Like everything else, there are advantages and disadvantages to buying an infrared refrigerant leak detector. Let's take a quick look at what they have to offer.
The Pros of Infrared Leak Detector
The infrared sniffer has the highest sensitivity. Most of these models can detect leaks of 0.10 ounces per year. This is excellent in terms of sensitivity. I haven't seen a detector on the market today that is below that magic number of 0.10 oz/year. Now there are corona or diode models that can do the same thing, but the infrared units have more advantages than the sensitivity.
If you buy an infrared detector, you will find that the sensor will last longer than a normal leak detector. Using standard detectors on the market, the sensor can run for 20, 30 or 50 hours, while using the infrared detection unit, the sensor can last up to 1,000 hours. Several companies claim their sensors will last 10 years. Imagine not having to replace the sensors in the detector in ten years. Not only is this annoying, but it can also save you money. The sensor can be exchanged for up to $40.
Some users say they have had to relearn how to use infrared detectors compared with more traditional detection methods, such as corona suppression and heating diodes. With the infrared detection unit, the sensor should be kept moving rather than in one place. This is necessary because the device will reach zero in a few seconds. This prevents the detector from saturating. Therefore, if you have multiple leaks in one or more rooms, it is difficult to get a reliable reading from a diode or corona reader, not to mention the risk of overload and damage to the detection sensor. Needless to say. However, for infrared, it is zero for a few seconds, so it can adapt to the surrounding space and air. You can easily find the cause of the leak by looking for a high concentration of refrigerant to avoid drowning.
As mentioned above, infrared detection units can even prevent the use of other methods, because only sensors can be used to accurately track where leaks occur. Stop spraying water and soap to find common areas and look for bubbles. No more uv dyes. You should be ready to use infrared. Here, device diagnostics are always surprising, and in some cases, different leak detection methods are required. My problem here is that using other detection methods will greatly reduce the purchase of infrared refrigerant leak detectors.
The Cons of Infrared Leak Detector
At the beginning of the article, I mentioned that infrared refrigerant detectors have the highest quality. The highest quality people get the best price. These types of units are the best detectors on the market today and should prepare the owner to pay extra cash. Most infrared devices cost between $300 and $400. Yes, I know it's very expensive, but one thing to keep in mind is the life of the device. Entrepreneurs with lots of technicians can see why they don't want to pay for these units. However, if you are a technician or an independent who needs to buy your own tools, I strongly recommend that you buy infrared equipment today. Forget the cost and bite the bullet.
All detectors come with warranty. Because of the duration of the warranty and most of the warranty services provided at the time of filing the warranty claim, I offer the warranty in the defects category. If you purchase the equipment, the warranty period is one to two years. This is the normal warranty for all detectors, including inexpensive detectors. I'm worried that I spent all this money on a high-quality detector and somehow caused the detector to break down, but it would be unfortunate if the one-year warranty didn't cover it. Of course, you can call the company and try to negotiate, but at this point, you're ready. If you pay that much for the detector, you need a guarantee of at least 3-4 years, sometimes 5 years.
The last scam I found on these devices was small. This is about the use of infrared devices to move sensors back and forth. After some users explained why this was necessary, they complained that it was difficult to wipe in a confined space. I think this is a problem and perhaps more traditional detection methods, such as dyes and soaps and aqueous solutions might be useful.