Mike Andrews wrote:

The Netscape 4.6 browser on
the same system _does_ put the black text directly on the dark-blue
background, and it is decidedly unpleasant.

Mozilla 1.4a doesn't have any problems.

A newer browser might be nice, but it also would be good if web page
designers built pages with older code in mind.

Like trying to accommodate fighting parents, having Micro$oft constantly
extending and subverting standards.

It _definitely_ has some cool stuff. Thanks, Scott!

Thanks. Any things you like more than others? When I make time, I plan
on documenting my tinkering with windows html/hta app to md5 sign and
test your pc files, laser-pointer velocimeter and interferometers, PIC
hardware and software for alarm system, and micro-power radar sensors. I
should update the bookmarks and clean all the dead-links too.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Your web site is very hard to read with the dark blue background and
black text. A lot of people have vision problems, and can not read this
color combination.

Sorry. The next time I update it I'll see if I can find a better color.
I think I noticed that once while I was developing it - I think it is
due to a low-color VGA mode. I spent too long fooling around trying to
develop the fractal-smith chart background (thanks to da GIMP) to mess
with it any further. You can always edit the HTML yourself and change my
background color. Its not like I've got advertisers paying me.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:59:36 GMT, said...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Your web site is very hard to read with the dark blue background and
black text. A lot of people have vision problems, and can not read this
color combination.

Sorry. The next time I update it I'll see if I can find a better color.
I think I noticed that once while I was developing it - I think it is
due to a low-color VGA mode. I spent too long fooling around trying to
develop the fractal-smith chart background (thanks to da GIMP) to mess
with it any further. You can always edit the HTML yourself and change my
background color. Its not like I've got advertisers paying me.


I missed that. For my snith chart program. I wrote out the eqs for
intersecting circles, coded the graphics in VBA, and captured them
as bmps for the C++ version af the app.

I'll be damned. Thar's fractal impedance admittance charts in them
thar backgrounds!

Mike

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:59:36 GMT, said...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Your web site is very hard to read with the dark blue background and
black text. A lot of people have vision problems, and can not read this
color combination.

Sorry. The next time I update it I'll see if I can find a better color.
I think I noticed that once while I was developing it - I think it is
due to a low-color VGA mode. I spent too long fooling around trying to
develop the fractal-smith chart background (thanks to da GIMP) to mess
with it any further. You can always edit the HTML yourself and change my
background color. Its not like I've got advertisers paying me.


I missed that. For my snith chart program. I wrote out the eqs for
intersecting circles, coded the graphics in VBA, and captured them
as bmps for the C++ version af the app.

I'll be damned. Thar's fractal impedance admittance charts in them
thar backgrounds!

Mike

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Scott Stephens wrote:

Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

Your web site is very hard to read with the dark blue background and
black text. A lot of people have vision problems, and can not read this
color combination.

On my system (FreeBSD) with the Mozilla FireBird browser, the text
and images are in light-colored windows inside the dark background,
and it's not at all difficult to read. The Netscape 4.6 browser on
the same system _does_ put the black text directly on the dark-blue
background, and it is decidedly unpleasant.

A newer browser might be nice, but it also would be good if web page
designers built pages with older code in mind.

It _definitely_ has some cool stuff. Thanks, Scott!

--
Comparing Knuth with O'Reilly books is like comparing
Unix with Windows.
-- Abigail, in the Monastery

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Your web site is very hard to read with the dark blue background and
black text. A lot of people have vision problems, and can not read this
color combination.

Sorry. The next time I update it I'll see if I can find a better color.
I think I noticed that once while I was developing it - I think it is
due to a low-color VGA mode. I spent too long fooling around trying to
develop the fractal-smith chart background (thanks to da GIMP) to mess
with it any further. You can always edit the HTML yourself and change my
background color. Its not like I've got advertisers paying me.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

What you are descrbing is a "signal sniffer", not a signal strength meter.

On 13 Dec 2003 03:50:41 -0800, said...
What you are descrbing is a "signal sniffer", not a signal strength meter.

Who are you replying to? Paul did not say Signal Stength Meter, but
the guy you replied to kinda hints at it when he mentions power
level.

I would have to say that my 1GHz Signal Level Meter, which cost
$1500 would be the better than a relative field strength meter, but
if he measures say, 1V with his Tx off and 2V with it on, then
that's 1V and if his Rx antenna is a 1m dipole, that's 1V/m.

Mike

It's too bad it isn't that simple.

A 1V/m field doesn't result in one volt at the feedpoint of a perfectly
matched one meter dipole or monopole, and the value it does induce
depends on the quality of the impedance match as well as the fraction of
a wavelength the one meter antenna length represents. And, if one volt
does appear at the feedpoint, it's very unlikely that a simple circuit
will measure it as one volt.

Probably best to stick with your $1.5 kilobuck meter if you really want
to measure field strength.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Active8 wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 03:50:41 -0800, said...

What you are descrbing is a "signal sniffer", not a signal strength meter.


Who are you replying to? Paul did not say Signal Stength Meter, but
the guy you replied to kinda hints at it when he mentions power
level.

I would have to say that my 1GHz Signal Level Meter, which cost
$1500 would be the better than a relative field strength meter, but
if he measures say, 1V with his Tx off and 2V with it on, then
that's 1V and if his Rx antenna is a 1m dipole, that's 1V/m.

Mike

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:39:27 -0800, said...
It's too bad it isn't that simple.

A 1V/m field doesn't result in one volt at the feedpoint of a perfectly
matched one meter dipole or monopole, and the value it does induce
depends on the quality of the impedance match

you mean antenna to free space, right?

as well as the fraction of
a wavelength the one meter antenna length represents.

amplify, very please. por favor. Refresh my ram.


| E(uV/m) |
V (dBmV) = 20log | --------- / 1000 |
| 0.021f(MHz) |

plus correction for distance (regulations for limits are for
specific measuring distances), etc. I'll mull the above eq over.
Gotta figure out where the .021 came from, but not now. My eyes are
getting fatigued from this 'puter.

And, if one volt
does appear at the feedpoint, it's very unlikely that a simple circuit
will measure it as one volt.

It would have to be calibrated to compensate for the circuit. Maybe
that's why it's called a "relative" field strength meter. Relative
to another signal or no signal


Probably best to stick with your $1.5 kilobuck meter if you really want
to measure field strength.

I don't. He does At least not tonight. But my SLM *will* measure
field strenth using a cheap ass dipole cut to the frequency of
interest with or without an external preamp and do it to the
satisfaction of the FCC, assuming it's calibrated. I even have a
near-field probe, not so cheap. It beats guess work.

I wouldn't expect his sniffer to be real accurate but he did ask
for guesstimates. Started off as "around 4 feet" for a half watter
now we're at 100mW - prob his reference Tx.

BRs,
Mike



Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Active8 wrote:
On 13 Dec 2003 03:50:41 -0800, said...

What you are descrbing is a "signal sniffer", not a signal strength meter.


Who are you replying to? Paul did not say Signal Stength Meter, but
the guy you replied to kinda hints at it when he mentions power
level.

I would have to say that my 1GHz Signal Level Meter, which cost
$1500 would be the better than a relative field strength meter, but
if he measures say, 1V with his Tx off and 2V with it on, then
that's 1V and if his Rx antenna is a 1m dipole, that's 1V/m.

Mike