Re: To the moon on a pocket calculator

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
quilty > wrote:
>I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
>quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
>more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
>moon in the 60s.

That is more or less correct. Digital electronics has advanced
enormously in the last four decades.

>If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
>Shuttle?

Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Ami A. Silberman > wrote:
>2. The real computing brains behind Apollo were earth-bound. All the
>trajectory and burn calculations were performed on earth.

This is true, but Apollo also had the capability of doing a credible job
on board. In fact, the original requirement on the Apollo navigation
system was to fly the entire mission with zero help from the ground, and
it was very nearly capable of that. (The ability to actually fly the
lunar landing that way was sacrificed when they ran short of memory,
because by then it was clear that on-board navigation would be only a
backup system, and so only the abort cases really had to be covered.)

>3. Compared to Apollo, the Shuttle flies a much more complicated
>re-entry profile. (Since it actually flys, as opposed to plummets
>aerodynamically.)

Apollo flew too, although less obviously. It had significant lift at
hypersonic speeds, and that was used to control the reentry. The shuttle
reentry profile is slightly more complex, but only slightly.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Ami A. Silberman" > on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:45
-0400, which said:

>5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
>PC.

*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.

Hmm... Thinking hard, I remember that the late '70s were the time of
the Atari game consoles, and I remember reading an article (Time?
Newsweek?) that speculated whether Ataris might be adaptable so that
people could have computers in their homes. I think that article
appeared about 1980 or '81. It was also in 1980 that I saw my first
desktop computer, in the USCG base hospital on Kodiak, AK.


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Jason Rhodes]

"John Beaderstadt" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> "Ami A. Silberman" > on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:36:45
> -0400, which said:
>
> >5. The original shuttle computer was about as powerful as a late 70's
> >PC.
>
> *Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
> there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
>
> Hmm... Thinking hard, I remember that the late '70s were the time of
> the Atari game consoles, and I remember reading an article (Time?
> Newsweek?) that speculated whether Ataris might be adaptable so that
> people could have computers in their homes. I think that article
> appeared about 1980 or '81. It was also in 1980 that I saw my first
> desktop computer, in the USCG base hospital on Kodiak, AK.
>

Here are a couple of interesting links:
http://www.darron.net/firstibm.html (IBM got into the PC business in 1981,
until then it was dominated by Apple and Tandy.
http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?
Apple I and II were introduced in 1976 and 1977. So yes, there were PCs in
the late 1970s.

Jason

[Sam Seiber]

John Beaderstadt wrote:
> *Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
> there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.

Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75. IIRC the first IBM
PC was out in 1980. Useful microcomputers were very much around
in the late 70's.

Sam Seiber

[Rusty Barton]

>In article >,
>quilty > wrote:
>>I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
>>quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
>>more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
>>moon in the 60s.
>


http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/docs/columns/space.html



HP-65 IN SPACE


"65 Notes," July 1975
Volume 2, Number 6, Page 7

PALO ALTO, Calif., July 8 -- An 11-oz, $795 pocket calculator that can
be programmed like a computer will play an important role in the
historic Apollo/Soyuz rendezvous in space July 17.

The Hewlett-Packard HP-65 fully programmable pocket calculator will be
used to calculate two critical mid-course correction maneuvers just
prior to the linkup of the U.S. Apollo and the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft. These maneuvers will take place 12 and 24 minutes after
terminal phase initiation (the beginning of the last part of the
flight before rendezvous).

The calculator also will be used as a backup for Apollo's on-board
computer for the final maneuvers prior to rendezvous and docking. The
first use will be for the coelliptic maneuver (putting both spacecraft
into the same orbit) when the vehicles are within approximately 100
miles of each other. The second will be for the terminal phase
initiation calculations when Apollo is 22 miles from Soyuz. In both
instances, the HP-65 will be used to solve the problems, and its
answers will be compared with those of the on-board computer.

In the event of an on-board computer failure, however, the HP-65 will
provide the only available solution for the mid-course maneuvers,
since the spacecraft will not be in communication with ground stations
at that phase of the mission.

A third set of calculations to be performed by the battery-powered
HP-65 will allow the astronauts to precisely point Apollo's high gain
antenna at an orbiting satellite to assure proper communications with
Earth.

NASA scientists have written programs of up to 1,000 steps and
recorded them on tiny magnetic cards (100 steps per card). The
astronauts will feed these cards into the HP-65 to automatically
perform the critical calculations. In previous space flights, backup
maneuver calculations were made manually, using charts. The HP-65 will
substantially reduce the time needed to make the complex calculations
and improve the quality, accuracy and confidence in resulting
solutions.

Two HP-65s will be taken on the space flight, along with four sets of
program cards and six spare battery packs.

The HP-65 is not the first HP pocket calculator to venture into space;
an earlier model, the HP-35, went along on the Skylab missions.

The HP-65 is a general purpose calculator that can be programmed to go
through a step-by-step routine at the touch of a few keys, solving
extremely complex, lengthy or repetitive calculations quickly, easily
and accurately. Users can write their own programs for the calculator
or buy prerecorded program cards from Hewlett-Packard in the fields of
finance, mathematics, statistics, electrical engineering,
thermodynamics, stress analysis, surveying, medicine, aviation and
marine navigation.

Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.

The U. S. spaceship will begin its mission July 15 from Cape
Canaveral.






--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
John Beaderstadt > wrote:
>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.

In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
the stands in 1976.

Mind you, it was a very different world -- the machines were very small
and limited, a floppy drive was a luxury, hard drives were unheard-of, and
the early Byte was essentially a specialized electronics magazine, heavy
on circuit diagrams and construction articles. (In fact, Byte was started
by the publisher of a ham-radio magazine.) Things changed quickly.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Rusty Barton > wrote:
>Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
>have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
>France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
>sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
>the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.

Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
> In article >,
> quilty > wrote:
> >I heard (and don't ask me to identify the source...because I can't
> >quite remember where I heard this) that pocket calculators today are
> >more powerful than the computers that sent the Apollo crews to the
> >moon in the 60s.
>
> That is more or less correct. Digital electronics has advanced
> enormously in the last four decades.
>
> >If this is true...why the need for such complicated machines like the
> >Shuttle?
>
> Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
> of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.

Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.

However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.

So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> Here are a couple of interesting links:
> http://www.darron.net/firstibm.html (IBM got into the PC business in 1981,
> until then it was dominated by Apple and Tandy.
> http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?
> Apple I and II were introduced in 1976 and 1977. So yes, there were PCs in
> the late 1970s.

Yep, there were Apple and TRS-80 computers in the late '70s. There was
also the Commodore machine, I think that debuted in 1979, but I'm not
positive.

I worked for Arthur Andersen in 1981, for the Computer Aids to Tax
Practice group, and our partner-in-charge was determined to place a
personal computer on every tax professional's desk. So we made the first
large order (several thousand) for IBM PCs that IBM ever received. I got
an original IBM PC, with DOS 1.0 (complete with the floating point math
error) and two 5.25 floppy disk drives, in 1981. 8088 processor. We
developed applications in BASIC and VisiCalc for a couple of years to
calculate various tax figures.

That's where I got real good at playing with DOS. Those days are long
gone, of course -- as is Arthur Andersen, which is still amazing to me.
It used to be that having AA&Co. on my resume got me immediate attention.
Now, I think it's one of the reasons I don't even get responses when I
send out my resume... *sigh*...

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Matthew F Funke]

Henry Spencer > wrote:
>Rusty Barton > wrote:
>>Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
>>have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
>>France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
>>sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
>>the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.
>
>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.

I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?

If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke )

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Sam Seiber > wrote:
>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>> the stands in 1976.
>
>I am NOT looking for an ICH T-Shirt, but IIRC, Byte issue number one
>was dated September 1975. But you did say "hit the stands"...

Also, I said "I believe", indicating that I wasn't certain! I couldn't
remember the timing, so I was calculating back from the one issue I still
happen to have, but the early volume numbering may have been messed up
somehow.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Matthew F Funke > wrote:
>>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
>
> I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
>calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
>an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?

I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
handhelds page) is not encouraging.

> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?

Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.

>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>calculator technology.)

I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
picked up a 48GX as a spare.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Sam Seiber]

Bob Tenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:32:28 -0600, Sam Seiber
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75.
>
> I don't suppose you kept it,did you? There's a legend going around
> that _somebody_ did.
>

Yeppers, I still have it around. A few years ago I tried to
fire it up. I have a problem with the status latch. I replaced
it, but still not getting the status latched. Some day I
might get around to getting it working. But I still have it.
No, it is not for sale!

Sam Seiber

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Doug... > wrote:
>> Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
>> of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
>
>Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
>flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
>was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.

The Apollo computer was perfectly adequate for on-board navigation. This
was tested on Apollo 8, it worked. (When the time came for LOI, they used
the ground numbers only because it said so in the flight plan and leaving
it that way was simpler -- the on-board numbers were so close that nobody
could actually tell which was better.)

>However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
>developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
>room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
>would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
>burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
>minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.

References? The info I have (e.g., the Apollo GNC-history paper in the
AAS Science&Technology series vol. 43) says that full on-board abort
capability remained throughout. The main on-board capability that was
sacrificed due to memory shortage was the ability to fly a nominal mission
including landing -- that is, the non-abort case -- without ground help.
That capability had been given a high priority in the original specs, but
was no longer seen as particularly important.

>So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
>that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.

Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
limitation, just a mistake in implementation.

(In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Matthew F Funke]

Henry Spencer > wrote:
>Matthew F Funke > wrote:
>>>Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
>>>everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
>>
>> I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
>>calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
>>an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?
>
>I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
>it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
>a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
>handhelds page) is not encouraging.

I'd heard a number of rumors that HP was completely doing away with
their calculator business, and was somewhat saddened by that news. The
maintainer of <http://www.hpcalc.org>, Eric Rechlin, maintains that he's
heard from half a dozen sources (though I haven't asked what those sources
are) that HP is going to create a 49G+, a 48GII, and a 17BII+ in the same
timeframe (August or September 2003). HP itself is preparing for a 2003
calculator expansion, according to their own website:
<http://www.hp.com/calculators/news/>

Unfortunately, they don't mention the 49G+ directly, which I would
think would be big news. -=shrug=- If anything, I miss their old
manuals; if their environmental initiative is still underway, I expect
that the manual for the 49G+ will be as minimalist as that for the 49G
(which received a lot of complaints).

If it helps, hpcalc.org has a link to the Douglas Stewart Company's
order form, and *they* seem ready to sell 49G+ models in August...

>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>
>Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
>manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
>a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
>stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
>package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
>flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.

I'd heard that they did some *major* downsizing of the calculator
departments, including firing a great number of programmers and designers
(which I generally received as Bad News). As you mention, the latest
calculator they *did* issue was the 49G, released in 1999... and I'd
certainly have expected to have seen something before now if they fully
intended to keep up their calculator line all along.

The package also didn't look as timeless -- I'll agree with that.
(My first thought was that it looked disconcertingly iMac-like.) And it's
good to see that you liked the old manuals, too. :)

>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
>48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
>still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
>picked up a 48GX as a spare.

I took advantage of an old EduCalc deal where I could trade in my
48SX toward a 48GX. I've been using that happily for years. Of course,
if and when a 49G+ comes out, I'd want that desperately. :)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke )

[Brett Buck]

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), (Matthew
> F Funke) wrote:
>
>
>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>
> I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
> on computers are good enough.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
feel right like the old HP.

Brett

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Brett Buck" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
> doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
> emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
> to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
> feel right like the old HP.

Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
but not the same click.

And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.


>
> Brett
>

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
> In article >,
> Doug... > wrote:
> >> Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
> >> of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.
> >
> >Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
> >flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
> >was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.
>
> The Apollo computer was perfectly adequate for on-board navigation. This
> was tested on Apollo 8, it worked. (When the time came for LOI, they used
> the ground numbers only because it said so in the flight plan and leaving
> it that way was simpler -- the on-board numbers were so close that nobody
> could actually tell which was better.)
>
> >However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
> >developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
> >room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
> >would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
> >burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
> >minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.
>
> References? The info I have (e.g., the Apollo GNC-history paper in the
> AAS Science&Technology series vol. 43) says that full on-board abort
> capability remained throughout. The main on-board capability that was
> sacrificed due to memory shortage was the ability to fly a nominal mission
> including landing -- that is, the non-abort case -- without ground help.
> That capability had been given a high priority in the original specs, but
> was no longer seen as particularly important.

Damn -- this is something that I read sometime in the last 30 years or
so. I am positive of what I read -- it described the process of
developing the RTE program, the memory constraints that led to the
decision to fly without it, and the decision to instead rely upon
frequently updated abort pads that were read up to the crew at regular
intervals. This was discussed in the case of loss of communication
combined with other problems requiring a mission abort.

It is factual that the procedures for lunar flights included frequently
updated pads for upcoming preplanned abort windows, so that part of the
story is provable. Now I just have to a ****load of research to find the
documentation of the decision-making process about which I read sometime
in the last 30 years...

> >So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
> >that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.
>
> Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
> have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
> enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
> limitation, just a mistake in implementation.
>
> (In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
> Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)

Oh, agreed. As I said (or at least implied), it wasn't a calculational
constraint, it was a memory constraint. It wouldn't have been all that
difficult to add enough memory to allow the full RTE program, it was more
a matter of configuration and weight control, IIRC. My memory of the
account I read said that the final decision about the RTE program was
made sometime in mid- to late-1968, during planning for Apollo 8.

And, you'll recall that not *all* Apollo maneuvers were based on ground
numbers. Some maneuvers, especially LM braking during the final phase of
the rendezvous, were based on numbers generated by the onboard computers
tied into the rendezvous radar and VHF ranging systems. And the computer
systems on the LM and CSM were (at least supposedly) completely capable
of handling a lunar liftoff and rendezvous without comm. So there was
indeed an autonomous navigation capability.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Charles Buckley]

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), (Matthew
> F Funke) wrote:
>
>
>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>>(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>>calculator technology.)
>
>
> I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
> on computers are good enough.
>
> Mary
>


I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back.. I ended up
ordering another 48GX from backstock to replace the one I lost.
Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
cool equation library that was on the 48GX..

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:00:51 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

> In article >,
> Charles Buckley > wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.

The 48s knew more engineering equations than I do, this many years out
of college. I would have loved them as an undergraduate, although we
were always allowed our slide rules and the CRC Handbook of Tables,
which did have a lot of equations (and tables of derivatives and
integrals), for most exams.

Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
engineering, because the School believed that's what work is like.
I'll admit I never had a closed-book exam in the workplace; NASA
supplied me with all the reference material I could use, even to the
point of buying it for me if the libraries didn't have it and couldn't
get it by ILL. Plus, we all had our own personal reference materials,
which would have made a pretty good engineering library if we'd
combined them.

The 48G didn't know the air data equations I used so much, but it was
easy to program them in and then use the usual standard atmosphere
tables.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:
>Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
>engineering, because the School believed that's what work is like...

I dimly recall an article, years and year ago, written by some folks who'd
studied just how well various kinds of exams really evaluate knowledge of
the subject. They concluded that the clear winner for assessing actual
understanding, as distinct from just having a good memory, is a *timed*
open-book exam, where you can use any references you want but you're
scored on speed as well as correctness.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Jay Windley]

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
.. .
|
| Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards
| have the same keys, but not the same click.

I've managed to obtain six of those in working condition. I use one at work
and one at home, and the other four are for when those two fail.

| And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.

Their solidity and robustness is part of why I like them, and hopefully why
I'll die before all six of those keyboards succumb.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > writes:
>
> "Brett Buck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
>> doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
>> emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
>> to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
>> feel right like the old HP.
>
> Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
> but not the same click.
>
> And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.

But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
(9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
though, but the keycaps fall off.

(In the next issue of Guns & Old Computers: "The case for the .45-70
with reference to the need for a relaible one-shop stop of teh
COnvergent Technologies C-3." (Never was so much Evil locked into a
cardcage, with the possibile exception of a MicroNove trying to run
AOS)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Scott Hedrick]

"Ami A. Silberman" > wrote in message
...
> Well, there were Apples...

If Apple had existed and had been consulted for the CM or LM computer, NASA
would still be arguing over the color.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Jay Windley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" > wrote in message
> .. .
> |
> | Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards
> | have the same keys, but not the same click.
>
> I've managed to obtain six of those in working condition. I use one at
work
> and one at home, and the other four are for when those two fail.

Hmm, where exactly did you say you lived again.... :-)



>
> | And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>
> Their solidity and robustness is part of why I like them, and hopefully
why
> I'll die before all six of those keyboards succumb.

So, who's named in your will?


>
> --
> |
> The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
> to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
>

[Charles Buckley]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Charles Buckley > wrote:
>
>> I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
>>Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
>>could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
>>cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.


Stupid 48SX tricks..

One, the IR frequency was the same as used on a brand of car. You
could program the thing to unlock any of that brand of car.


Other stupid trick.. It also has the same frequency as some tv
remotes. Specifically, it had the same frequency as the tv in my
dorm. We would mess with the tv as we were doing our homework.

[Charles Buckley]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>>Actually, we had a high percentage of open-book and take-home exams in
>>engineering, because the School believed that's what work is like...
>
>
> I dimly recall an article, years and year ago, written by some folks who'd
> studied just how well various kinds of exams really evaluate knowledge of
> the subject. They concluded that the clear winner for assessing actual
> understanding, as distinct from just having a good memory, is a *timed*
> open-book exam, where you can use any references you want but you're
> scored on speed as well as correctness.


Essentially the system used for the EIT and PE exams.

I've known way to many engineering students who could do an
exam, but even confronted with the same info the next semester,
had to relearn it.

[Dave Michelson]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> John Beaderstadt > wrote:
>
>>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
>
>
> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
> the stands in 1976.

Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)

--
Dave Michelson

[OM]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
>> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
>> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
>> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
>> from exams etc.

....Some of the calculators that came out with 16 to 24k text buffers
were also banned back when they first came out around 1980-1981, as
they could be used to store cheat notes. What got that ball rolling
was at Texas U, this geeky little dip**** asked whether these models
would be banned, and up until that moment the tenured,
behind-the-times mumbling old dork(*) had absolutely no clue that
anything existed more powerful and just as portable as the TI-30.
After class, he went to the department chairdip's office, and within
the hour a memo was circulated to all profs & TAs, and posted on all
bulletin board - the cork kind, mind you - that these calculators were
banned from the campus *period*, and anyone caught using them would be
brought before the Ombudsman.

....By the end of the semester, however, it became apparent that the
tenured fools had overreacted, and the memos were quietly removed and
forgoten. Not before most EE freshmen had gone and sold theirs, alas.

(*) Any of you Texas U EE types remember Dr. "Mumbles" Dougal? Only
second to Dr. Cogdell as being the most ****-poor excuse for a college
professor, much less human life. That's the "mumbling old dork" of
whom I refer to....


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:45:51 GMT, Dave Michelson >
wrote:

>Henry Spencer wrote:
>> In article >,
>> John Beaderstadt > wrote:
>>
>>>*Were* there PCs in the late '70s? I honestly don't remember. I know
>>>there weren't in the late '60s and early '70s.
>>
>>
>> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>> the stands in 1976.
>
>Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)

....Again, it goes into semantics, and how you define the term. The
minimum common requirement is that the unit is designed to be used by
one person, has its own CPU to perform all computational tasks and
doesn't require any sort of TSO for either assist or primary
computations, and generally has its own localized I/O and storage
capabilities.

Oh, and then there's the important point of differentiation: a PC
doesn't need an entire room dedicated to its location, function and
support.

....Note that this isn't the be-all and end-all of a basic definition,
which means Henry'll pop in any post now and poke holes in this one
wide enough to push one of Beady's cows through :-P


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote:
> In article >,
> Matthew F Funke > wrote:
> >(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
> >calculator technology.)
>
> I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
> 48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
> still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
> picked up a 48GX as a spare.

I've been using a 48SX or GX for a little over a decade, and
I really like both. Though I spent too much time using
Mathematica in college to drool over them now. But I still
like my GX and keep it fairly handy. I've found that it's
still a lot more convenient and natural for me to use. When
I use one of those pocket calcs or the windows calculator I
always have this disturbing notion that I don't have enough
place to put things. But, in my opinion, high-end pocket
calculators are on their way out. General purpose computers
are just too cheap and too powerful in that same size / cost
range to leave special purpose calcs a decent niche.

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote:
> In article >,
> Charles Buckley > wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.

I have a calculus text-book which notes in the first
chapter that an HP48 could probably get a 95% on a
typical calculus test.

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > writes:
> > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
> > but not the same click.
> >
> > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>
> But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
> (9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
> though, but the keycaps fall off.

Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?

[OM]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:20:39 -0500, "Christopher M. Jones"
> wrote:

>"Peter Stickney" > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Greg D. Moore \(Killfiled Idiot\)" > farted:
>> > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
>> > but not the same click.
>> >
>> > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.

....There is a documented case of this. Some wife hit her husband over
the head with it, and killed him dead on the spot. She got 2nd degree
manslaughter for it instead of murder one, because she convinced the
jury that she only wanted him to quit playing computer games all day,
and just wanted to break the KB over his head to get her point across.

According to some old IBeeMers, this is rumored to be the reason they
went to the cheaper, ligher keyboards...

>Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
>old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?

....Nope. but someone *has* done the exploding spray paint can trick on
it. Keys went everywhere, but to the surprise of the experimenter,
when you put the keys back in, the damn thing still worked with only
the "G" and "Left Shift" keys showing any problems, and apparently
those were present when they KB was skedded for the Great Keyboard
Shelf in the Sky.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Jay Windley]

"Charles Buckley" > wrote in message
...
|
| I've known way to many engineering students who could do an
| exam, but even confronted with the same info the next semester,
| had to relearn it.

Engineers do their best work when not confined to memory. I prefer my teams
take the extra time to look things up and be sure of them.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

> In article >,
> Charles Buckley > wrote:
> > I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back...
> >Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
> >could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
> >cool equation library that was on the 48GX..
>
> My recollection -- with the caution that it's been a while since I tried
> out the 49G -- is that the units stuff is in there somewhere, but the
> equation library is indeed gone. The equations are gone for the same
> reason there is no IR communication: too many schools banned the 48s
> from exams etc.

I used my HP-48GX for two years as an aerospace engineering undergrad.
If the calculator makes THAT much difference on an exam, the professor
isn't doing a very good job devising exams. Our profs never banned
calculators from the exams (even knowing half of us had -48GX's); in
fact, one of the professor's exams were always completely "open
anything" - bring whatever you like to the test. If you don't know the
material it won't matter what tools you have.

Sadly, my -48GX was crushed by a box of books during a move several
years after college; I replaced it with a -48G (I never used the
expansion capability of the GX anyway) which I still have today.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> The 48G didn't know the air data equations I used so much, but it was
> easy to program them in and then use the usual standard atmosphere
> tables.

As an undergrad, we programed our -48GX's with the equations for static
and dynamic stability so that, with the aircraft's parameters properly
identified, we could determine basic flight characteristics. Fun stuff
for an Airplane Performance class.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Mike Flugennock]

In article >, "Christopher M.
Jones" > wrote:

> "Peter Stickney" > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > writes:
> > > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the
same keys,
> > > but not the same click.
> > >
> > > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
> >
> > But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
> > (9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
> > though, but the keycaps fall off.
>
> Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
> old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?

You mean, _strike_ it -- like hitting with the butt -- or _shoot_ it?

The keyboard on my old Mac Plus was a real friggin' tank -- repeatedly
dropped, knocked off the desk, stuff dropped _on_ it, Guinness spilled on
it, and wouldn't quit working. I sometimes thought, as the Plus neared the
end of its service life, that I really could bounce a bullet off that
damn' keyboard.

--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

[Brett Buck]

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

> If you go a couple steps up from that to matlab or
> mathematica or somesuch, then you've definitely outclassed
> handheld calculators of all kinds (except for convenience).
> Although mathematica is quite a lot more expensive than
> even a bag full of 48Gs.


So is MATLAB. But in either case, and having had access to
Mathematica and MATLAB for years, when it comes to simple calculations,
I still pick up the old 32sII or 48GX.

As an aside, I find the syntax of the the MATLAB symbolic toobox a
lot more conducive than Mathematica. I've pretty much stopped using
Mathematica as a result - it's either too fussy, or just different
enough to be annoying.

Brett

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Dave Michelson > wrote:
>> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>> the stands in 1976.
>
>Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>the concept...

It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
considerable space and cooling. It was the first computer that a lot of
labs could afford for themselves, but it still wasn't really a personal
computer.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Alan Jones]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:00:29 -0500, "Christopher M. Jones"
> wrote:

>"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:45:51 GMT, Dave Michelson >
>> wrote:
>> >Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>> >the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
>>
>> ...Again, it goes into semantics, and how you define the term. The
>> minimum common requirement is that the unit is designed to be used by
>> one person, has its own CPU to perform all computational tasks and
>> doesn't require any sort of TSO for either assist or primary
>> computations, and generally has its own localized I/O and storage
>> capabilities.
>>
>> Oh, and then there's the important point of differentiation: a PC
>> doesn't need an entire room dedicated to its location, function and
>> support.
>
>Erm, I think even more important than not needing a
>single room would be being inexpensive enough to be
>affordable by most people. I'm not sure, I think the
>PDP-8 was just about in that range. A good estimate
>for "affordable" I think would be around automobile
>price range, which people usually buy at least one of
>in their lifetime.

I was going to suggest the ABC, until you added the following
paragraph.

>In general though, I think the more important
>distinction of the PC as it developed later on was that
>the PC is a device for casual use by those who may not
>be professional computer users. And there I think the
>PDP-8 and Altair aren't quite up to snuff. Though
>certainly the Apple I/II and other similar computers
>in the late 70s were fully deserving of the "personal
>computer" title, especially as they were used as such.
>

[Reed Snellenberger]

(Henry Spencer) wrote in
:

>
> By second year, our family owned a $100 four-function calculator --
> mostly for my father's business use, of course, but it was possible to
> borrow it for critical events like exams.
>
> By fourth year, I had an HP-45, and life was a whole lot better.
>

Same here -- slipstick in high school, and got my first calculator in time
for freshman chemistry in college -- just a TI SR-10, but I thougth I was
in hog heaven. That one kept me going through my senior year, when I
splurged on an HP-67 (that's the one that used mag cards to store its
programs).

It's easy to identify people from that early generation of calculator users
(at least, technical ones) by asking them to recite pi to more than 4
significant digits ;-)

--
Reed Snellenberger
3.141592654

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:09:10 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> wrote:

> I used my HP-48GX for two years as an aerospace engineering undergrad.
> If the calculator makes THAT much difference on an exam, the professor
> isn't doing a very good job devising exams. Our profs never banned
> calculators from the exams (even knowing half of us had -48GX's); in
> fact, one of the professor's exams were always completely "open
> anything" - bring whatever you like to the test. If you don't know the
> material it won't matter what tools you have.

I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
anyone". Spoilsports.

I liked the "one 8-1/2x11" cheat sheet with anything you want written
on it" exam that the chem and physics depts had, but by the time I got
my cheat sheet written out, I didn't need it for the actual exam.
Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> I
> remember working out a Kutta-Jakowski (sp?) transformation for my
> Incomprehensible Flow class on my Atari 800, though.
>
> Mary

Heh. I had an Atari 800, too. Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and
before that a Sinclair ZX-81. As an adult I've fought my affinity for
the technology of my youth but, thanks to eBay, it has been a losing
battle. Now I own an Atari 400, an 800, a 600XL, two 800XLs, two
1200XLs, and a 130XE, plus a variety of peripherals (5.25" floppies, 40
column printers that weigh about 10 pounds, etc.). I actually bought my
wife a Commodore 64 and the Lunar Lander cartridge she used to play as a
kid, too.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Jay Windley]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
|
| Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.

Yep. That's what the professors will tell you. Brains are not very good at
storing naked facts. Paper is much better. The brain is good at
*connecting* facts into complex relationships. Creating those connections
helps recall of the facts.

As a student I hated derivations. What's the point of duplicating someone
else's effort? Isn't the point of progression to avoid having to reinvent
the wheel every time? But of course the derivation captures the *meaning*
of an equation. If you know what an equation does -- not just where to find
it and how to plug in values -- you'll probably remember it easier when you
need it.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[David M. Palmer]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

> I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
> anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
> anyone". Spoilsports.

One Physics take-home exam I heard of had a list of references you were
allowed to consult, e.g. Halliday & Resnick, Jackson, Feynman.

This being Caltech, someone consulted Feynman, who read the rules and
decided that that was in-bounds.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[OM]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:14:23 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> wrote:

>Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and before that a Sinclair ZX-81.

....The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
ZX-80.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Kevin Willoughby]

Dave Michelson said:
> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
> the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)

Since the PDP-8 was an update the of the PDP-5, it is hard to see how
the -8 could be the first.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Kevin Willoughby]

Christopher M. Jones said:
> In general though, I think the more important
> distinction of the PC as it developed later on was that
> the PC is a device for casual use by those who may not
> be professional computer users.

I once worked with a marketing guy who differentiated between "personal
computer" and "personal computing". The latter matches your definition.
The former was a computer that could be bought by an individual person.

By that definition, the early Dartmouth time-shared Basic would be a
"personal computing" environment, since it allowed ordinary people to
get computerized results with just a little training.


> And there I think the
> PDP-8 and Altair aren't quite up to snuff.

By the definitions above, a raw PDP-8 didn't provide Personal
Computing, but load it up with Focal or TSS running Basic, and it did
provide Personal Computing.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Christopher M. Jones" > writes:
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > writes:
>> > Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
>> > but not the same click.
>> >
>> > And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.
>>
>> But not as shields. The old IBM keyboards can be penetrated by a 9x19
>> (9mm Oarabellum) round at 10m. (33 ft) They're pretty reliable at 30m,
>> though, but the keycaps fall off.
>
> Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
> old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?

Not a .30-30, no. A .30-06 will do a job on it, though. The holes
aren't that big, but the momentum transfer makes all those little
springs come unglued.

The industrial computer hardware salesmen learned pretty quickly about
calling their products "bulletproof" around me. I'd have them bring a
salvaged cardcage on their next visit, and we'd go find out just how
bulletproof "bulletproof" was.
TO bring it on charter, consider it an experiment in micrometeroid
bombardment.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:14:23 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> > wrote:
>
> >Prior to that I had an Atari 400 and before that a Sinclair ZX-81.
>
> ...The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
> ZX-80.
>
>
> OM

Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P You ever play the Flight
Simulator program on one of those? Heh. These kids these days don't
know how good they've got it: color graphics, indeed! Pixels smaller
than a quarter-inch square, feh! *grumble, mumble*

;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[jeff findley]

Mary Shafer > writes:
> I liked the "one 8-1/2x11" cheat sheet with anything you want written
> on it" exam that the chem and physics depts had, but by the time I got
> my cheat sheet written out, I didn't need it for the actual exam.
> Just creating it was enough of a review and reminder for me.

I remember those. I wrote mine out on grid paper and made the print
as small as I could with my 0.5 mm mechanical pencil. Creating those
cheat sheets took hours of reviewing material to find the equations
and group them appropriately. As you said, once you were done
creating the cheat sheet, you knew the material much better. The poor
slobs that tried to copy someone else's cheat sheet before the exam
didn't get that benefit.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[Alan Jones]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:01:44 -0600, "David M. Palmer"
> wrote:

>In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:
>
>> I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
>> anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
>> anyone". Spoilsports.
>
>One Physics take-home exam I heard of had a list of references you were
>allowed to consult, e.g. Halliday & Resnick, Jackson, Feynman.
>
>This being Caltech, someone consulted Feynman, who read the rules and
>decided that that was in-bounds.

Proving once again, it is not what you know, but who you know. :(

[LooseChanj]

On or about Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:32:59 -0400, Kevin Willoughby
> made the sensational claim that:
> Dave Michelson said:
>> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense of
>> the concept. Not the first *home* computer, of course :-)
>
> Since the PDP-8 was an update the of the PDP-5, it is hard to see how
> the -8 could be the first.

Well, see, there was this accident with a compiler and a time machine...
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Dave Michelson]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >, Dave
> Michelson > wrote:
>
>>> In the modern sense of the term, no. But the first personal computers
>>> started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
>>> the stands in 1976.
>>
>> Some describe the PDP-8 as the first PC, at least in the functional sense
>> of the concept...
>
>
> It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
> it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
> considerable space and cooling. It was the first computer that a lot of
> labs could afford for themselves, but it still wasn't really a personal
> computer.

Perhaps this was true of the original units, but our old PDP-8E (circa 1970)
and trusty VT-52 terminal didn't need any heroic efforts to cool them. They
just sat on the bench and worked.

Expensive? At $6500 each, I suppose so. But they looked and felt more like a
1970's single user CP/M machine than they didn't.

--
Dave Michelson

[Christopher M. Jones]

"Mike Flugennock" > wrote:
> In article >, "Christopher M.
> Jones" > wrote:
> > Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
> > old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?
>
> You mean, _strike_ it -- like hitting with the butt -- or _shoot_ it?

Hint, I'm talking about different IBM products. ;)

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Christopher M. Jones" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Flugennock" > wrote:
> > In article >, "Christopher
M.
> > Jones" > wrote:
> > > Has anyone ever documented what happens when you strike an
> > > old IBM keyboard with a 30-30 Winchester?
> >
> > You mean, _strike_ it -- like hitting with the butt -- or _shoot_ it?
>
> Hint, I'm talking about different IBM products. ;)
>

Actually I recall reading a comment by a former Air Force guy about the .45
they had strapped to the side of the hard disk pack case.

His job in the event of being overrun by the Soviets was to fire it into the
spinning disk pack and letting momentum do the rest to the disk pack.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Dave Michelson > wrote:
>> It's borderline. Especially when you got up to a practical configuration,
>> it was still awfully expensive, not to mention rather large and in need of
>> considerable space and cooling...
>
>Perhaps this was true of the original units, but our old PDP-8E (circa 1970)
>and trusty VT-52 terminal didn't need any heroic efforts to cool them. They
>just sat on the bench and worked.

The 8E configuration we had needed a bit more than that. Admittedly it
was a rather large one.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[OM]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:36:31 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

....Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
commissioning:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat-03h.html

....Congrats, Henry!


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:36:31 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

....Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
commissioning:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat-03h.html

....Congrats, Henry!


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |
>
>...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
>commissioning...

Detumbling was last Thursday, actually. And official commissioning isn't
done yet, despite possibly-misleading wording in that report; that will
take at least the activation of precision attitude control, and some
testing to confirm that it works as well as expected. (I'm not involved
in MOST operations, and I don't remember the planned sequence offhand.)
But yes, it's getting there.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Bob Martin]

> > Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
> >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...

Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied simply
because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems by
hand).

> No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
> to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.

Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
aerodynamics class one day with it...

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
"Bob Martin" > wrote:

> > > Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
> > >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...
>
> Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied simply
> because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems by
> hand).
>
> > No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
> > to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
>
> Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
> helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
> aerodynamics class one day with it...
>
>

OH MY GOD! An engineering student who bases his calculator choice
AGAINST RPN? What the hell is the world coming to these days? I
suppose that's why my academic advisor (also the department head) called
it "The Georgia Institute for Wayward Boys" (it was his alma mater . .
..) ;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[OM]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:55:00 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

>In article >,
>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>>>MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
>>>first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |
>>
>>...Apparently, detumbling was successful today, as well as official
>>commissioning...
>
>Detumbling was last Thursday, actually. And official commissioning isn't
>done yet, despite possibly-misleading wording in that report;

....Yeah, I re-read that, and noted that commissioning wasn't anywhere
near complete. Either way, congrats are still in order.

Now, for the big question: how'd the Zoology department get involved
with a project like this anyway? :-)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Gene Wright]

Actually, there was a GREAT reason for RPN to come into existence.

HP was always crunched early on for memory, since they didn't make their own
chips like TI did. Using RPN requires less memory than algebraic. STudies
have even shown that to solve almost any problem, it takes fewer keystrokes
on an RPN machine than a algebraic machine (with parentheses or not). HP
models would have 49 steps of program memory, while TI's would have 100. HP
would have one with 224, TI would have one with 960! Calculations-wise, the
HP calculator systems needed less ram to solve arithmetic problems than an
algebraic AOS stack machine from TI. They saved money too.

Had HP been a memory chip manufacturer, they may have gone algebraic. Hard
to tell. But there was a good reason, in their opinion, to do so.

I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing with
parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.

Gene
--
* These statements and opinions are mine alone and do not reflect my
employer's views. *

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:51:40 -0400, "Bob Martin"
> > wrote:
>
> >> > Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was
in
> >> >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...
> >
> >Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied
simply
> >because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems
by
> >hand).
>
> ...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
> reason to come into being. I tend to equate it with all those bull****
> "top-down" design concepts that idiots like Nell Dale foisted on CS
> majors in the 80's.
>
> >> No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know
how
> >> to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
> >
> >Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
> >helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
> >aerodynamics class one day with it...
>
> ...There actually used to be a couple of websites up that had all the
> info on how to use a slide rule properly. One even had a Flash slide
> rule simulator that allowed you to try out the tutorials. Both have
> been gone for over a year now, which sucks because it was really a
> trip to see whether you remembered how to use it after 20+ years!
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:51:40 -0400, "Bob Martin"
> wrote:

>> > Kids these days, they just have it too easy. No 48GX's when I was in
>> >college. I used a National Semiconductor LED calculator with RPN...
>
>Evil... evil RPN. I refused to use the HP's my high school supplied simply
>because of that (I stuck with my TI-86 instead, or just did the problems by
>hand).

....RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
reason to come into being. I tend to equate it with all those bull****
"top-down" design concepts that idiots like Nell Dale foisted on CS
majors in the 80's.

>> No pocket calculators period when I was a freshman. You had to know how
>> to use a slide rule, log tables, etc. And I did, but it was no fun.
>
>Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
>helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
>aerodynamics class one day with it...

....There actually used to be a couple of websites up that had all the
info on how to use a slide rule properly. One even had a Flash slide
rule simulator that allowed you to try out the tutorials. Both have
been gone for over a year now, which sucks because it was really a
trip to see whether you remembered how to use it after 20+ years!


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Jim Davis]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

>> To all RPN doubters I say this: do one really complicated set
>> of thermodamnamics or incomprehensible flow problems on your
>> standard TI-type calc, then do a comparable set of problems on
>> an RPN-based calc. You probably won't go back.
>
> I certainly won't. I swear by my HP-41CV. It got me through
> four years of aero. Damn thing's almost indestructable, too.

Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if it
stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.

Jim Davis

[Dave Michelson]

Jim Davis wrote:
>
> Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if it
> stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.

I did, but lost mine about five years ago :-(

--
Dave Michelson

[Mike Chan]

"Gene Wright" > wrote in message >...
> Actually, there was a GREAT reason for RPN to come into existence.
>
> HP was always crunched early on for memory, since they didn't make their own
> chips like TI did. Using RPN requires less memory than algebraic. STudies
> have even shown that to solve almost any problem, it takes fewer keystrokes
> on an RPN machine than a algebraic machine (with parentheses or not). HP
> models would have 49 steps of program memory, while TI's would have 100. HP
> would have one with 224, TI would have one with 960! Calculations-wise, the
> HP calculator systems needed less ram to solve arithmetic problems than an
> algebraic AOS stack machine from TI. They saved money too.
>

Another reason was that ALU architecture in HP minis of that time were
based stack operations instead of general purpose registers. So,
there was design leverage.

> Had HP been a memory chip manufacturer, they may have gone algebraic. Hard
> to tell. But there was a good reason, in their opinion, to do so.
>
> I for one, still use RPN as I believe it is much faster than dealing with
> parentheses. Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
> older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.

Remember the "ENTER" > "=" T-shirts?

It is noteworthy that some old HP calculators go for 2x to 3x their
original MSRP on EBay. I was looking for another HP-42S for a backup
in case I lost the one I have now, and was shocked to see them getting
$200 to $300 winning bids.

For the folks who cut their teeth using RPN, algebraic entry just
plain sucks.

The other major plus of the old HP calculators was the precise feel of
the keys compared to the mushy feel on any calculator (HP included) on
the market today.

HP made some truly classic products...

[Mark]

Herb Schaltegger > wrote in message >...
> Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
> honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P

I didn't build a ZX80, but I did build a ZX81 :).

> You ever play the Flight
> Simulator program on one of those? Heh. These kids these days don't
> know how good they've got it: color graphics, indeed! Pixels smaller
> than a quarter-inch square, feh! *grumble, mumble*

There was hi-res graphics code for the ZX81 which could kind of do
256x192 pixels (kind of as in you couldn't control every single pixel
with perfect accuracy, only approximate). The great thing about a
computer which used software to display the screen was that you could
hack the display routine to display things other than what it was
'supposed' to display.

Mark

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Mike Chan
> writes
(Henry Spencer) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> Brett Buck > wrote:
>>
>> >...I took
>> >the back off one time, and the "chip" was not in a molded package - it
>> >was hand-potted right on the circuit board!
>>
>> That's actually fairly common in high-volume low-cost electronics. It
>> saves a penny or two to put the bare chip on the board and then put a glob
>> of epoxy over it, rather than having the chip-maker glob it beforehand.
>
>The HP-3xE series had the chip and the LED assembly pins pressed down
>onto the PWB by a high density foam pad after the case was screwed
>together. The foam gradually got compressed in spots in the course of
>normal usage, leading to intermittent display and results. I soldered
>the pins on both the chip and LED assembly, and got a couple more
>years out of my 32E until the "4" key wouldn't work any more.

I had a Novus 4525 programmable (National Semiconductor, RPN) and
devised workarounds for the fact that the "2" key stopped working.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

[OM]

On 31 Jul 2003 04:40:38 -0700, (Mark) wrote:

>Herb Schaltegger > wrote in message >...
>> Perhaps, but at least my ZX-81 wasn't a "Timex Sinclair xxxxx" but an
>> honest-to-Clive original "Sinclair" :-P
>
>I didn't build a ZX80, but I did build a ZX81 :).

....And not too many of those kits were successfully built. They were a
bit less "slop-tolerant" than the ZX-80's, which was a major
motivating factor towards Sir Clive switching the line to being
totally pre-assembled. Once he did that, Timex jumped on the marketing
deal, and they became essentially the in-thing for every geek to own
because they were cheap *and* affordable *and* for a -brief- time
trendy.

Ergo, they were the Pet Rock or the Rubik's Cube for those who
actually wanted a fad item that *did* something constructive.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Diane Wilson]

In article >, jimdavis2
@earthlink.net says...
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
> >> To all RPN doubters I say this: do one really complicated set
> >> of thermodamnamics or incomprehensible flow problems on your
> >> standard TI-type calc, then do a comparable set of problems on
> >> an RPN-based calc. You probably won't go back.
> >
> > I certainly won't. I swear by my HP-41CV. It got me through
> > four years of aero. Damn thing's almost indestructable, too.
>
> Does anyone else have an HP-15C? I've had mine for 20 years and if it
> stopped working or got lost or stolen I'd be heartbroken.

Yup, just checked the one in my desk while reading this thread,
and it's a 15C. The 11C (I think, it has hex mode) is at
work. It's still working after 20 years, which my new laptop
definitely won't be.

I don't use it much any more, but when you need a calculator,
you need a RPN calculator!

Diane

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:56:21 -0600, OM wrote:

> ...The mark of distinction isn't owning a ZX-81, it's having built a
> ZX-80.

No I can do better than that.

When I was an engineering student back in the (very) early 70's I built a
4 function pocket calculator with a membrane keyboard from a kit which I
purchased from some surplus electronics outfit in MA. I think it was B&K
or something like that.

This was back when the "Bowmar Brain" still cost hundreds of dollars, and
the HP-35 was brand spanking new, and most of the calulators that neophyte
engineers with the right stuff carried around hanging from our belts like
swords bore brands like K&E and Pickett.

What was good enought for Von Braun and Korylev was good enough for us!

[William C. Keel]

Henry Spencer > wrote:
> In article >,
> Rusty Barton > wrote:
>>Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
>>have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
>>France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
>>sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
>>the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.

> Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
> everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.
> --

Indeed. At this juncture I reach over and give a pat on the keyboard to
the trusty HP-55 that shares a table with my SGI. It's outlasted my
ability to find battery packs, but keeps soldiering on. I paid
$400 for it during my sophomore year in college, but when you
amortize that over about 28 years, it's not too bad.

Bill Keel

[Kevin Willoughby]

Mike Chan said:
> Another reason was that ALU architecture in HP minis of that time were
> based stack operations instead of general purpose registers. So,
> there was design leverage.

?!

In that era, I used an HP-2114B, and an HP-2100S for real-time data
acquisition. (My employer was owned by fire insurance companies. We'd
build and burn down buildings to figure out how to minimize fire
damage. (The major cost of most fires in commercial buildings isn't
fire damage, it is water damage from the sprinklers!)) Some data
reduction was done with our HP-35 and HP-65. Trust me, the computers
did *not* have stack-based operations. Despite the longer word length
(16 bit vs 12 bit), the HP instruction set was inferior to the much
simpler PDP-8.


> > Lots and lots of engineers still swear by HP. Of those who are
> > older than 40, I imagine a huge majority would do so.

I balanced my checkbook last night. Used my HP-11c. That little unit
has just worked for many years.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Mike Chan]

Kevin Willoughby > wrote in message >...
> Mike Chan said:
> > Another reason was that ALU architecture in HP minis of that time were
> > based stack operations instead of general purpose registers. So,
> > there was design leverage.
>
> ?!
>
> In that era, I used an HP-2114B, and an HP-2100S for real-time data
> acquisition. (My employer was owned by fire insurance companies. We'd
> build and burn down buildings to figure out how to minimize fire
> damage. (The major cost of most fires in commercial buildings isn't
> fire damage, it is water damage from the sprinklers!)) Some data
> reduction was done with our HP-35 and HP-65. Trust me, the computers
> did *not* have stack-based operations. Despite the longer word length
> (16 bit vs 12 bit), the HP instruction set was inferior to the much
> simpler PDP-8.

I am not familiar with the 21xx series architecture. I was thinking
of the 98xx series of desktop calculators, and of the HP3000, which
were stack-based machines.

[David Lesher]

Mary Shafer > writes:


>> If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
>> (I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
>> calculator technology.)

>I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
>on computers are good enough.

My 41CV has died alas, as has the 35 I have kept all these years...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

Mary Shafer > writes:


>I once asked if I could bring a NASA aero engineer to one of the "open
>anything" exams and the description was changed to "open anything, not
>anyone". Spoilsports.


That's a CalTech Urban Legend.

Takehome exam, list of references allowed on exam. Student goes to
Feynman who says "I can't help you on an exam" and student points
to references. NEXT exam said "Feynman, the textbook, not the
Professor.."

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Matthew F Funke]

Henry Spencer > wrote:
>Matthew F Funke > wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
>>calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
>>an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?
>
>I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
>it was still a rumor.

The 49G+ is scheduled for release in October. (So they'll miss the
back-to-school sales. What was their marketing department *thinking*?)

Check out this link: <http://www.hpcalc.org/images/49gplus.pdf>

Woo-hoo! :) They've added a number of improvements. The calculator
doesn't look as iMac-ish, the keys aren't rubber, they've replaced the
equation library, and *so* much more... it has an IR port, USB support,
and runs things 5-10 times faster than the 49G.

Looks like I'll be the proud owner of *two* HP calculators, if all
goes according to plan. :)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke )

[Scott Hedrick]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
> everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.

That's what happens when you have a more Compaq view of things- you keep
missing the big picture.

I have an HP-10B I use for real estate, once in a while. I wrote some Excel
spreadsheets for most of that work, but my trusty 386 laptop just isn't up
to field work anymore.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

I used to have, I believe it was a Casio- pocket computer I bought from
Radio Shack around '86. It had up to ten memory areas which could store
separate programs, up to a limit of about 2K. It came with a stripped
version of BASIC which was still pretty powerful. The only problem I had
with it was in a calculus class- the teacher, an otherwise excellent chap,
insisted on telling us the keystrokes for his equations, rather than writing
the equation on the board first. I'd have to wait until everyone was done so
I'd have the full equation, then quickly write a program to handle it. One
day he lost patience with me and told me the problem was I just didn't know
how to operate my calculator. I handed it to him and invited him to show me
how. It didn't take too long before he apologized and began writing the
equations on the board first. He finally realized that I didn't just have to
punch in the numbers, I had to write a program on the fly.

It could also store a good number of REM statements :) One day it just
stopped working, and I've never found another.

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Jonathan Silverlight" > wrote in message
...
> I had a Novus 4525 programmable (National Semiconductor, RPN) and
> devised workarounds for the fact that the "2" key stopped working.

I had the 8 key cut out while I was operating a cash register. It was a
trivial matter to work out a solution, but the next day I had a new
register- it just wasn't worth the effort to explain to the inbreds that
passed for customers what the problem was and that I wasn't trying to cheat
them.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Jim Mooney]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message >...

> Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
> helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
> aerodynamics class one day with it...

http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/2learning.html

[Kevin Willoughby]

> "Bob Martin" > wrote in message >...
> > Anywhere I could learn how to use a slide rule? I my mom's old one while
> > helping my grandparents move. It might be interesting to show up to my
> > aerodynamics class one day with it...

It actually might help you in your aerodynamics class.

It seems that those of us who used slide rules* have a better intuitive
"feel" for numbers. We are more likely to spot an error based on little
more than a gut-level reaction. In part, slide rules forced us to
mentally approximate enough of an answer to know where to put the
decimal point. (It is possible to keep track of the decimal point
directly when using a slide rule, but most of us never really did this.
We learned to recognised where the decimal point should go.) We also
have an intuitive feel for what it looks like to multiply numbers -- we
can do a rough approximation just by using the mind's eye to picture
the C/D scales of the slide rule.

A while back, I had the privilege of talking to a real rocket engineer.
He invited me to his home. The first thing he showed me was his slide
rule. After that, he showed me the photos of the rocket engine test
stand he ran and various other bits of his personal history. But the
slide rule was first thing he showed me.

Of course, if you need more than 3 significant figures, or want the
answer *now*!, then modern electronics is very appealing.



* I am of the last generation to use the slide rule. I got one of the
earliest TI scientific pocket calculators in my sophomore year in
college. Even today, I use my circular rule for some things, as it is
easier than writing code, or even using my beloved HP-11C calculator.
Every now and then, I'll pull it out during a meeting just to watch the
reaction from those young kids who have never seen one. (Gah! I'm
getting old.)
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Henry Spencer]

(Catching up after vacation...)

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>>Detumbling was last Thursday, actually. And official commissioning isn't
>>done yet, despite possibly-misleading wording in that report;
>
>...Yeah, I re-read that, and noted that commissioning wasn't anywhere
>near complete. Either way, congrats are still in order.

Thanks, on behalf of everyone. (And I should add that my role in MOST was
modest, and I'm not involved in the commissioning work, so most of the
credit properly goes to others, at Dynacon and SFL.)

>Now, for the big question: how'd the Zoology department get involved
>with a project like this anyway? :-)

Despite my historical association with the Zoology department, I've been
freelance for a decade now, so I'm afraid there's no connection,
disappointing though that may be. :-)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
>reason to come into being.

So, when you add two numbers by hand, do you write down one number, do the
addition, and then write down the other number? :-) Or do you write down
both numbers and then do the addition?

(That said, I will admit that for complex formulas, I prefer being able to
type the whole thing in algebraically, proofread it, and then say
"evaluate".)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

[OM]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:23:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

>In article >,
>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
>>reason to come into being.
>
>So, when you add two numbers by hand, do you write down one number, do the
>addition, and then write down the other number? :-) Or do you write down
>both numbers and then do the addition?

....No, I write down the first number, then the symbol for the math op,
then the second number, the repeat the process with alterations for
math op and subsequent numbers, then order up the equation. RPN
calculators were a pain in the butt to use for this sort of number
squashing, which is why I almost *castrated* my first science teacher
for getting the local school board to buy a set of these for class
use, and she was female. I spent the next three weeks pulling off odd
jobs for my parents, and temporarily raised my rates on my loan shark
activities - yeah, I sharked loans in junior high and high school.
Nothing major, but when you also run the penny-ante poker games you
can get away with that as well - to buy one of Radio Shack's first
calculators, which set me back $79 USD circa late 1975. Ran off
9-volt, nice red LED 9-digit display, and had single-result memory as
well.

When the mainboard suddenly went dead in '78, I bought a new one with
trig functions and a really neato bright gas plasma display for $20,
all in a really thin and sharp burnished chrome case , and reused the
rather beatup chassis of the old one for an audio level meter for an
electronics class project, due to the fact that the thing was so thick
it could easily handle a standard 3-prong commercial mike jack in
addition to the phono, BNC and RCA jacks :-)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[G.Beat]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:23:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:
> >>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
> >>reason to come into being.
> >
> >So, when you add two numbers by hand, do you write down one number, do
the
> >addition, and then write down the other number? :-) Or do you write down
> >both numbers and then do the addition?
> [snip]
> - to buy one of Radio Shack's first
> calculators, which set me back $79 USD circa late 1975. Ran off
> 9-volt, nice red LED 9-digit display, and had single-result memory as
> well.
>
> [snip]
>
> OM
>
What? No Bowman 4 function (my 1973 purchase) or TI-10 (or TI-11 with Pi
! )?
Started sophomore year (HS) with slide rule .... and used it only 1/2 time
senior year.

Odd when we thought about it, Apollo moon landings end ...
and the fun tools and toys start appearing (in school we thought this was
great)

gb

[G.Beat]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
> (Catching up after vacation...)
>
> In article >,
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:
> Thanks, on behalf of everyone. (And I should add that my role in MOST was
> modest, and I'm not involved in the commissioning work, so most of the
> credit properly goes to others, at Dynacon and SFL.)
>
> >Now, for the big question: how'd the Zoology department get involved
> >with a project like this anyway? :-)
>
> Despite my historical association with the Zoology department, I've been
> freelance for a decade now, so I'm afraid there's no connection,
> disappointing though that may be. :-)
> --
> MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
> first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |


Hah, my BS is in Zoology (Protozoology) - but the minor in Physics/Chemistry
(and early WATFOR / WATFIV FORTRAN & BASIC programming)
was just as much fun ! ...
happens when you make college choices in 1973 and just watch Cernan say
good-bye.

Congrats Henry, and as a member of AMSAT-NA, glad we could help in an
advisory capacity for the MOST project.

GB

[Jan Philips]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:23:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:
>>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
>>reason to come into being.

Well, it simplifies it for the calculator, since I think they actually
do it that way. But personally I think that the calculator should be
doing that work, not me.

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

G.Beat wrote:

> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
> in message ...
>
>>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:23:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
>>>>reason to come into being.
>>>
>>>So, when you add two numbers by hand, do you write down one number, do
>
> the
>
>>>addition, and then write down the other number? :-) Or do you write down
>>>both numbers and then do the addition?
>>
>>[snip]
>>- to buy one of Radio Shack's first
>>calculators, which set me back $79 USD circa late 1975. Ran off
>>9-volt, nice red LED 9-digit display, and had single-result memory as
>>well.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>OM
>>
>
> What? No Bowman 4 function (my 1973 purchase)....

I purchased one of those too, when I became a sophomore in college. But
I saved my money, and subsidized by my generous parents, I finally got
to purchase an HP-35. For me, that was more important than owning a car.

Prior to that, I had relied on my trusty Pickett slide rule. I had a
deluxe model with all the different scales, even hyperbolics.




>
> Odd when we thought about it, Apollo moon landings end ...
> and the fun tools and toys start appearing (in school we thought this was
> great)
>
> gb
>
>

--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

Jan Philips wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:23:08 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
> wrote:
>
>>>...RPN was one of those calculating methods that had absolutely no
>>>reason to come into being.
>
>
> Well, it simplifies it for the calculator, since I think they actually
> do it that way. But personally I think that the calculator should be
> doing that work, not me.

Sure.

But the first pocket calculators just didn't have enough memory to be
able to parse an algebraic expression with operator precedence and
nested parentheses. Prior to RPN, the affordable pocket calculators
just did simple chained calculations left-to-right, without operator
precedence.

RPN was a compromise in that you finally had a large enough stack to be
able to do the nested mathematical calculations you wanted to do--if you
arranged the calculations properly.

Calculators today have so much memory that they can easily parse nested
algebraic expressions with operator precedence and deeply nested
parentheses.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

[Jan Philips]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:18:34 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
> wrote:

>But the first pocket calculators just didn't have enough memory to be
>able to parse an algebraic expression with operator precedence and
>nested parentheses. Prior to RPN, the affordable pocket calculators
>just did simple chained calculations left-to-right, without operator
>precedence.

I still have the very first hand-held calculator I ever saw - a TI
SR-10 I got in 1973, and it has operator precedence.

[G.Beat]

"Jan Philips" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:18:34 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
> > wrote:
>
> >But the first pocket calculators just didn't have enough memory to be
> >able to parse an algebraic expression with operator precedence and
> >nested parentheses. Prior to RPN, the affordable pocket calculators
> >just did simple chained calculations left-to-right, without operator
> >precedence.
>
> I still have the very first hand-held calculator I ever saw - a TI
> SR-10 I got in 1973, and it has operator precedence.
>
Jan -

You are correct Slide Rule (SR) 10 , I will have to see if I still have the
old SR-11
in storage (or if my brother still has it)

gb

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

Jan Philips wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:18:34 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>But the first pocket calculators just didn't have enough memory to be
>>able to parse an algebraic expression with operator precedence and
>>nested parentheses. Prior to RPN, the affordable pocket calculators
>>just did simple chained calculations left-to-right, without operator
>>precedence.
>
>
> I still have the very first hand-held calculator I ever saw - a TI
> SR-10 I got in 1973, and it has operator precedence.

There were earlier and more primitive calculators.

One of the first "hand-held," but bulky, 4-function calculators was
produced by Canon in 1970. I'm sure it lacked operator precedence--it
had only "+=" and "-=" keys, instead of a separate "=" key. One year
later, the first true pocket calculator was produced by Bowmar, with
similar keypad.

HP's first scientific RPN-based pocket calculator, the HP-35, was first
sold in 1972.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

marcus hall wrote:
> In article >,
> G.Beat > wrote:
>
>>What? No Bowman 4 function (my 1973 purchase) or TI-10 (or TI-11 with Pi
>>! )?
>>Started sophomore year (HS) with slide rule .... and used it only 1/2 time
>>senior year.
>
>
> Wasn't it a "Bowmar brain"?? I seem to recall that in advertisements...

Yes, the Bowmar Brain was one of the first pocket calculators,
co-produced with Casio (IIRC) around 1970. Perhaps the gentleman
purchased a newer model in 1973.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.