A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Robert Swinney wrote:
Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

Is that HP 32 reverse polish notation. I have used a RPN HP since about
1977 and using the common ones really screws me up. My HP 11C from 1982
is still going strong and only on the 3rd set of batteries. I lost it
once at a college and 1st lecture back the following year the lecturer
asks if it belonged to anyone so I got it back. On speaking to the
technitions at the college who found it they said it looked like a real
good calculator and would have kept it if they could figure out how it
worked.

Aaron Kushner wrote:

A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Bob Swinney
"Aaron Kushner" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Greg wrote:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $).

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.


--

Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

David Billington wrote:
Is that HP 32 reverse polish notation. I have used a RPN HP since about
1977 and using the common ones really screws me up. My HP 11C from 1982
is still going strong and only on the 3rd set of batteries. I lost it
once at a college and 1st lecture back the following year the lecturer
asks if it belonged to anyone so I got it back. On speaking to the
technitions at the college who found it they said it looked like a real
good calculator and would have kept it if they could figure out how it
worked.

Yes, the HP32S is RPN. I purchased a HP41C in 1981 and have been
using that daily as I was more still more comfortable with it
than the HP32. After finding the fraction feature on the 32S, I
think it will be seeing more use. And my HP 11C stays by my
bedstand for those back of the envelope kind of problems that
keep me up at night ;-)

Also, there are several HP RPN emulators for Palms and Windows CE
devices. I've got an HP41CX emulator on my Palm, but the only
problem is that it lacks the wonderful feel of the real HP
keyboards.

I'll have to look into the HP33S. Wonder if I can still sell the
32 and 12C on ebay while the mark is still hot for those.

See http://www.rskey.org/hp.asp and http://www.hpmuseum.org/ for
good info on all the HP calcs.


-ask

Greg wrote:



Robert Swinney wrote:

Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.


Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

I know what you mean - have a 28C clamshell and a TI 81 for the shop .
The 28 is for the office.

At work I use a software version of an HP on my PDA.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Aaron Kushner writes:

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore.

Yes. At one time years ago they were in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart for
$10. Should have bought more. Hands off mine!

You may be able to buy it direct from HP's website. www.hp.com and click on
handheld devices to find calculators link.

"Greg" wrote in message
...


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It
doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
..5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

If you happen across an old HP17BII, it has selectable RPN or AE modes. But
be aware the HP17B is AE only.

On 17 Apr 2004 10:42:42 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim

HP48 is the latest I have, and it's RPN only, but I've got a (n even
older?) clamshell HP financial calculator HP19B that is AE only.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

Yeah! I guessed it was something like that.

Bob Swinney
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO,
RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
.5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing
so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with
the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now,
before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and
know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into
learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

HP48 is the latest I have, and it's RPN only, but I've got a (n even
older?) clamshell HP financial calculator HP19B that is AE only.

See, HP finally realized that basically non-math types wouldn't want to mess
with all that complexity so they put in AE. But we know the real reason
don't we.

Bob Swinney

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On 17 Apr 2004 10:42:42 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Spehro Pefhany
says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track
of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Bob Swinney

"ATP" wrote in message
et...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

In my opinion, the HP-27 was the best pocket calculator of its day -- perhaps
the best of all time. It could do algebraic, statistical, and financial
routines -- all hard wired. Yes, it had a LED display, and needed to be
recharged often, but it could do it all. Mine won't any more, because the key
contacts have been worn out. I would pay dearly for the same capabilities in a
similar wonder machine with LCD display.

Robert Swinney wrote:
I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep
track of what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer
borrows it at a meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two
numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for
a ton of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes
lots of folks break arms patting themselves on their backs over how
smart they are - but - the fact remains, RPN was introduced because
of electronic limitations of the time. Sphero explained it very well
when he said that AE takes more interim memory.

Bob Swinney

I don't think it's confusing once you've learned it, and it has the added
benefit of stack manipulation. You don't have to save interim results in
memory, you can easily transpose results when needed, and certain operations
seem more meaningful and logical. I've had quite a few HP calculators and
TI's, I always liked the HP's.

In article , ATP says...

I don't think it's confusing once you've learned it, and it has the added
benefit of stack manipulation. You don't have to save interim results in
memory, you can easily transpose results when needed, ...

Yep - I seem to find that the X-Y key seems to get a good
deal of work on my calculators.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Robert Swinney wrote:
HP48 is the latest I have, and it's RPN only, but I've got a (n even
older?) clamshell HP financial calculator HP19B that is AE only.

See, HP finally realized that basically non-math types wouldn't want to mess
with all that complexity so they put in AE. But we know the real reason
don't we.

The advantage of using RPN is that you follow the
same sequence of entering numbers as you would do
it by hand. For instance to multiply the numbers
1234 and 5678 with pencil on paper you would first
write down the first number. On the next line
underneath you write the second number. Now you
multiply (or add or subtract whatever) the two numbers.
With RPN you do the same thing: First you key in
the first number. To tell the calculator that the
first number is complete you press enter and then
key in the second number. Next you tell the calculator
what you want to be done: If multiplication then press
the x button, for addition you press the + key etc.
Generally if you know how to solve the problem with
pencil on paper you follow the same sequence on the
RPN calculator.
Persons presented with an lengthy and complicated
equation and not knowing how to go about calculating
the result on paper do prefer the AE calculators.
Somehow they get an answer and belief that it is
correct. However if you know how to calculate that by
hand, then using an RPN calculator comes naturally and
not only that, you 'know' that the calculation is correct.
One guy who had left his RPN calculator at home and
had borrowed an AE calculator said to me: " I repeated
that calculation three times and I am still not confident
that the answer is correct. Can I please borrow your RPN
calculator to get the right answer" HTH
--
SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS
Have 5 nice days! John
******************************
--- ILN 000.000.001 ---

Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth, Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.


Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney







--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a
mag card reader/writer. All three levels of stack were visible at once
on the tiny crt display. Since it had core memory, you could turn it
off, and when you turned it back on, your program was still there, ready
to run.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive
aluminum foil, and it wrote by blasting through with electrostatic
discharges that to the black background on the paper. As your printout
extended, you were unfurling an antenna to broadcast your calculations
to the world. :-)

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

JWDoyleJr wrote:

In my opinion, the HP-27 was the best pocket calculator of its day -- perhaps
the best of all time. It could do algebraic, statistical, and financial
routines -- all hard wired. Yes, it had a LED display, and needed to be
recharged often, but it could do it all. Mine won't any more, because the key
contacts have been worn out. I would pay dearly for the same capabilities in a
similar wonder machine with LCD display.
Wonder if the switches could be fixed with 'mo strips' - the thin silver filled cells
in a sheet of rubber...

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:08:37 -0700, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Well, when Jan Lukasiewicz invented polish notation in 1920, it wasn't to
save memory. When Charles Hamblin adapted it for calculation by changing
the operators from prefix to postfix, it was to save keystrokes, allow you to
start anywhere in an equation, see each intermediate result, and have a
reasonable confidence that you'd wind up with the correct final result.

As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation.

Gary

On 18 Apr 2004 00:46:03 -0400, the renowned (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a
mag card reader/writer. All three levels of stack were visible at once
on the tiny crt display. Since it had core memory, you could turn it
off, and when you turned it back on, your program was still there, ready
to run.

Handheld, of course. I picked up one of those (the 9200B) at a
stationery shop in Downey CA back in the early eighties for song
($40), with JPL stickers all over it. CRT display. Gold-plated PCBs.
VERY nice, and it still worked. Unfortunately it disappeared last time
we moved to a new house. Very sad, it was a beautiful example of
American engineering. It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive
aluminum foil, and it wrote by blasting through with electrostatic
discharges that to the black background on the paper. As your printout
extended, you were unfurling an antenna to broadcast your calculations
to the world. :-)

I never saw that.

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.

The HP-35 and 45 were just a bit before my time- I knew of them, but
couldn't afford (or justify) them.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:00:35 -0700, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Bob,

See, HP finally realized that basically non-math types wouldn't want to mess
with all that complexity so they put in AE. But we know the real reason

Some years ago, the algebraic entry calculator my daughter used at
school became faulty and she required another one ASAP. She
suggested she used my HP25 (yeah, it was that long ago :-) ). I
told her about the RPN operation and showed her how to operate it.
We got her other calculator repaired or replaced, but I couldn't get
my RPN HP25 back from her. She thought the RPN operation was a lot
easier than messing about with brackets on AE. If you knew my
daughter you would most definitely recognise a 'non-math type' :-)

At the moment, my HP32 is broken (my fault - got damaged in my
pocket) and I'm waiting on the HP33 to arrive on the UK shores :-)
I'm suffering with an AE calculator in the interim :-)

Jim.

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

... It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

Agilent still makes some pretty nice stuff. They're the
spin-off of HP's instrument division. I suspect that
babe fiorina is going to run that business straight into
the ground, and then eject at the last minute with her
parachute.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

From: "Robert Swinney"

I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along

Robert, I agree with you completely. I grew up with slide rules, log tables
and hand calculations. I have programmed processors from Litton, Intel,
Motorola, Rockwell, RCA and problably some others in everything from machine
code punched in through console swithces to Fortran, Forth et al. I'm well
aware of stack operations and how to use 'em but I don't like RPN calculators.
My first calculator was a four banger sold by one of the Litton divisions in
the early 70s but my first "real" calculator was a TI something. All I
remember is that it had an LED display and clickety-clack buttons and I thought
it was nothing short of miraculous. I tried an HP for a while and never like
it. I traded it to a friend for something and went back to TI. I still have a
little solar powered TI 30 that I use some but my main one is a Casio fx7700g
and of course Mathcad. Maybe it's just my internal logic but to me RPN is just
exactly what it says. Backwards.

Richard Coke

Gary sez:
" As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people
who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation. "

I will have to agree, as I often begin calculating in the middle of a
lengthy expression. Problem is, you have to record the interim results and
some care is required to maintain those results. I can do it, but it is so
much easier to begin at the beginning and enter things sequentially in AE.
Thanks Gary, I didn't realize RPN was a product of the 20s. It would seem
that for really lengthy calculations, RPN would be a labor saver.

Bob Swinney

Martin, who presumes to know what I understand admits to having 2
sliderules - that is cool, and quite archaic, for a long time machine
language writer.

Bob Swinney
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
. com...
Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced
mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less
ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth,
Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

I suppose my comments re. RPN and pomposity caused this thread to degrade
into 2 camps. I should have known that would happen. It is always easy to
attack another's position when you suspect there will be many allies. In
case my earlier assertion was, well, errrr, maybe a bit strong, let me state
it again in terms that will appeal to the majority of posters here.

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training. Mastering RPN provides
great feelings of satisfaction, no! pride for those that learn to use it --
errrr, make that "learn to use it well". RPN savviness yields another click
on the lock of the great Math inner sanctum. In general, those that beat
their breasts about how conversant they are with RPN, remind one of the very
tired childhood phrase, "I know something you don't know".

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

On 18 Apr 2004 07:45:12 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

... It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

Agilent still makes some pretty nice stuff. They're the
spin-off of HP's instrument division. I suspect that
babe fiorina is going to run that business straight into
the ground, and then eject at the last minute with her
parachute.
Jim

In that case, it's better that their destinies have bifurcated.

Neither HP^H^HAgilent or Tek makes stuff the way they did a generation
ago, though.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training.

Although oddly, I used the 'other' kind of calculators
for years before trying the RPN ones. Even after all
the indoctrination beforehand, I still am an RPN convert.

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

(translation, 'I can't figure those darn things out?')

grin

Sorry Bob, could not resist!!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:39:04 -0700, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Gary sez:
" As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people
who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation. "

I will have to agree, as I often begin calculating in the middle of a
lengthy expression. Problem is, you have to record the interim results and
some care is required to maintain those results. I can do it, but it is so
much easier to begin at the beginning and enter things sequentially in AE.
Thanks Gary, I didn't realize RPN was a product of the 20s. It would seem
that for really lengthy calculations, RPN would be a labor saver.

It is a labor saver, and you don't need to record interim results, they simply
automatically get pushed on the stack as you continue to calculate, and
automatically pop off the stack when you're ready to use them. That's the
real power of postfix notation.

With an AE style calculator you have to be careful how you attack a problem.
There are many times when you get stuck, have to store an intermediate result
in memory, clear the calculator and start what is essentially a new calculation.
That virtually never happens with a RPN calculator. No matter the order in which
you tackle a problem, there's almost always a way to do it without storing
intermediate results in memory and restarting.

Of course for simple 2+2 stuff, RPN doesn't offer any real advantages. It is
when you start doing complex calculations that the labor savings, intermediate
results sanity checking (IMHO the most important feature), and the ability to
attack the problem in any order really starts to be of benefit. That's why RPN
calculators are such a favorite with older engineers who started out with pencil
and paper or slide rules. They're used to doing sanity checks as they progress
with a calculation. AE style calculators don't lend themselves to that.

Of course nowadays people expect computers to hand them an answer without
any thought on their part. It is just plug in the numbers and wait for the result.
That's all well and good for canned solutions to known problems, but it is less
satisfactory for calculating answers to new or unique problems. You're depending
on the author of the software to have gotten it right. That's not always obvious.
For example, the early Windows calculator gave erroneous results because it
incorrectly rounded internal intermediate results. People didn't immediately
catch that because the AE style offers no way to do sanity checks on intermediate
results. They remain hidden from view.

Gary

Rozen sez, glibly!

"(translation, 'I can't figure those darn things out?')"

Naw, Jim -- I liken it to climbing down a ladder with 2 rungs missing from
the bottom. You have it figured OK but it is still a damned uncomfortable
situation to be in. The more you climb that defective ladder, the more
aggravating it becomes.

Bob (RPN is like trying to run CNC with no manual machining experience)
Swinney




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Swinney says...

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a
calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very
efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training.

Although oddly, I used the 'other' kind of calculators
for years before trying the RPN ones. Even after all
the indoctrination beforehand, I still am an RPN convert.

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

grin

Sorry Bob, could not resist!!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 18 Apr 2004 00:46:03 -0400, the renowned (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a

[ ... ]

Handheld, of course. I picked up one of those (the 9200B) at a
stationery shop in Downey CA back in the early eighties for song
($40), with JPL stickers all over it. CRT display. Gold-plated PCBs.
VERY nice, and it still worked. Unfortunately it disappeared last time
we moved to a new house. Very sad, it was a beautiful example of
American engineering. It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

I wish that I had one.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive

[ ... ]

I never saw that.

You may have noticed near the front on the top curve of the case
were a pair of screws which were normally screwed in flush with the top.
You unscrewed them a short distance, and a pair of lock levers took
those and used them to clamp the printer in place.

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.

The HP-35 and 45 were just a bit before my time- I knew of them, but
couldn't afford (or justify) them.

The 35 I resisted, but when the 45 came out, I decided to bite.
I never regretted it.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:39:04 -0700, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Gary sez:
" As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people
who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation. "

I will have to agree, as I often begin calculating in the middle of a
lengthy expression. Problem is, you have to record the interim results and
some care is required to maintain those results. I can do it, but it is so
much easier to begin at the beginning and enter things sequentially in AE.
Thanks Gary, I didn't realize RPN was a product of the 20s. It would seem
that for really lengthy calculations, RPN would be a labor saver.

It is a labor saver, and you don't need to record interim results, they simply
automatically get pushed on the stack as you continue to calculate, and
automatically pop off the stack when you're ready to use them. That's the
real power of postfix notation.

And I tend to start in the middle of the formula, the deepest
set of parens, and work outward as I go.

With an AE style calculator you have to be careful how you attack a problem.
There are many times when you get stuck, have to store an intermediate result
in memory, clear the calculator and start what is essentially a new calculation.
That virtually never happens with a RPN calculator. No matter the order in which
you tackle a problem, there's almost always a way to do it without storing
intermediate results in memory and restarting.

Agreed -- though it *is* possible to overflow the stack with a
poorly-chosen starting point. (And even more so with Algebraic
Notation.)

Of course for simple 2+2 stuff, RPN doesn't offer any real advantages. It is
when you start doing complex calculations that the labor savings, intermediate
results sanity checking (IMHO the most important feature), and the ability to
attack the problem in any order really starts to be of benefit. That's why RPN
calculators are such a favorite with older engineers who started out with pencil
and paper or slide rules. They're used to doing sanity checks as they progress
with a calculation. AE style calculators don't lend themselves to that.

And one of the important sanity checks is whether an
intermediate value in the denominator of a division is approaching zero
too closely -- which will blow up the computation. With RPN, you can
see that happen, and work around it by choosing a different sequence.
With Algebraic Notation, you wind up with the thing blowing up (if you
are lucky, and you still have to figure out where it happened and how to
work around it. If you are unlucky, you will wind up with values which
discard a lot of the possible precision, and never know that it
happened.

Of course nowadays people expect computers to hand them an answer without
any thought on their part. It is just plug in the numbers and wait for the result.
That's all well and good for canned solutions to known problems, but it is less
satisfactory for calculating answers to new or unique problems. You're depending
on the author of the software to have gotten it right. That's not always obvious.
For example, the early Windows calculator gave erroneous results because it
incorrectly rounded internal intermediate results. People didn't immediately
catch that because the AE style offers no way to do sanity checks on intermediate
results. They remain hidden from view.

And in really complex programs which are dependent on large
amounts of input data -- such as SPICE, the circuit emulation program --
you can wind up with divide-by-zero in a *lot* of places. Luckily, the
implementation of SPICE which I saw -- written to live under the BSD
flavor of unix -- was set up to trap the errors, and replace the results
with a maximum-positive or maximum-negative as appropriate. You really
can't see where these problems will hit, since you frequently don't know
how a device model is implemented, so you don't know what values of
components and currents/voltages/frequencies will cause that
divide-by-zero. This is made even more likely to be a problem by the
fact that the program is frequently used to sweep values through the
possible ranges, and crank out results for a large number of values.

Of course -- you're not going to be doing something as complex
as the SPICE calculations on a pocket HP -- though I have seen a tiny
implementation of a subset of SPICE for a HP-67 (one of the ones which
was programmable and had a card reader/writer to save and load programs.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---