EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Thermal Imaging => Topic started by: Ultrapurple on February 28, 2020, 04:41:22 pm
-
Someone drew my attention that the Therm-App site shop has withdrawn all its hardware products. I contacted Opgal (the guys behind Therm-App) and they said that the Therm-App range is most definitely still current. It is available from dealers; Opgal have stopped selling it themselves direct to end-users (ie, us). There's a contact facility on the website so they can put you in touch with a local dealer if you can't find one for yourself.
They are presently concentrating on a new version of the device, the ThermApp MD (https://www.opgal.com/products/therm-app-MD), which is intended for screening people for Coronavirus and other infections.
[attachimg=1 width=320]
The brochure is here (pdf) (https://www.opgal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ThermAppMD-White-1.pdf)
and there's a tutorial on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHZ2hgZfAP8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHZ2hgZfAP8)
I have no reliable information on the cost, but I suspect it's comparable to the ThermApp TH (thermography version). No direct cost comparison is possible because the MD apparently comes with a small Android computer and other accessories. My best guess is around US$2000, which looks expensive for a 384x288 device until you realise that if it identifies just one person with Coronavirus (or similar) it might save many lives (and certainly a lot of medical costs).
-
Without a reference this is not very useful and will have too many false positives and maybe even false negatives.
Apparently the demand is big enough that everyone is scrambling to package their cameras as scanners, but I don't think the Opgal solution is sufficient. Let's hope for a surplus of used systems once this is over, but it seems to be a growing situation in Europe.
https://youtu.be/n5VkX4nSvOQ (https://youtu.be/n5VkX4nSvOQ) they are selling old stock that is from like 2010 here but the calibrated variant.
relevant thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/virus-outbreak-in-wuhan-chine-thermal-cameras-likely-to-be-deployed-again/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/virus-outbreak-in-wuhan-chine-thermal-cameras-likely-to-be-deployed-again/)
-
It's worth looking at the YouTube video on the Therm-App. They do address the issue of calibration. But I agree that a temperature-stabilised sensor with frequent FFC events is likely to be a more stable and reliable platform.
I suppose the question is this: if you have a choice between a solid gold solution with a six week lead time or a gold-plated answer that can be operating tomorrow, which is the better bet?
The really good news for 'the rest of us' is that this mad scramble to buy thermal cameras means that in a while they'll all be declared surplus to requirements and many will find their way onto the secondary user market (=us), hopefully at low cost.
-
Ultapurple,
An interesting development on both stories. Thank you.
I have known several companies to stop direct sales to the general public for good financial reasons. The number of staff required to field sales enquiries and support requests can be significant and sometimes the total sales do not justify a sales team dedicated to the product. Sadly moving all General public sales out to agents and dealers may have a negative impact on the cameras cost. I believe this has already been seen where a regional agent increased its price for a camera significantly when compared to a direct purchase from the OEM. We shall have to wait and see what happens on that front I suppose.
On the MD version of the Therm App, I am not at all surprised. Thermoteknix in the UK did similarly during the last SARS outbreak. The cameras are often the same hardware package but the mounting method and software that accompanies the camera is often tuned to the needs of medical use. It is good that the thermal camera manufacturers make this move into medical thermography, but there are risks associated with such a development. I am uncertain of the legal disclaimers that have to be made by the manufacturer of such a system. As soon as an equipment is considered "medical use" or "life saving" as its primary role, all manner of rules and regulations can come into force. As an example, what is the potential legal exposure of the OEM if it is proven that the detection system failed to identify someone who later died from the Coronavirus and who did exhibit symptoms at the time of thermal scanning ? Operator error or inadequate detection technology/software ? In general, companies tend to be extremely careful about their equipment or components being used in life saving medical equipment. I know many clearly state on their data sheets that the product must not be used in a medical or life saving/preserving role. It seems like a legal minefield for an OEM to navigate.
Fraser
-
Of note in the brochure specifications is the temperature range and accuracy specification.
The medical version of the camera is specifically tuned for use with human 'targets'. It covers the human thermography deliberately limited temperature range of 25C to 45C with a +/- 1C stated accuracy. Note that this specification clearly states that it is valid at an ambient temperature of 25C. That may be a legal 'get out clause' for the OEM if operated at other temperatures ? With no FFC shutter the stability of measurements in different ambient temperatures may be an issue. Operator understanding of the technology can become an issue. It is no good stating all manner of caveats to meaurements if the user is just given the unit to use and has no knowledge of such. Mistakes are then made and the equipments effectiveness is reduced. This has already occurred during the current Coronavirus outbreak. Unskilled operators have been happily 'scanning' people with all manner of IR thermometers using all manner of techniques and target points on the human body ! Scanning hands for a fever ? Really ? As those in the IR thermometer industry are aware, you have to be very careful when using such technology on humans. You need a IR thermometer either of acceptable performance or one dedicated to the medical role. The test point on the human must be clearly understood by the user as choosing an incorrect test point can destroy the thermometers effectiveness and give erroneous readings. For example Temporal thermometers need to be placed over the temporal artery ! Who knows where that is located ? Ear thermometers are used in the ear canal looking at the tympanic membrane but they must be correctly positioned. As for forehead thermometers.... well lets us just say the measurements can be variable ! Then you see some official looking chap in Wuhan on the news waving a common cheap, non medical, IR thermometer of unknown accuracy towards a persons head without correct distance or targeting :palm: Let us hope that he was just 'pretending' to do it for the broadcast ! Even a true medical grade temperature measurement device will provide incorrect readings if not used correctly.
This is where the thermal cameras can offer so much. The software analyses the targets that are within view in a holistic manner and can sometimes detect a person running a fever without specifically targeting a part of the body. It will often see the targets head as they approach and pass it so a decent coverage of the head is possible. This all requires decent design and software though. There is little room for dodgy, badly coded, software when lives are at stake.
Fraser