I think it was Darren who mentioned these a couple years ago.
They're available again. I put it in Off Topic so more people might see it.
https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/o...5/#post1673677
(';")

 

must be great for inspecting fuel tanks, but if it is infected with the google ads virus, hmmm.

 

I got my one at home depot, made by ryobi, ha e to get the app of course, but had no issues yet, i use.it quite a bit, but not nearly.as.much as the moisture meter! Even though its just ryobi, i love it!!!
Attached is a screen shot it its home screen, has quite a few more things i would t mind getting!!

 

I can think of several cool uses for this, Jose. Peeking into spark plug holes for one.
All you have to do is turn off WiFi, and Schazaam, NO MORE ADS!

When I went In Search Of, these had been discontinued. I'd have paid a lot more than $12 if I could have found it then.

RYOBI makes some Very cool and useful items, Darren! And they're reliable, easy to use and not horribly expensive. I don't use them because I got started with Craftsman and their included repair manuals (a requirement for me), but some of my friends/colleagues use them and have good success.
(';')

 

I did a phenomenal amount of research on endoscopes/borescopes etc last month.

My conclusion after reading every review I could find & testing quite a few in stores is that they are all limited in quality by the lens size to some extent until you get in the $1,500 - $3,000 range.

The cheaper ones are 'ok ish' but don't expect miracles.

They mostly come with detachable camera snakes so you can choose between 9mm - 17mm cameras, a 17mm will give you the best picture, a 9mm will fit down a spark plug hole.

You need one with a detachable mirror if you want to examine valves, and the models with hooks are very useful. An adjustable intensity LED is critical, if you can't adjust the brightness of the LED from the screen, walk away.

I was about to pull the trigger on a $400 Rigid model or the $300 Dewalt, having tried both & feeling they were a good compromise between price & image quality, but a friend let me try a $115 one from Amazon (a Teslong NTS150RS Industrial Endoscope) and I preferred it to them both.

Been using it for a few weeks & am really happy with it.




That's the image quality you can expect (ignore the date, I haven't got round to setting it yet)

If you want me to stick it in a few Jag gas tanks & take some pictures, let me know, I have plenty around the place XD

Cheers

N

 

Please note that I placed my flippant innuendos in the Off Topic thread about this subject. Leaving this thread for serious admiration of this obviously useful tool, & the ridiculously low price it was acquired for. Well done Elinor. Good score.

 

I knew it wouldn't be stunning picture quality for $12, but for most of our uses it will do the job. It certainly has no right to work as well as it does for so little money!

Thanks to everyone for your interest and replies.
(';')

 

As much as I love the $114 unit, I think for $12 you would have to be mad not to have one in your toolbox.

If you end up using it a lot & get frustrated you can easily upgrade to one of the more expensive units. I just spent more than $12 on a quesadilla 🙈

 

Once again Elinor . . . you have my vote for "Thread of the Month" with all expenses paid trip to your garage and a somewhat used, bruised and very greazy 1/2" SAE spanner as your deserved prize. HUGE Thanks.

I went looking around the Oz 'bay and found dozens of these nifty devices . . . falling into 2 categories -

• those that rely on a micro USB connection and designed for Android use . . . prices of AU$10-$12 (US$7-$9);
• those that rely on a full sized USB and designed for laptops, and with a mini s/w CD . . . prices as low as AU$8-$10 (US$5-$7).

Interestingly, the cheaper full USB versions have generally superior pixel count imaging and superior optics . . . both units have a minimum focal limit of 40-60mm . . . so, I now have 1 of each . . . at a total price of an "el cheapo" set of a few spanners.

So how does guidance and image quality compare with medical endoscopes of which I was familiar in my career . . . er, are you serious? . . . . Answer? Of course, they are not only not in the same league, they are not on the same planet. They are not only not steerable (typically, medical scopes can steer 180 degrees around a radius of say 10mm); they cannot zoom; nor are they sufficiently well lit to view from distances of say 100mm down to 10mm in totally dark interiors . . . but hey, they don't cost $10,000-$20,000 either.

Try one of these suckers down a spark plug in your Jaguar . . . and remember not to crank the engine (duh). If you can't see $10 worth of value in Elinor's share . . . gosh, you probably don't have an ELM327 for OBDII code reading/clearing either! Oh . . . and IMHO, anyone not posting a "thanks" to Elinor is astonishingly hard to please!

Cheers and best wishes,

Ken

 

The usb ones for the pc can be used on android using a usb to micro USB adaptor and a suitable camera app.

 

With cameras getting cheaper & smaller all the time I'm surprised that they're not used in situ in places where it would be advantageous to see if crucial parts are working properly. The biggest advantage I can see would be for checking if the landing gear on planes is engaged properly. I think it's ludicrous,in the 21stC, that the highest tech machine we use, the aeroplane, still needs to fly by a Control Tower to visually check their landing gear's down. When a few well placed, low cost, cameras would allow the crew to check it instantly. In fact the feed could be ran straight through a computer which could do a better & quicker appraisal than any human. As for it's use in a car, I'd love to see how hard my suspension was working under load. The temptation would be to look at it while driving, which would be unsafe, & probably highly addictive (for the likes of me & thee). So it would probably be best to save it to a hard drive & view it later. But what a diagnostic tool that'd be! Eh?

 

Always wondered what they do with gear problems at night. I guess it doesnt do much except perhaps help the pilots know what to expect. Its not like landing is a voting opportunity :-) sort of has to happen.

I'm guessing the manufacturers would be loathe to add weight/cost/complexity for something that is rarely used.

 

Night? Surely you jest! Such problems simply aren't allowed after dark!
Yes. Rarely used. Only on Every landing! As for cost, how much do you think purveyors of these things would jack up the price for such an application? I'd guess several thousand times the $12 this one cost; and as Ken posted above, there are even less "expensive" models out there.

Weight? What weight? Less than 8 ounces, including my phone!
(';')

 

Yep, no weight penalty. Economies of scale should keep the costs low, especially if the major manufacturers used the same system. An LED light would cure the darkness problem, or the camera could be programmed for infrared. Like I said, if they ran it through a computer first, the Crew wouldn't even have to be involved, unless a fault was detected. With aircraft running so many dual systems, for safety's stake, I can't see why installing a visual checking aid would be so difficult. It would even be easy to make an aftermarket kit, to retrofit existing planes. Hmm, maybe I should be copyrighting this idea. Nah! I'd gladly share the rights of a life saving idea like this one, like Volvo did with seat belts. As long as someone else doesn't get disgustingly wealthy from it that is.