will still find
the best results in the cavities when no high emissivity area is present.

Surface value: 0.28, temp: 75.4⁰C Table value: .1 - .2, temp: Error: +61.2⁰C (+59.2 to 63.2) to
136.6⁰C to 90.8⁰C +15.4 (+13.4 to 17.4)
Cavity value: 0.69, temp: 75.8⁰C Table value: .1 - .2, temp: Error: +163.3⁰C (+161.3 to 165.3)
239.1⁰C to 155.8⁰C to +80⁰C (+78 to 82)

Item #7: Copper disconnect mounted to black soap rock

82.8 °C
90.5 °C
Sp1:temp 83.6

Sp1:temp 76.0
Sp2:temp 83.3 50
Ar1:avg 75.9 50

28.8 32.2

Figure 12. The side of a copper disconnect

The copper is a little corroded, but not to the point of being black. Spot 1 is the tape, Spot 2 needed a 0.38
emissivity to match. Notice the phenolic handle, however. It might make the best target in lieu of everything
else looking more reflective. I also looked into the cavity created by the blade of the disconnect and the clip
and found a fair 0.76 emittance. The clip cavity fared much better than the 0.38 found on the flat bare copper.
I took an average temperature in the clip to more closely resemble a camera’s MFOV difficulty with getting
close enough to measure a very small portion of the clip.

flat value: 0.38, temp: 83.3⁰C Table value: 0.65, temp: 60.6⁰C Error: - 22.7⁰C (-20.7 to -24.7)
Clip value: 0.76, temp: 75.9⁰C Table value: 0.65, temp: 83.3⁰C Error: + 7.4⁰C (+5.4 to 9.4)

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

Item #8: 15amp molded case breaker

87.0 °C
80
Ar1

60

40

26.9

Figure 13. The tape runs vertically and is not visible after heating: Use 0.95 for the
molded case plastic breakers.

Very easy to measure the outside accurately, but this target is far more difficult to place a severity on based
on external temperatures when the failure point is the internal contact. Handle these components with great
care and treat them as an indirect target for internal contact issues.

Actual value: 0.95, temp: 88.9⁰C Table value: 0.95, temp: 88.9⁰C Error: 0⁰C (-2 to 2)

Item #9: A surprising aluminum bolt on an electric line clamp

71.9 °C
70
Sp2:temp 266.7

60
Sp1:temp 72.3

50

46.0

Figure 14. This bolt surprises everybody that has ever looked at it with their eyes.

It takes an emissivity of 0.89 to equal the tape on this apparently reflective aluminum bolt. However, visual
looks are VERY deceiving in this case. I have had the fortune of measuring this bolt with MWIR cameras and
QWIP (8-9µm) cameras. The results? 0.36 with MWIR and 0.68 with the SC3000 QWIP. A very dynamic
selective radiator and a very shockingly high emissivity value for a P65. You just can’t judge a metal with
your own eyes.

Actual value: 0.89, temp: 72.1⁰C Table value: 0.09, temp: 266.7⁰C Error: +194.6⁰C (+192.6 to 196.6)

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

TABLE CORRECTED

Actual Emissivity for

Picture Description and Item # Emissivity Table
FLIR P65

Copper, Heavy
Item #1: Very corroded
Oxidation: 0.78 @
and green looking copper 0.95
25⁰C for MWIR and
electrical clamp
LWIR

Side flat area:

Copper, light 0.73
Item #2: slightly corroded
oxidation: 0.65 for
copper connection Cavity between bolts:
LWIR
0.98

Aluminum Bolt
(without cavity):
Aluminum, lightly
0.31
Item #3: clean looking oxidized: 0.1 – 0.2
aluminum bolt @25-600⁰C for Cable Insulation:
MWIR and LWIR
0.95

Copper, light Without cavity:

Item #4: Shiny but rough
oxidation: 0.65 for
appearing copper clamp 0.6
LWIR

Item #5: Very clean, but Aluminum, disk,

grooved, aluminum high roughened: 0.18 @ 0.28
voltage connection 26⁰C for 10µm

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 Outside on flat
Aluminum, lightly aluminum:
Item #6: Very clean,
oxidized: 0.1 – 0.2 0.28
slightly oxidized, smooth
@25-600⁰C for
aluminum connection Inside Allen bolt hole:
MWIR and LWIR
0.69

Flat copper blade:

Copper, light 0.38
Item #7: Lightly oxidized,
oxidation: 0.65 for
smooth copper disconnect In cavity/clip:
LWIR
0.76

0.95
Plastic, black: 0.95
Item #8: Black plastic (Indirect heating if
for 2-5.6µm (none
molded case breaker internal contact is the
listed for LWIR)
issue)

Item #9: Very clean, Aluminum, polished: 0.89 on the bolt

smooth, and polished 0.09 @ 100⁰C for 8- 0.15 – 0.28 on the
aluminum bolt 14µm surface

Table 2. Photos of test samples with description and referenced emissivity values and measurements made for this work.

SUMMARY
Although it’s not easy to determine the actual emittance or emissivity of a surface without measuring it with
your camera, real world electrical targets have a lot of help based on my experience and the experiments
performed for this paper.

1. Most low voltage and many medium voltage switchgear and components have high emissivity
materials near the connection points. From molded case breakers to cable insulation, an
emissivity of 0.95 should perform well.
2. Higher voltage equipment may not always have the high emissivity surface nearby, but geometry
provides a serious boost to your cause. When MFOV (some use the inverse of MFOV, called the
Spot Size Ratio, SSR) dilutes the effectiveness of a cavity due to small size, newer 640X480
cameras or 2X and 3X optical telescopes for 320X240 cameras will greatly reduce a
thermographer’s temperature error allowing more of the cavity/higher emittance target to be
resolved.
3. Corrosion and dirt are everywhere. Metals corrode over time and increased corrosion rates occur
as the target heats up. When a piece of copper looks fairly green or black, 0.95 will do. When
other types of metal are dusty or dirty, they could be in the mid .90’s as well.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

 4. As Madding showed in his paper, avoid attempts to measure temperatures of low emissivity
targets, even when you know the emissivity. The reflected apparent temperature is so difficult to
know and control, errors can be large.

Different environments help keep corrosion rates low while others increase it rapidly. Across the world, there
are some locations when you can view outdoor switchgear with ease due to the highly corrosive nature of the
environment. Dryer climates may keep aluminum components free from heavy oxidation for years.

You can never tell the approximate emittance of a metal target by looking at it through the .4-.8µm spectrum
(ie: visible light with your eyes). I use one simple test in the field to determine whether I will be dealing with a
low or high emissive target. Since the target is almost always opaque for mechanical and electrical systems,
ε + ρ =1.00. By moving around and changing your angle of view with an infrared camera, a thermographer
can usually tell if the target is highly reflective or not. If it is, measure with care. The best emissivity tables
are created by the end user of the infrared equipment, not by general physics books or websites, or by using
tables created by training organizations and camera manufacturers. The real world has complex geometry
and emittance.

If you decide that you want to stick with one set emissivity value for a particular metal target at your facility,
believing that you can trend data over time, you are mistaken. Review common infrared science and theory
as found in Gerald Holst’s book or an infrared training course manual. Remember that total radiant power as
temperature increases, is an exponential rise as seen in the Stefan-Boltzmann equations. You cannot hope
to measure accurate temperatures, accurate temperature rises between similar components, or trend
accurately over time without inputting the actual target emittance/emissivity into your camera and software.

REFERENCES
1. Holst, Gerald C.; Common Approach to Thermal Imaging; SPIE Press ISBN 0-8194-3722-0
2. ASTM E 1933 – 99a; Standard Test Methods for Measuring and Compensating for Emissivity Using
Infrared Imaging Radiometers, 2005
3. Infrared and Thermal Testing, Volume 3, Third Edition; American Society for Non-Destructive Testing,
ISBN 1-57117-044-8
4. Madding, Robert P.; ”Emissivity measurement and temperature correction accuracy considerations”;
Proc. Thermosense XXI; Vol. 3700; SPIE; 1999
5. Cronholm, Mikael; “Geometry Effects; Hedging Your Bet on Emissivity”; Proc. InfraMation; ITC 092
A2003-08-15; 2003
6. DeMonte, Joe; “Engine Header Coating Comparison”; Proc. InfraMation; 2004.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr. Bob Madding, Bernie Lyon, Gary Orlove, and Mikael Cronholm for giving
me the inspiration to make a living with thermography and teaching me the science behind the camera. I also
would like to thank all of ITC, the FLIR Marketing Department and Sales Department for making the
InfraMation Conference the most professional and complete in the world. A special thanks to Voyten Electric
and WAPA (Western Area Power Association) for donating many of the tested pieces.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joe is an ASNT/PdM TIR Level 3 and has been involved in infrared technologies for over sixteen years. He
currently works for TEGG Corporation and continues to consult for ITC North America in a teaching role along
with providing support for the TEGG Network across the world as the Director of Technical Operations. Past
experiences include Naval Nuclear Submarine support, commercial nuclear power generation as a PdM
engineer, and teaching/course development for FLIR Imaging and ITC Thermography. Joe also holds two
degrees from Thomas Edison State University in Liberal Arts and Applied Science and Nuclear Technology.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14