Marion: Thank you for referring to my Article: Mendell Penco Weinbach and the
K&E Log Log Vector Slide Rules. Go to: www.oughtred then on left side click JOS
Plus, scroll down to March 20, 2008 to find Article. Hope Bob will find what he
is looking for if he reads the Article. It is long, 62 pages. Let me know.
Marion, I know you meant to say Robinson.
Best regards, Bill Robinson


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: sliderulenut
   To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:50 PM
   Subject: SR Re: SI Scale



   Bob, if you read Bill Richardson's article on the development of the original
K&E hyperbolic slide rule, you will see the first, or so I think, American
inverted sine and tangent scales. These provided a very practical application.

   marion

   --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@...> wrote:
   >
   >
   > Thanks Amin,
   >
   > Sounds like that is the only practical example of a calculation for this
scale arrangement
   >
   > regards
   > bob
   > --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Amin Aur" <amin_aur@> wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Hi Bob,
   > >
   > > I had to get my Hemmi No. 149A to look because that's the first rule that
came to mind when you said SI scale. It's really easy to use the SI and C/D
scale to calculate the normal acceleration of an airplane in a turn (g-loading
or g's). The g's on an airplane in a level turn is given by:
   > >
   > > g = 1 / [cos(phi)], where phi is the bank angle.
   > >
   > > Since sin(phi) = cos(90-phi), close the slide rule and read directly the
values on C/D scale from the SI scale. However, I prefer to use my Hemmi No.
130W because I can close the slide rule and read the the numbers directly and
it's bigger, so I can see it better :) Any aircraft in a level turn at 60
degrees of bank will be at 2g's:
   > >
   > > cos 60 = sin 30 = 0.5 and 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 g
   > >
   > > Airline pilots use 30 degrees of bank maximum when manuevering so we don't
scare the passengers, therefore:
   > >
   > > cos 30 = sin 60 = 0.866 and 1 / 0.866 = 1.15 g
   > >
   > > Most passengers won't even feel that if the g-loading onset, if the pilot
rolls in and out of the turn smoothly. At high altitudes (usually above 25,000
feet), we use 10-20 degrees of bank maximum, depending on the aircraft gross
weight and turbulence level to minimize the g-loading and not cause a high speed
buffet. That would be a bad thing! Hope this helps some.
   > >
   > > Cheers,
   > > Amin
   > > Norman OK
   > >
   > > --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Hello,
   > > >
   > > > does anyone use or know of a particular calculation that would require
only the C,D and SI scales? That say a pilot would use?
   > > >
   > > > regards
   > > > Bob
   > > >
   > >
   >





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

Bob, if you read Bill Richardson's article on the development of the original
K&E hyperbolic slide rule, you will see the first, or so I think, American
inverted sine and tangent scales. These provided a very practical application.

marion

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Amin,
>
> Sounds like that is the only practical example of a calculation for this scale
arrangement
>
> regards
> bob
> --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Amin Aur" <amin_aur@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I had to get my Hemmi No. 149A to look because that's the first rule that
came to mind when you said SI scale.  It's really easy to use the SI and C/D
scale to calculate the normal acceleration of an airplane in a turn (g-loading
or g's).  The g's on an airplane in a level turn is given by:
> >
> > g = 1 / [cos(phi)], where phi is the bank angle.
> >
> > Since sin(phi) = cos(90-phi), close the slide rule and read directly the
values on C/D scale from the SI scale.  However, I prefer to use my Hemmi No.
130W because I can close the slide rule and read the the numbers directly and
it's bigger, so I can see it better :)  Any aircraft in a level turn at 60
degrees of bank will be at 2g's:
> >
> > cos 60 = sin 30 = 0.5 and 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 g
> >
> > Airline pilots use 30 degrees of bank maximum when manuevering so we don't
scare the passengers, therefore:
> >
> > cos 30 = sin 60 = 0.866 and 1 / 0.866 = 1.15 g
> >
> > Most passengers won't even feel that if the g-loading onset, if the pilot
rolls in and out of the turn smoothly.  At high altitudes (usually above 25,000
feet), we use 10-20 degrees of bank maximum, depending on the aircraft gross
weight and turbulence level to minimize the g-loading and not cause a high speed
buffet.  That would be a bad thing!  Hope this helps some.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Amin
> > Norman OK
> >
> > --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > does anyone use or know of a particular calculation that would require
only the C,D and SI scales? That say  a pilot would use?
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Bob
> > >
> >
>

Yes, I have downloaded to my computers virtual slide rules and I used them for
many computations not involving a matrix of numbers to be crunched, for that I
use a spread sheet :0

I have virtual slide rules in both my Touch iPOD and iPhone, but like you say,
they look a bit small even though you can zoom in/out. But it's a real good
thing that fact you don't have to be caring a 10" + vintage slide rule with you,
becuase, even if it doesn't at first fit the tiny screen, you can always zoom in
and scroll in any direction.

I use a virtual slide rule (client not web) software that you can add or remove
scales on either side - and I am currently developing an app to include many of
the more rare and maybe esoteric slide rules (e.g. cylindrical, Otis King,
Thatcher, Loga) in an interesting design. Oh, and by the way, it will be an web
app where all of yous will be able to access :)

Courtesy of me,
Mau

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Cyril Catt <ccatt10@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Thanks Amin,

Sounds like that is the only practical example of a calculation for this scale
arrangement

regards
bob
--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Amin Aur" <amin_aur@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I had to get my Hemmi No. 149A to look because that's the first rule that came
to mind when you said SI scale.  It's really easy to use the SI and C/D scale to
calculate the normal acceleration of an airplane in a turn (g-loading or g's). 
The g's on an airplane in a level turn is given by:
>
> g = 1 / [cos(phi)], where phi is the bank angle.
>
> Since sin(phi) = cos(90-phi), close the slide rule and read directly the
values on C/D scale from the SI scale.  However, I prefer to use my Hemmi No.
130W because I can close the slide rule and read the the numbers directly and
it's bigger, so I can see it better :)  Any aircraft in a level turn at 60
degrees of bank will be at 2g's:
>
> cos 60 = sin 30 = 0.5 and 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 g
>
> Airline pilots use 30 degrees of bank maximum when manuevering so we don't
scare the passengers, therefore:
>
> cos 30 = sin 60 = 0.866 and 1 / 0.866 = 1.15 g
>
> Most passengers won't even feel that if the g-loading onset, if the pilot
rolls in and out of the turn smoothly.  At high altitudes (usually above 25,000
feet), we use 10-20 degrees of bank maximum, depending on the aircraft gross
weight and turbulence level to minimize the g-loading and not cause a high speed
buffet.  That would be a bad thing!  Hope this helps some.
>
> Cheers,
> Amin
> Norman OK
>
> --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > does anyone use or know of a particular calculation that would require only
the C,D and SI scales? That say  a pilot would use?
> >
> > regards
> > Bob
> >
>

oddly enough,t no one has pointed out that using RPN you don't need parenthesis
in any equation to calculate, e.g. (2+3)*(3+5^(3*2))/(10+12) - in RPN this is a
cinch to do and solve. Now, you don't need a HP calculator do do that anymore as
there are applications (RPN calculators) for iPhone, Palm Pilots, other
hand-held devices, also you can download RPN calculator (free public domain or
open source software) for your computer for Windows, Unix, Linux, or for Mac's
too.

*Cheers*
Mau

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Steve Rooke <sar10538@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>

I have "slide rule, science, medical, watches, ..." set as a  Favorite.
Selecting "slide rule" on the web page then seems to bring  up the "long list"
being discussed, but I don't know whether there are even more  I'm missing.
I did note, back when I first started using eBay, that "slide rule"  brings
up vastly more hits than"slide rules".

Cyron Lawson


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

I was trying to determine who cooked up
the birkana number symbols.
Lots of google hits for
     birkana number symbols,
but none seem to reveal the origin.
I don't _think it_ was the Vikings.
A friend who knows some about such things says,
"There's some evidence [the Vikings used] a vintegesimal
system."
Did the fellow who has the birkana virtual slide rule do it?
Compact, clever, logical...
I still like "0" instead of "1" for zero,
but that would not be rune like.

The Birkana symbols could be simply extended
for hexadecimal notation and would be neater than the
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E
used now.
A few years ago I was busy typing in a couple
of hundred pages of numbers (read "boring")
for an echo canceller chip control register
from paper into the computer and converting
the data to binary and hexadecimal.
It dawned on me that it was my birthday
and that I was 57-decimal and 39-hex.
So for the next year I could claim I was 39 (again).
But the following year, saying I was 3A years old
drew blank stares.

Cheers,

Ron McConnell

=============

Most of the people on this earth are below average.
  - Thor Sveinbjornson

The Sinclair Scientific was introduced in 1974 and used RPN on a custom
programmed TI TMC0805NC. This chip was designed by TI as a normal 4 function
calculator but they implemented it in a programmable ROM design. This
allowed Sir Clive Sinclair to shoehorn in full scientific functions. I
cannot find a datasheet for this chip but I understand it was very small and
he had to redesign the algorithms to get it all in. In his own words:-

“We did it by taking an existing TI chip which was a four function
calculator chip”, recalls Sinclair, “TI had made it internally programmable
– you could change the ROM – but it had only three registers.”

“We re-programmed that, much to TI’s amazement, to create a full scientific
calculator.”

“A friend of mine, Nigel Searle, a computer scientist, did the programming,
and I did the algorithms because no algorithms existed at that time which
would have worked in just three registers.”

“We went to Texas, stayed in a hotel room, and did the whole job in a few
days. We took the programme into TI, then went back and collected the chip.”

“TI were completely baffled by this”, remembers Sinclair, “there was a chap
at London University, a professor who specialised in algorithms, and he
couldn’t figure out how it could ever be done in just three registers. He
thought it was technically impossible.”
I attended a seminar at Sussex University in the UK by Sir Clive and he was
an amazing man.

Steve

2009/11/12 David Smart <smartware.consulting@...>

>
>
> >I read an article several years back claiming the original HP-35 was
> > programmed internally with a less-than-2K ROM; I think the number was
> > slightly over 1500.
>
> Could well be. I've worked with Forth implementations that were awfully
> tiny. Making an RPN engine can be fairly compact (and also relatively
> straightforward).
>
>
> > But then, it doesn't claim to have an infinite stack ...
>
> But that's not in ROM anyway.
>
> Regards, Dave S
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vince Tessier" <vlt@... <vlt%40glempire.org>>
> To: <sliderule@yahoogroups.com <sliderule%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
> Subject: Re: SR Re: RPN calculators (O.T.)
>
> >I read an article several years back claiming the original HP-35 was
> > programmed internally with a less-than-2K ROM; I think the number was
> > slightly over 1500.
> >
> > But then, it doesn't claim to have an infinite stack ...
> >
> > fwonghc wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > take care,
> > -- Vince
> > Speed of light is 1 799 884 800 000 furlongs per fortnight.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.61/2497 - Release Date: 11/11/09
> 19:41:00
>
>
>



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


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

Hi Bob,

I had to get my Hemmi No. 149A to look because that's the first rule that came
to mind when you said SI scale.  It's really easy to use the SI and C/D scale to
calculate the normal acceleration of an airplane in a turn (g-loading or g's). 
The g's on an airplane in a level turn is given by:

g = 1 / [cos(phi)], where phi is the bank angle.

Since sin(phi) = cos(90-phi), close the slide rule and read directly the values
on C/D scale from the SI scale.  However, I prefer to use my Hemmi No. 130W
because I can close the slide rule and read the the numbers directly and it's
bigger, so I can see it better :)  Any aircraft in a level turn at 60 degrees of
bank will be at 2g's:

cos 60 = sin 30 = 0.5 and 1 / 0.5 = 2.0 g

Airline pilots use 30 degrees of bank maximum when manuevering so we don't scare
the passengers, therefore:

cos 30 = sin 60 = 0.866 and 1 / 0.866 = 1.15 g

Most passengers won't even feel that if the g-loading onset, if the pilot rolls
in and out of the turn smoothly.  At high altitudes (usually above 25,000 feet),
we use 10-20 degrees of bank maximum, depending on the aircraft gross weight and
turbulence level to minimize the g-loading and not cause a high speed buffet. 
That would be a bad thing!  Hope this helps some.

Cheers,
Amin
Norman OK

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <adams.robert@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> does anyone use or know of a particular calculation that would require only
the C,D and SI scales? That say  a pilot would use?
>
> regards
> Bob
>

>I read an article several years back claiming the original HP-35 was
> programmed internally with a less-than-2K ROM; I think the number was
> slightly over 1500.

Could well be.  I've worked with Forth implementations that were awfully
tiny.  Making an RPN engine can be fairly compact (and also relatively
straightforward).

> But then, it doesn't claim to have an infinite stack ...

But that's not in ROM anyway.

Regards, Dave S

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Tessier" <vlt@...>
To: <sliderule@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: SR Re: RPN calculators (O.T.)


>I read an article several years back claiming the original HP-35 was
> programmed internally with a less-than-2K ROM; I think the number was
> slightly over 1500.
>
> But then, it doesn't claim to have an infinite stack ...
>
> fwonghc wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> --
> take care,
> -- Vince
> Speed of light is 1 799 884 800 000 furlongs per fortnight.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.61/2497 - Release Date: 11/11/09
19:41:00

I have a Jacques Pinard watch which I can find no info.
Does anyone know of this watch?

thanks,

charlie

One thing to consider for the next few days, if the rule isn't under the
collectibles heading, you lose the ebay double bucks!
Ed

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "Jones, Jon C." <jcjones@...> wrote:
>
> I use both approaches myself.  But recently I was getting over a
> thousand listings with the 'real slide rule heading' method you mention.
> Now it is back within the expected range.  If I had just used the 'real'
> method I would miss some.  There is a Unique I am bidding on right now
> that is under Engineering/Surveying.  I used to exclusively use the
> 'real heading' method ... no telling how many slide rules I missed this
> year.  I could have been more broke than I already am!
>
>
>
> BTW, how's your scouting doing?  I am going to try to have the boys lash
> up a catapult.  You know, useful, real-world stuff...
>
>
>
> From: sliderule@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Eriugena
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:00 PM
> To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: SR Ebay musings 2.0
>
>
>
>
>
> Jon,
>
> In my experience, the number of "slide rules" differs by how I approach
> eBay. Often, I input the search term "slide rules" and get a list that
> is
> populated by a lot of other things, such as guitar slides and
> wristwatches.
> However, then look for an actual slide rule in the list and then click
> on
> the hyperlink on the right side of the page. This is the "real" slide
> rule
> heading used by eBay. This clears out a lot of clutter. I find that the
> population varies from the high 400s to perhaps 700 items.
>
> --David
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I assume that Casio wasn't using the intel floating-all-over-the-place
numeric co-processor.

8^)

sliderulenut wrote:
>
>
> The first or very early Casios did not compute the % value correctly!
> This was such an annoyance to me that I threw my first one in the trash.
>
> marion


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

I read an article several years back claiming the original HP-35 was
programmed internally with a less-than-2K ROM; I think the number was
slightly over 1500.

But then, it doesn't claim to have an infinite stack ...

fwonghc wrote:
>
>
> 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.


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

I use both approaches myself.  But recently I was getting over a
thousand listings with the 'real slide rule heading' method you mention.
Now it is back within the expected range.  If I had just used the 'real'
method I would miss some.  There is a Unique I am bidding on right now
that is under Engineering/Surveying.  I used to exclusively use the
'real heading' method ... no telling how many slide rules I missed this
year.  I could have been more broke than I already am!



BTW, how's your scouting doing?  I am going to try to have the boys lash
up a catapult.  You know, useful, real-world stuff...



From: sliderule@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Eriugena
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:00 PM
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: SR Ebay musings 2.0





Jon,

In my experience, the number of "slide rules" differs by how I approach
eBay. Often, I input the search term "slide rules" and get a list that
is
populated by a lot of other things, such as guitar slides and
wristwatches.
However, then look for an actual slide rule in the list and then click
on
the hyperlink on the right side of the page. This is the "real" slide
rule
heading used by eBay. This clears out a lot of clutter. I find that the
population varies from the high 400s to perhaps 700 items.

--David





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

I believe that you will find many of them still being sold mostly as "printing
calculators" and most of them have += keys. Take a look at Best Buy or Amazon.

marion

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "fwonghc" <fwonghc@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean the calculators with += and -=  keys?
>
> They are obsolete nowadays.
>
> --- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "sliderulenut" <jayhawk999@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>

Do you mean the calculators with += and -=  keys?

They are obsolete nowadays.

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "sliderulenut" <jayhawk999@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>

But you can have your very own.  Just swipe the images and javascript
file off of his page.  Like I just did.



If he would do the other side I would consider printing the images and
making one.



From: sliderule@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Stefan Vorkoetter
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:27 PM
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re- Birkana (virtual) SR





CTLPELWV@... <mailto:CTLPELWV%40aol.com>  wrote:
> Thanks to Stefan Vorkoetter for confirming my "suspicions". Of course,
I
> was being facetious in asking how to obtain an actual Birkana.

Really? Your question was:

> Seriously, how does one obtain one of these beauties?

Usually when someone says "seriously", I assume they're now being
serious. :-)

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





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

Sorry, I may not agree with you.

If multiplication first, I set the mulitplicand on D, then align multiplier on
CI for multiplication...this absolutely avoid the possibility of resetting the
index, either CI:1 or CI:10 will be on D..

In chain calculation, if I 'feel' that the slider will protude too
far away, I will do division first.

So, if division first, I usually set the dividend on D, then align divisor C on
C. (same either C:1 or C:10 will be on D).

So, in both my cases, multiplication and division, in your sense, is RPN..

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, Terry Smithwick <Tinyallen@...> wrote:
>
>    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
>
>
>

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM, sliderulenut <jayhawk999@...> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
Introduce her to FORTH.

ray


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

The first or very early Casios did not compute the % value correctly! This was
such an annoyance to me that I threw my first one in the trash.

marion

--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "fwonghc" <fwonghc@...> wrote:
>
> This can be done with the % key on Casio/CANON/Sharp Calculators.
>
> They all gave the answer immediately. (Though they may be different).
>
> I know what you mean as I also have the TI BA II Plus, when press the 80 %
change to 0.8
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't see how you can do that on an algebraic calculator either. Most
calculators, when you hit the % key, calculate X % of Y, so you'll end up
computing 20 / 16 = 1.25. But really, 20 / 80 % is not any standard mathematical
notation I've ever seen, so it's not clear what the right answer is meant to be.
> >
> > --
> > Stefan Vorkoetter
> > http://www.stefanv.com
> >
>

CTLPELWV@... wrote:
> Thanks to Stefan Vorkoetter for confirming my "suspicions".  Of  course, I
> was being facetious in asking how to obtain an actual Birkana.

Really? Your question was:

  > Seriously, how does one obtain one of these beauties?

Usually when someone says "seriously", I assume they're now being
serious. :-)


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

Jon,

In my experience, the number of "slide rules" differs by how I approach
eBay. Often, I input the search term "slide rules" and get a list that is
populated by a lot of other things, such as guitar slides and wristwatches.
However, then look for an actual slide rule in the list and then click on
the hyperlink on the right side of the page. This is the "real" slide rule
heading used by eBay. This clears out a lot of clutter. I find that the
population varies from the high 400s to perhaps 700 items.

--David

Thanks to Stefan Vorkoetter for confirming my "suspicions".  Of  course, I
was being facetious in asking how to obtain an actual Birkana. (The  smiley
face after my question didn't get transmitted.)  Photoshop  indeed can work
wonders.

As Stefan notes, the rules may exist in Middle Earth-- Tplkien just never
got around to mentioning them, nor any other instance of his characters
doing  calculations.
(:>)

Cyron Lawson


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

This can be done with the % key on Casio/CANON/Sharp Calculators.

They all gave the answer immediately. (Though they may be different).

I know what you mean as I also have the TI BA II Plus, when press the 80 %
change to 0.8


> > 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.
>
> I don't see how you can do that on an algebraic calculator either. Most
calculators, when you hit the % key, calculate X % of Y, so you'll end up
computing 20 / 16 = 1.25. But really, 20 / 80 % is not any standard mathematical
notation I've ever seen, so it's not clear what the right answer is meant to be.
>
> --
> Stefan Vorkoetter
> http://www.stefanv.com
>

CTLPELWV@... wrote:

> 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.

I think it only exists in the virtual world (and perhaps in Middle
Earth). I don't think the rule pictured on that site ever existed in
physical form. The wonders of Photoshop.

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

Very true. In fact the oldest (and still on the market) and best selling biz
calculator is history is the HP-12C. It is completely RPN.



I am a dyed-in-the-wool HP calculator user. I still try to make the annual
HHC weekend conferences - couldn't make it the last two years, but planning
to go next year. At the end of it all, the choice between RPN and Alebraic
entry comes down to personal preference, and who has the biggest market
share.



An interesting sidenote - the use of "full" algebraic, textbook entry is a
relatively new concept. In the earnly days, even TI calculators were not
full algebraic. For example, to enter the sin of an an angle, you first
entered the angle - and the pressed the sine key. My first calculator
(before I saw the light) was a TI SR50.



Ah well -- opinions, opinions, opinions.



John



From: sliderule@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sliderule@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of sliderulenut
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:12 PM
To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: SR RPN calculators





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 <mailto:sliderule%40yahoogroups.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.
>





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

Of course, it gets easier with practice.  I started using this because doing the
mental approximation to place the decimal point seems difficult to me.  To make
the digit counting method easier, I keep my soroban right next to the slide
rule, both lying flat on the desk - I use the rightmost rod for minus
corrections on multiplies, and the rod just to its left for plus corrections on
divisions, so that I don't have to keep a running total in my mind (same reason
they had the pointer dials on the cursors of some of those old slide rules). 
After I do each multiply or divide, I just check where the product or quotient
falls with respect to the first factor and add a bead to the appropriate rod on
the soroban, if required.  At the end, I just cancel plus and minus counts on
the rods, and if there is a net plus or minus left over, add it into the digit
count and place the decimal.  It's really easier than it sounds.
This is very easy if you do each multiply or divide on a single scale set; i.e.,
use only C, D, CI for an operation, or on the other hand use only CF, DF, CIF,
and change scale sets only when a product or quotient appears on D opposite the
C index (and at the same time on DF opposite the CF index).  It does get a
little more complicated if you cross the slide for the second factor - for
example, use D and CF or DF and C in one operation, but with practice, even that
gets to seem pretty easy.

Steve Treadwell


--- In sliderule@yahoogroups.com, "fwonghc" <fwonghc@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, it seems a little bit complicated for me.
>
> (Taking care of the tally (number of digits, the portion of stator/slider and
calculation per se at the same time).
>
> Anyway, 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
> >

Absolutely! It's polish notation, PN, IE. multiply(9, 7), as opposed to RPN,
IE. (9, 7)multiply. You need to know what function is being performed first
so that you can choose the scales it will use.

Steve

2009/11/11 Terry Smithwick <Tinyallen@...>

>
>
> 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@... <jomosand%40online.no>>
> To: sliderule@yahoogroups.com <sliderule%40yahoogroups.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]
>
>
>



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


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

Thanks, it seems a little bit complicated for me.

(Taking care of the tally (number of digits, the portion of stator/slider and
calculation per se at the same time).

Anyway, 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?
> >
> >