Hi Mary, sorry you appear to have trouble viewing the article. The only
thing I can think of is that you are using an older browser which cannot
handle highly optimised jpeg files, which includes progressive scanning. I
have re-uploaded the article without the progressive scan option.
I would be interested to know if you can now read it ok.
PS Many thanks to the other Dave for doing an OCR on it!. That's some
program that can do that at that resolution, I would be interested in the
name of it. I normally have to scan at least at 600dpi to have any hope!
I used Paint Shop Pro to capture the image off screen (as saving the jpg
to disk and OCRing that wasn't at all successful). I then used PSPs tool
to remove some of the jpg artefacts before using Omnipage Pro 12
(www.scansoft.com) to OCR. OP12 didn't get the numbers right (too and
zoo instead of 100 and 200) and a few words/names got garbled but it
didn't leave much cleaning up to do.
1] saying that makes no sense unless you know what is out of date and
suggest an alternative. You shouldn't assume that my software is out of
2] this is the only time I've ever encountered this problem
As it's just the image alone rather than in a web page, MS IE is being
'clever' and shrinking it to fit the window.
After it has loaded, wave the mouse somewhere else, then bring it back over
the picture and an icon will overlay the bottom right corner. Click to get
it back full size.
Well! That certainly worked - but is is because of the hi tech lump chucking
you've done or because I adjusted my image sizing?
Hmm. I'll go back to the original for a comparison.
By the way, it's many years since I've heard of old Max, ah happy days ...
What, you mean like from "science" into "English"?
It sounds a bit like me when the boss comes in and asks how its going...
Well, I've come up with this really energy efficient lightbulb, ermm,
except that I've only got it working in the near-infrared so far, and I
don't quite know how it works yet either. Oh, and it violates Plancks
law too. I'll get me coat.
Fascinating article though.
I use LED lamps when caving and TBH they aren't brilliant (well they are but
they aren't too). They are ok if you haven't got to see very far (fine in a
cave cos the wall isn't usually more than a few feet away) but to get the
brilliance they narrow the projection angle somehow so they don't light a
huge area. You'd need an awful lot in a domestic setting and whilst it's
possible to do and very economic with the juice, the cost would be
Get me out of my tree to reply
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.