I've always found RPN easier myself, but I have to disagree with someone else
about slide rules - a slide rule is neither infix (algebraic) nor postfix (RPN),
but prefix. Let me explain . . .

    When I want to do a simple calculation, such as multiplying 9 * 7 (never did
learn all those darn multiplication tables), my mental process is something
like:

  1) This is a multiplication, for accuracy I'll use C and D (rather than A or
B).

  2 )First number is 9. I'll set 9 on C to the right index on D.

  3) Second number is 7, look at 7 on D, look up at (or move hairline to) 63 on
C.

  To recap:
  Algebraic or Infix: 9 * 7
  RPN or Postfix: 9 [Enter] 7 [*]
  Sliderule Prefix: [Multiply] 9 7 [Place decimal]




________________________________
From: John Mosand <jomosand@...>
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 10:59:24 AM
Subject: SV: SR RPN calculators



Dear Korny:

I think that you are misunderstanding the term 'algebraic notation' (as if
it is 'opposite' to RPN and better for algebra). For doing/solving basic
arithmetic, the two systems are about equal.

But, RPN is much more practical for solving algebra, as you will find if you
really go into it. There is absolutely no doubt that e.g. the freedom from
parantheses, intermediate storing, is an advantage, plus that the RPN stack
system gives a continuous overview.

I agree with you: RPN is easier for an RPN user, of course. Also when he/she
is doing algebra!!

John Mosand

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks.

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "dfsmth45" <steve.t123@...> wrote:
>
> The solution only has 2 digits because you must add in the -1 correction which
occurs because the product lies to the right of the first factor, but is on the
same side of the central index of DF.
>
> If the calculation is done on C,D,CI scales, you don't worry about crossing
the index - if the product is to the right of the first factor, add -1 to the
digit count, if to the left, nothing added.  If in a division the quotient is to
the left of the first factor, add +1 to the digit count but if to the right,
nothing added.
>
> These same rules apply using CF, DF, CIF, but now you have to worry about the
central index of DF.  If the product (or quotient) is on the same half, left or
right, of DF as the first factor, use the rules above.  If the product (or
quotient) is found on the opposite side of the central DF index from the first
factor, then substitute left for right and right for left when deciding whether
to add or subtract a correction.
>
> Steve Treadwell
>
>
>
> --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "fwonghc" <fwonghc@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't know if I misunderstand your method.
> >
> > (I read some books many years ago, but forget the exact detail, though I can
recall that method, and it was not that simple, so I never use it).
> >
> > 6 x 12 = 72
> >
> > move hairline to DF:6,
> > move CIF:1.2 under hairline
> > move hairline to CF/CIF:1
> > answer on DF:72 (eaxct answer 72)
> >
> > (alternate method)
> > align CF:1 with DF:6,
> > move hairline to CF 1.2
> > answer on DF:72
> >
> > The multiplicand and product are on the same side (left of DF:1), accordeing
to your method the answer would be 720, but actual answer is 72...
> >
> > Did I miss anything?
> >
> >
> > --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "dfsmth45" <steve.t123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > See messages # 36583 and 36596 for the rules I use in placing the decimal
point.  Note that these rules apply even if multiplying by dividing by CI (CIF)
or dividing by multiplying by CI (CIF).  They still work if you change scale
sets for the second factor, but return to the original set for the solution;
e.g., 6/2 = 3 by setting 6 on DF, moving 2 on C under it and then take the
solution back on DF over the right index of C.  The 3 on DF falls to the right
of the dividend 6, but it's on the opposite side of the central index of DF, so
treat the quotient as falling to the left of the dividend and thus use a
correction count of +1, so one digit in the dividend minus one in the divisor
plus one for the correction equals one, thus one digit to the left of the
decimal point - the solution is 3, not 30 or 0.3.
> > > It gets more complicated for the sqrt(10) method I used in my previous
post.  Starting with the 2 of C under the 6 on DF and the right index of C over
0.949 of D and under the 3 of DF, to multiply by 7, slide the cursor to 7 on CF
and find the solution 21 on D.  I think the digit counting will work if you
refer the first factor 3 to the same scale where the solution will be taken.  So
in this case, the product 21 falls to the left of the 3 when referred to C (at
0.949), so no correction is needed for the multiply - one digit in each factor
plus no correction equals two digits left of the decimal in the solution.  But
as I said, that starts to get too complicated and I tend to stay on one set of
scales as much as possible, only changing scale sets when the index of both CF
and C lie on an intermediate solution in a chained calculation.
> > >
> > > Steve Treadwell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "fwonghc" <fwonghc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are some "rules" for the digits when using D/C/CI.  Usually I do
calculation on D/C/CI.  But I may use CF/CIF once only to read the answer on DF
(final step).
> > > >
> > > > Some suggest approximation, I seldom did so unless very simple.
> > > >
> > > > It is difficult to keep track of the number of digits when using CF/CIF,
especially when sqrt(10), *alternatively*.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

RPN calculators do have some advantages over *algebraic* calculators.
Nevetheless it is not the paneacea.

The HP-35S (I also bought it 2 or 3 months age), when you do "programming" you
have to enter the equation (i.e. mathematical equation ABC = xyz + pqr ...etc). 
Obviously there are limitations to the RPN.

I tried the interscholatic Numbet Tie Test (for slide rules)
with the RPN calculator (cal98, previous free download, but no lonager
available) and the HP-35S.  There are squares and square roots, cube and cube
roots.  May be I am not familar, (to me) it is error prone.

With the RPN notation, the HP-12C, there is no way you can enter calcuate say 20
/ 80 % (= 35), you must change 80 % to 0.8 mentally.

***
(Indeed this several years there are some calculators you must enter the whole
alegbraic equation  (or mathematical equation), I am not used to it, though I
have several different models.

I enjoy using RPN because there is not need to enter brackets, and is the
natural way to calculate when "manually".  You must enter some extra "hidden"
brackets even the equations do not requrie.

e.g. the expression is very terse when written on paper or books, or use RPN
calculators

sqrt(((shx)2 + (sin x)2) / ((sh x )2 + (cos y)2)

but you need one extra "hidden" bracket before the first sh x  , leading to
chaos....

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "John Mosand" <jomosand@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "... it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians". What
> ??????
>
> If you are unfamiliar with RPN and get one of them in your hands, it will
> take you less than an hour to become aquainted with it, and convinced about
> it!
>
> Believe it or not, it follows exactly the procedure you use if you calculate
> with pencil and paper: you write the first number, then the second number,
> and finally you perform the function.
> No matter how complicated the expression is, you never need to store
> intermediate values, and you never need parentheses!
> And, in most cases you will find that you save on the number of key strokes
> needed, if that is of importance.
>
> RPN calcs lack the "=" key. It isn't needed! Instead, it has that "Enter"
> key, which is the 'key' to its power.
>
> I've used RPN for 30 years (HP41CX, HP10C and HP48SX) . Whenever I have to
> use a 'common' (algebraic)   calculator I tend to become frustrated....
> (I recently changed the button batteries in my HP10C for the first time
> after 25 years. And this isn't entirely unusual.)
>
> John Mosand
>
>
>
> >..............................................................
> >Of course the HP35 calculator did not relinquish this domain to the
> uneducated masses either. Using "reverse polish notation" for its
> arithmetic, it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians.
> (*For those of you who have not been shown the secret handshake, reverse
> polish notation places the operator at the end of the operation not in the
> middle where it normally is. For example to add one and two together on a
> normal calculator you would do "1" "+" "2" "=". In reverse polish notation
> you would do "1" "Enter" "2" "+"*)  - William Brohinsky
>

Hello Bill,

you find an introduction to the use of the Nestler 27 in an article by Ed
Chamberlain.

Go to:

http://sliderules.lovett.com/extendedlitsearch.html

Type in: Author = Chamberlain and Title = long

After clicking the search button, select the article from 1999. And at the
end of page 26 of this article you find the theory of these slide rules with
broken scales.


Regards,

Peter


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von William L. Drylie
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2009 18:17
> An: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: SR A question for the Nestler Experts.
>
>
> Hi;
>     I have a question for the Nestler experts/collectors
> about the Nestler 27 Prazision slide rule. Did Nestler ever
> print an instruction manual for this unique slide rule? I
> have an older book by C.N. Pickworth that gives an
> overview of operation in general, but it is short on
> practical problem demonstration that is so prevalent in the
> Nestler manuals.  My Mother used one in school, and when she
> taught me how to use this rule when I was in school, I
> think she told me there was an instruction manual that came
> with the rule, but I'm not sure. Anyone know?
>
> Regards, Bill Drylie
>
>
>
>
> "The knowledge we have acquired ought not to resemble a great
> shop without order and without inventory; we ought to
> know what we possess and to be able to make it serve our own needs".
>
> Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

What is interesting is that many people protest RPN but use "business"
calculators which have some unusual properties. The addition and subtraction
functions are RPN but the multiplication and division are infix. This doesn't
seem to bother the RPN haters but they use these calculators without any
complaint. My wife, who has a computer science degree -- summa cum laude not
less -- can't seem to get RPN and  also doesn't understand how business
calculators work but uses them without complaint.  Go figure .....

marion

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Vince Tessier <vlt@...> wrote:
>
> In high school in the 70s, a quadriplegic friend was given an HP-35 by
> the State of Michigan.  This was my introduction to calculators, and I'm
> pleased to say I have never purchased anything non-HP.
>
> I bought an HP-21 for myself in 1975; the next year at MSU, I bought an
> HP-25, didn't like it, and went back to the -21.  I used an HP-15 for
> many years.
>
> I now have Russell Webb's RPN v3.62 on my PalmPilot; recommended.
> www.nthlab.com
>
> John Mosand wrote:
>
> > "... it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians". What
> > ??????
> >
> > If you are unfamiliar with RPN and get one of them in your hands, it will
> > take you less than an hour to become aquainted with it, and convinced about
> > it!
> >
> > Believe it or not, it follows exactly the procedure you use if you calculate
> > with pencil and paper: you write the first number, then the second number,
> > and finally you perform the function.
> > No matter how complicated the expression is, you never need to store
> > intermediate values, and you never need parentheses!
> > And, in most cases you will find that you save on the number of key strokes
> > needed, if that is of importance.
> >
> > RPN calcs lack the "=" key. It isn't needed! Instead, it has that "Enter"
> > key, which is the 'key' to its power.
> >
> > I've used RPN for 30 years (HP41CX, HP10C and HP48SX) . Whenever I have to
> > use a 'common' (algebraic) calculator I tend to become frustrated....
> > (I recently changed the button batteries in my HP10C for the first time
> > after 25 years. And this isn't entirely unusual.)
> >
> > John Mosand
> >
> >  >..............................................................
> >  >Of course the HP35 calculator did not relinquish this domain to the
> > uneducated masses either. Using "reverse polish notation" for its
> > arithmetic, it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians.
> > (*For those of you who have not been shown the secret handshake, reverse
> > polish notation places the operator at the end of the operation not in the
> > middle where it normally is. For example to add one and two together on a
> > normal calculator you would do "1" "+" "2" "=". In reverse polish notation
> > you would do "1" "Enter" "2" "+"*) - William Brohinsky
>
> --
> take care,
>  -- Vince
> Speed of light is 1 799 884 800 000 furlongs per fortnight.
>

Yes. It's for measuring distances using similar triangles, based on the upper &
lower crosshairs in the transit/theodolite, the numbers on the rod, and the
angle of the telescope. Not used as much any more with the advent of electronic
distance measurement.
Jeff

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Jones, Jon C." <jcjones@...>
To: <sliderule@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: SR Ebay musings 2.0
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:49:52 -0500

[snip]

Ebay # 200403941400  What, pray tell, is a stadia slide rule?
Surveying?



Jon C. Jones

GeoDecisions

ph: 757-873-0768




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Must be the very sliderule of Gimli the Dwarf, from "The Lord of the
Rings"!!  Tolkien's Dwarves were renowned builders and craftsmen, so it  stands
to reason they had sliderules. Tolkien himself was not a big fan of
technology in general, so he neglected to mention this "fact" in his great 
work.

Seriously, how does one obtain one of these beauties? It is a must-have for
  someone like me who is both a rabid SR collector and a lover of Tolkien's
mythology.

Cyron Lawson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jones, Jon C. wrote:
>
> Ebay # 250527658491 This one is just amusing. You could at least dress
> up the listing a bit.

Shall we tell our hero, with "100% positive feedback for over 10 years!"
and a feedback score of 122, that the N4 is an electrical rule, not
"Pickett Mechanical Slide Rule".

Jon, I disagree.  The listing doesn't need to be dressed up, but corrected.

I just noticed: $135.  Woof!
--
take care,
	 -- Vince
Speed of light is 1 799 884 800 000 furlongs per fortnight.

Dear Korny:

I think that you are misunderstanding the term 'algebraic notation' (as if
it is 'opposite' to RPN and better for algebra). For doing/solving basic
arithmetic, the two systems are about equal.

But, RPN is much more practical for solving algebra, as you will find if you
really go into it. There is absolutely no doubt that e.g. the freedom from
parantheses, intermediate storing, is an advantage, plus that the RPN stack
system gives a continuous overview.

I agree with you: RPN is easier for an RPN user, of course. Also when he/she
is doing algebra!!

John Mosand



>Is RPN easier to use than algebraic? Yes- but, no. It depends on which way
you learned. RPN is easier than algebraic- for an RPN user. I can use
both, but, I am algebraically oriented, so, I find algebraic easier
than RPN. I don't think in arithmetic . I think in algebra. So, I
prefer a calculator that thinks in algebra.

>I learned
arithmetic  in grade school. Then, in HS, I moved on. Higher maths-
algebra, trig, geometry, calculus- are written in algebraic format.

_____________________________
>KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Steve Rooke <sar10538@...> wrote:

From: Steve Rooke <sar10538@...>
Subject: Re: SR RPN calculators
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 12:42 AM

Agreed! Anyone can use an RPN calculator and you don't need to be a
member of a funny handshake club to do so. In fact, I believe RPN is
more intuitive to use.

Steve

In high school in the 70s, a quadriplegic friend was given an HP-35 by
the State of Michigan.  This was my introduction to calculators, and I'm
pleased to say I have never purchased anything non-HP.

I bought an HP-21 for myself in 1975; the next year at MSU, I bought an
HP-25, didn't like it, and went back to the -21.  I used an HP-15 for
many years.

I now have Russell Webb's RPN v3.62 on my PalmPilot; recommended.
www.nthlab.com

John Mosand wrote:

> "... it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians". What
> ??????
>
> If you are unfamiliar with RPN and get one of them in your hands, it will
> take you less than an hour to become aquainted with it, and convinced about
> it!
>
> Believe it or not, it follows exactly the procedure you use if you calculate
> with pencil and paper: you write the first number, then the second number,
> and finally you perform the function.
> No matter how complicated the expression is, you never need to store
> intermediate values, and you never need parentheses!
> And, in most cases you will find that you save on the number of key strokes
> needed, if that is of importance.
>
> RPN calcs lack the "=" key. It isn't needed! Instead, it has that "Enter"
> key, which is the 'key' to its power.
>
> I've used RPN for 30 years (HP41CX, HP10C and HP48SX) . Whenever I have to
> use a 'common' (algebraic) calculator I tend to become frustrated....
> (I recently changed the button batteries in my HP10C for the first time
> after 25 years. And this isn't entirely unusual.)
>
> John Mosand
>
>  >..............................................................
>  >Of course the HP35 calculator did not relinquish this domain to the
> uneducated masses either. Using "reverse polish notation" for its
> arithmetic, it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians.
> (*For those of you who have not been shown the secret handshake, reverse
> polish notation places the operator at the end of the operation not in the
> middle where it normally is. For example to add one and two together on a
> normal calculator you would do "1" "+" "2" "=". In reverse polish notation
> you would do "1" "Enter" "2" "+"*) - William Brohinsky

--
take care,
	 -- Vince
Speed of light is 1 799 884 800 000 furlongs per fortnight.

Raymond Kornele wrote:
> Is
> RPN easier to use than algebraic? Yes- but, no. It depends on which way
> you learned. RPN is easier than algebraic- for an RPN user. I can use
> both, but, I am algebraically oriented, so, I find algebraic easier
> than RPN. I don't think in arithmetic . I think in algebra. So, I
> prefer a calculator that thinks in algebra.

I used algebraic calculators for 10 years, then switched to RPN which
I've been using for 25 years now. After a week of RPN, I'd never go back
to an algebraic. And I too think algebraically when doing algebra, but
when I want to calculate something, RPN just makes more sense.

> I learned
> arithmetic  in grade school. Then, in HS, I moved on. Higher maths-
> algebra, trig, geometry, calculus- are written in algebraic format.

All true, but numerical calculators are used to do arithmetic, not
algebra. Only the newer symbolic calculators do actual algebra.

Slide rules are RPN. When you divide x by y, you set the cursor to x on
the D scale, then slide y on the C scale under the cursor, then go and
read the answer on D next to 1 on C.

--
Stefan Vorkoetter
http://www.stefanv.com

Thanks for the heads up.  I just ordered one of the commerce rules.
Although rather plain and simple, it folds at 360, which none of my
current commerce rules do.



From: sliderule@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of konshak
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:55 PM
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Juergen Nestler has some NOS SR's for sale at ISRM





Juergen Nestler asked me to assist him in selling what is left of the
NOS factory stock of Nestler slide rules (made 1972 or before), so I
have put up a web page to help him facilitate moving what little is left
of his inventory. He'll ship them to you directly from Germany.

Direct: http://www.sliderulemuseum.com/Nestler_Store.htm

Help him out if you can and get some nice slide rules, to boot!

Mike Konshak





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Juergen Nestler asked me to assist him in selling what is left of the NOS
factory stock of Nestler slide rules (made 1972 or before), so I have put up a
web page to help him facilitate moving what little is left of his inventory.
He'll ship them to you directly from Germany.

Direct: http://www.sliderulemuseum.com/Nestler_Store.htm

Help him out if you can and get some nice slide rules, to boot!

Mike Konshak

First and foremost, I am only getting half the listings I was a week
ago.  I am seeing a 'mere' 473 listings in the slide rule category
compared to over a thousand.  Is anyone else who was seeing the glut
recently seeing the same thing now?



Ebay # 380176303553.  This gent has been trying to unload this rule for
some time now.  He's paying the listings fee every other time, so I
imagine his margin is running pretty thin by now, what with his
exorbitant asking price.  Maybe it is just me, but the way the bulldozer
at the landfill obviously ran over it a few times ... well, it tempers
my interest.  In fact, my interest doesn't even approach the shipping
price.  Still, this fellow has sold orders of magnitude more stuff on
Ebay than I have, so maybe he knows something I don't.



On the other hand, looks like Gilson prices are falling back to
historical norms.



Ebay # 250527946807.  A really interesting magnifying cursor.



Ebay # 250527658491  This one is just amusing.  You could at least dress
up the listing a bit.



Ebay # 200403941400  What, pray tell, is a stadia slide rule?
Surveying?





Jon C. Jones

GeoDecisions

ph: 757-873-0768





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is
RPN easier to use than algebraic? Yes- but, no. It depends on which way
you learned. RPN is easier than algebraic- for an RPN user. I can use
both, but, I am algebraically oriented, so, I find algebraic easier
than RPN. I don't think in arithmetic . I think in algebra. So, I
prefer a calculator that thinks in algebra.

I learned
arithmetic  in grade school. Then, in HS, I moved on. Higher maths-
algebra, trig, geometry, calculus- are written in algebraic format.

_____________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)          
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Steve Rooke <sar10538@...> wrote:

From: Steve Rooke <sar10538@...>
Subject: Re: SR RPN calculators
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 12:42 AM

Agreed! Anyone can use an RPN calculator and you don't need to be a
member of a funny handshake club to do so. In fact, I believe RPN is
more intuitive to use.

Steve






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Recently presented with an iPod Touch, and not being much of a music
fan, I wondered what I could do with it. But its chameleon
characteristics are proving it to be a charismatic cornucopia of
virtual versatility. As well as family photos, videos, maps, and a few
hundred books, I now have the equivalent of three slide rules, AND an
HP15C in my pocket. Admittedly, as the virtual slide rules are only
about 150 mm long, and only half of each slide rule can be viewed at a
time, they require more movements than a real one. But the 15C is
quite effective (and cost far less than the original). Amazingly, with
plenty of space remaining for hundreds of feet of virtual books, or
dozens of other virtual applications, the machine seems almost to be a
spinoff from TARDIS technology.

Cyril Catt

Agreed! Anyone can use an RPN calculator and you don't need to be a
member of a funny handshake club to do so. In fact, I believe RPN is
more intuitive to use. When we add numbers together, we don't write 2
+ 3 down on paper, we write them one on top of the other in a column,
just like a stack, and THEN add them together. Same as how a computer
works internally, numbers are placed into registers and then the
operation is performed, they don't store the operator as with what you
would have to do to make 2 + 3 work. Algebraic, or infix, notation is
just a way that was developed to portray mathematical operations but
performing them on any machine, or system, internally is done in
entirely different way. RPN allows you to tackle anything, of any
complexity, because it does not require you to input a a whole
equation before the processing is performed.

I made a Sinclair Scientific way back in 1975 and have used RPN ever
since. I can't get on with a lot of normal calculators that get simple
things like 2 + 3 * 6 = 18 wrong. BTW, when we discussed 3^3^3
recently, I switched my HP 48G to algebraic mode to try it and
received the correct answer 7.62559748E12.

With a SR we do perform mathematics the infix way as the actual
function to be performed has to be known up-front so that the data can
be input in such a way as to produce the correct answer. In this case
I would argue that a SR uses polish logic.

Steve

2009/11/10 John Mosand <jomosand@...>
>
>
>
> "... it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians". What
> ??????
>
> If you are unfamiliar with RPN and get one of them in your hands, it will
> take you less than an hour to become aquainted with it, and convinced about
> it!
>
> Believe it or not, it follows exactly the procedure you use if you calculate
> with pencil and paper: you write the first number, then the second number,
> and finally you perform the function.
> No matter how complicated the expression is, you never need to store
> intermediate values, and you never need parentheses!
> And, in most cases you will find that you save on the number of key strokes
> needed, if that is of importance.
>
> RPN calcs lack the "=" key. It isn't needed! Instead, it has that "Enter"
> key, which is the 'key' to its power.
>
> I've used RPN for 30 years (HP41CX, HP10C and HP48SX) . Whenever I have to
> use a 'common' (algebraic) calculator I tend to become frustrated....
> (I recently changed the button batteries in my HP10C for the first time
> after 25 years. And this isn't entirely unusual.)
>
> John Mosand
>
> >..............................................................
> >Of course the HP35 calculator did not relinquish this domain to the
> uneducated masses either. Using "reverse polish notation" for its
> arithmetic, it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians.
> (*For those of you who have not been shown the secret handshake, reverse
> polish notation places the operator at the end of the operation not in the
> middle where it normally is. For example to add one and two together on a
> normal calculator you would do "1" "+" "2" "=". In reverse polish notation
> you would do "1" "Enter" "2" "+"*) - William Brohinsky
>
>


--
Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
A man with one clock knows what time it is;
A man with two clocks is never quite sure.

I bought a HP35S a few months ago, it took me less then an hour to get
used to RPN thanks to Steve :-) and the fine manual. I think it is
brilliant. A very natural way of calculating.

Fred


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

THIS was an interesting device. Turning a bunch of slide rules into log-log
paper. :o)

Mike

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan@...> wrote:
>
> There's mention of a "ganged slide-rule extrapolator" here:
>
> www.nap.edu/html/biomems/cabbot.pdf
> adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1923PPCAS...8...55S
>
> The descriptions match the picture you posted a link to.
>
> mrklingon wrote:
> > http://sirismm.si.edu/siahistory/imagedb/mah-24622.jpg
> >
> > Listed as a "slide rule extrapolator"
> >
> >
> >  Joel
>
>
>
> --
> Stefan Vorkoetter
> http://www.stefanv.com
>

"... it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians". What
??????

If you are unfamiliar with RPN and get one of them in your hands, it will
take you less than an hour to become aquainted with it, and convinced about
it!

Believe it or not, it follows exactly the procedure you use if you calculate
with pencil and paper: you write the first number, then the second number,
and finally you perform the function.
No matter how complicated the expression is, you never need to store
intermediate values, and you never need parentheses!
And, in most cases you will find that you save on the number of key strokes
needed, if that is of importance.

RPN calcs lack the "=" key. It isn't needed! Instead, it has that "Enter"
key, which is the 'key' to its power.

I've used RPN for 30 years (HP41CX, HP10C and HP48SX) . Whenever I have to
use a 'common' (algebraic)   calculator I tend to become frustrated....
(I recently changed the button batteries in my HP10C for the first time
after 25 years. And this isn't entirely unusual.)

John Mosand



>..............................................................
>Of course the HP35 calculator did not relinquish this domain to the
uneducated masses either. Using "reverse polish notation" for its
arithmetic, it was completely unuseable by anyone other than mathematicians.
(*For those of you who have not been shown the secret handshake, reverse
polish notation places the operator at the end of the operation not in the
middle where it normally is. For example to add one and two together on a
normal calculator you would do "1" "+" "2" "=". In reverse polish notation
you would do "1" "Enter" "2" "+"*)  - William Brohinsky

Well, I've heard of the "Hammer of Thor", but this is the first I've ever heard
of the "Slipstick of Thor".   :-)

Steve Treadwell



--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Jones, Jon C." <jcjones@...> wrote:
>
> Oughtred was a Viking?
>
>
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~apendragn/runish/sliderule/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jon C. Jones
>
> GeoDecisions
>
> ph: 757-873-0768
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Oddly, it doesn't take long to become fairly proficient with this.

ray

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jones, Jon C. <jcjones@...>wrote:

>
>
> Oughtred was a Viking?
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~apendragn/runish/sliderule/index.html
>
> Jon C. Jones
>
> GeoDecisions
>
> ph: 757-873-0768
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just bought a Pickett 200.  I can scan it  if it will solve the
mystery, but here is the gist -



The rule itself is labeled "Model 200", it is the newer style with the
squared braces and the three screw plastic cursor.  It is off-white.
Black circle pickett logo and mask number 38.  The back is completely
devoid of scales - it only says "Bethlehem Steel Corporation" on the
slide.  It has a black leather case with "Pickett" and the Bethlehem
Steel logo on it.  I haven't seen a case like this before, the little
strap you pull on to remove the rule folds completely over the top and
tucks into the front, like many of the full-sized scabbards.



It came in a box clearly marked "200-T Pocket Trig", yet this rule has
no trig scales.  The box contains the guarantee, registration card,
instruction manual, and even the remarkably unadorned business card of
R.J. Jurgen, Asst. Vice President, Traffic, Bethlehem Steel Corporation.



So, does this mean that Pickett would gladly abandon scales for
marketing, and then put the results in an arguably mismarked box?  Or is
this one just in the wrong box?



Jon C. Jones

GeoDecisions

ph: 757-873-0768





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oughtred was a Viking?



http://home.earthlink.net/~apendragn/runish/sliderule/index.html







Jon C. Jones

GeoDecisions

ph: 757-873-0768





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The only BIG difference is that it is not solar powered
by a mechanism such as Citizen's Eco-Drive feature, which
makes it be far more expensive that the Invicta - but for
a good reason.

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "David Smart" <smartware.consulting@...>
wrote:
>
> See
>
http://www.amazon.com/Invicta-Force-Flight-Multifunction-Stainless/dp/B00272MRYG
>
> It looks like a dead copy of the NightHawk I found
>
> http://images.mypilotstore.com/products/5737.jpg
>
> Regards, Dave S
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Catt" <ccatt10@...>
> To: <sliderule@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:54 AM
> Subject: SR Invicta slide rule watch is not a slide rule..
>
>
> > ...from what I can see, it is only a tachymetre.
> >
> > Cyril Catt
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.53/2487 - Release Date: 11/07/09
> 19:39:00
>

There is a good description of this device at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinograph

Regards,
Mauricio

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Mark Armbrust <mark.armbrust@...> wrote:
>
> Nice pictures of a cool looking slide rule that I can't afford
> (currently GBP721 ~ $1200)!
>
> ebay Item number: 330372700789
>
> --Mark
>

Hi;
     I have a question for the Nestler experts/collectors about the Nestler 27
Prazision slide rule. Did Nestler ever
print an instruction manual for this unique slide rule? I have an older book by
C.N. Pickworth that gives an
overview of operation in general, but it is short on practical problem
demonstration that is so prevalent in the
Nestler manuals.  My Mother used one in school, and when she taught me how to
use this rule when I was in school, I
think she told me there was an instruction manual that came with the rule, but
I'm not sure. Anyone know?

Regards, Bill Drylie




"The knowledge we have acquired ought not to resemble a great shop without order
and without inventory; we ought to
know what we possess and to be able to make it serve our own needs".

Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz

With the current thread on folding scales
at pi versus sqrt(10),
I just stumbled across the link below on the Annual Pi Day
page
  <http://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/index.html>
It seems only slightly off-topic
Well ... maybe a little more than slightly.

Pi-Ku (Haiku poetry about pi)

   <http://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/Pi-Ku/index.html>

Example:

Unending digits...
Why not keep it simple, like
Twenty-two sevenths?
- http://www.teachpi.org/activities.htm

Cheers,

Ron McConnell

===========

Errors have occurred.
We won't tell you where or why.
Lazy programmers.
- - Charlie Gibbs

This is a Dennert & Pape, made before 1936. From then on, D&P used ARISTO as
their trade mark.
They made about 150 different models 1872-1935.
If it is a 4", it is either a 12a (1918-28) or a 12c (1926-30).
D&P made K&E's first slide rules (Cox, 1891). This SR was probably made for
Aloe, St.Louis, for promotional purposes.

John Mosand



>Today I went to my neighborhood antique mall with the intent of just looking
around.
I looked at a few rules none of which were interesting to me. Then I saw a tiny
box and called an attendent. It is now with me. A 4" rule marked A. S. Aloe St.
Louis with Germany below. The box has the same marking. Scales are unmarked but
front is A[B C]D and back of slide has S and T which are marked. In the gutter
is D&P. There are no other marks other than a name scratched on the back.

>Has anyone seen such a rule? I find no references.

>Thanks - ceo

Reply to Charlie Oxford --- re Post 1446D slide rule

The Post 1446D was labeled for Post by Lawrence Engineering during WWII.  It is
a Lawrence 250-BT and is wood with painted scales, according to the Post Slide
Rule Archive  http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/post-list3.html

Ted Hume
San Angelo, Texas



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]