Re: WiFi range ...

On 8/2/26 00:13, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 21:30:22 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    Do you really NEED super-accurate humidity readings ?
>>     For like a big commercial greenhouse, YES. For yer back-yard,
>>     close-enough may be close-enough.
> 
> Idle curiosity. The 45% surprised me. right now it's reporting
> "temperature_F":81.5,"humidity":21
> 
> which is more in line with the NOAA figure. A front is moving in. No rain
> but it's supposed to be high 70s Sunday and Monday. That will feel like
> winter after the high 90s.

   For cheap you can buy a wet/dry bulb unit with
   a nice little chart on it. My granny had one
   on her porch. That was 1960s.

   It might be interesting/informative to compare
   yer device readings with the Gold Standard.

   But, as said, for "home" stuff, close enough
   might be close enough.

   Ah, my Momma had two funky things. One was
   "horse-hair" actuated - little figures would
   come out depending on high/low humidity. The
   other was a kind of "stick", made of wood
   that's sensitive to humidity. If it curled
   down it meant low, if straight out it meant
   high.

   Variances in how various frequencies of light
   are absorbed according to water-vapor percentage
   make "match-box" folded-path metrology possible.
   Ya have two laser diodes - one on a high-absorbsion
   frequency, the other for low. Mirror strips inside,
   turns the 'matchbox' into like a meter-long path.
   Comparing freq 'A' to 'B' can give you a fair reading.

   I think most modern mini-devices just have a sort
   of semi-hydroscopic layer - you measure the resistance
   across the layer. Alas there are a number of ways that
   can become rather imprecise.

   Now, as also said, for like a big commercial greenhouse,
   more exact humidity readings may be rather critical so
   'scientific management' is possible.