## 3 Results and Analysis of Radiometric Thermal Data
### Analysis of Measurement Result Deviations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Device**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Deviation in \({}^{\circ}\)C from the Reference Value, and Camera-Price Information**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Price** **(USD)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & **27** & **30** & **33** & **36** & **39** & **42** & **45** & **(USD)** \\ \hline Flir E6 & 2.03 & 2.13 & 2.20 & 2.05 & 2.25 & 2.50 & 0.70 & 2259.00 \\ Flir E60 bx & 0.77 & 0.85 & 0.85 & 0.93 & 0.95 & 1.05 & 0.90 & 4295.00 \\ Flir One Pro & 0.52 & \(-\)3.37 & \(-\)3.60 & \(-\)5.92 & \(-\)6.50 & \(-\)5.90 & \(-\)7.50 & 259.99 \\ Flir A500 & 0.07 & \(-\)0.27 & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.08 & \(-\)0.36 & \(-\)0.11 & \(-\)0.32 & 10,079.00 \\ Flir A70 29\({}^{\circ}\) & \(-\)4.97 & \(-\)5.91 & \(-\)5.13 & \(-\)6.73 & \(-\)7.45 & \(-\)7.24 & \(-\)7.78 & 6950.00 \\ Flir A70 95\({}^{\circ}\) & \(-\)0.50 & \(-\)0.24 & \(-\)0.03 & 0.27 & 0.32 & 0.42 & 1.10 & 6950.00 \\ HTL HTL-301 & 0.64 & \(-\)0.33 & 2.18 & 1.01 & 2.72 & 0.53 & 0.73 & 787.00 \\ Raytek RAYMX2D & 0.57 & 0.53 & 0.65 & 0.72 & 0.65 & 0.61 & 0.69 & 124.41 \\ Parkside PTIA 1 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.56 & \(-\)2.16 & \(-\)1.45 & \(-\)1.69 & \(-\)2.88 & \(-\)5.31 & 20.80 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Deviation in \({}^{\circ}\)C from the reference value, and camera-price information. Figure 24: Average deviation in \({}^{\circ}\)C for the analyzed thermal cameras. Figure 25: Graphical representation of deviation in \({}^{\circ}\)C from the reference value. above procedure can still be useful when analyzing cameras with similar characteristics, which can be seen from the characteristics of the cameras that were below 1% deviation in the class. From Table 6 and Figure 26 it is evident that it was necessary to perform the laboratory factory calibration of the Flir A70 29\({}^{\circ}\) camera, whose deviation of 3.23 times greater than the specified accuracy designation indicates that factory calibration was necessary. From the above, there was a need to introduce an indicator that links the accuracy and price range of each camera. Figure 27 shows the numerical value of the price ratio in relation to the mean temperature deviation. It is expressed in USD per \({}^{\circ}\)C. The two cameras shown in red justified the investment's accuracy, as determined by the calibration procedure. We left the Flir A70 29\({}^{\circ}\) for comparison, although we concluded that said camera is not to be used. By further analysis of the calculated indicator, it was concluded that a simple indicator that valorizes the possibility of using the optimal camera is not applicable in this case, but the decision to choose a camera must be determined by the technical characteristics of the individual application, taking into account the need for details and the need for accuracy and indicators within a narrow group of similar characteristics. The aforementioned analysis must not be performed until the minimum resolution and accuracy of the camera installed in the FireBot have been determined for the exact application, since the investment optimum must be taken into account. Figure 27: Numerical indicator of the price in relation to the accuracy [USD/\({}^{\circ}\)C].