You are expected to be able to add up before you use one.
No need, I have seen slide rule price comparators that were simple enough
for a granny to work out which pack was cheapest, no sums involved.

Looks like i'm still out of my depth here then :-}

Colin Wilson wrote:

Most basic are the A and B scales; simple scales for multiplication.
Slide 1 on B to the multiplicand on A. Then read off the product on A
against the multiplier on B (any value you like, so it makes a kind of
'times table').

http://www.taswegian.com/TwoHeaded/U...niVirtual.html
...and I really can't get my head around even the "simple" one - there
is no B :-}

I'm not surprised - that is a bit weird. You can add and remove scales,
and everything, but...
Here's a nice simple one...!
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/s...l-n909-es.html


OK, plan B

Result: still can't get my head around it :-}

I think you were talking about moving the cursor to the value of B on
A, once you set the A & B to the values you want to multiply to read
the answer.

The first one I tried worked, but nothing beyond that :-}

As the OP I didn't think this thread would run as long as this :-)

I am slowly getting over the stiff slider though. I might get out the
lump hammer tomorrow :-)

Dave

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:50:11 UTC, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Most basic are the A and B scales; simple scales for multiplication.
Slide 1 on B to the multiplicand on A. Then read off the product on A
against the multiplier on B (any value you like, so it makes a kind of
'times table').
http://www.taswegian.com/TwoHeaded/U...niVirtual.html
...and I really can't get my head around even the "simple" one - there
is no B :-}
I'm not surprised - that is a bit weird. You can add and remove scales,
and everything, but...
Here's a nice simple one...!
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/s...l-n909-es.html

OK, plan B

Result: still can't get my head around it :-}

I think you were talking about moving the cursor to the value of B on
A, once you set the A & B to the values you want to multiply to read
the answer.

OK....say you want to multiply 2 by 3.

Slide 1 on B to the 2 on A. Now read off (cursor makes it easier, but
that's all) the value opposite 3 on B (it will be 6). Without moving the
slider, look at other values on A opposite those on B. So, for example,
4 on B will have 8 on A. 6 on B will have 12 on A. And so on.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Slide 1 on B to the 2 on A. Now read off (cursor makes it easier, but
that's all) the value opposite 3 on B (it will be 6). Without moving the
slider, look at other values on A opposite those on B. So, for example,
4 on B will have 8 on A. 6 on B will have 12 on A. And so on.

Ahh, the clue stick is kicking in !

Thanks :-)

Bob Eager wrote:

Here's a nice simple one...!

http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/s...l-n909-es.html

Now the reverse side of that one *is* really nice. Not far of an an
ideal DIY/Building units conversion gadget, and very simple to use.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:32:53 UTC, Bruce wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote:
If you look at the emulator mentioned, you'll see why he's confused!
Good grief! How to make a simple task complicated! ;-)

The one I mentioned afterwards is usable with the basic directions I
gave...

It works on the more complicated one as well - just use scales D and C.
Note however you start off zoomed in quite close to the rule, and hence
it is easy to mistake 1.2 on the D scale for 2 (2 on the D scale is
right on the right hand end of the display in its default starting
position).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Colin Wilson wrote:
You are expected to be able to add up before you use one.
No need, I have seen slide rule price comparators that were simple enough
for a granny to work out which pack was cheapest, no sums involved.

Looks like i'm still out of my depth here then :-}

Try that one Bob linked to:

http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/s...l-n909-es.html

Click the "Flip to other side of rule" button.

Say you want to know how many cubic meters fit in the 6 yard skip you
just ordered[1]...

slide the yards end of the "meters - CU - yards" line (bottom right
ish of the slidy bit) to 6 on the scale. Now read the number off the
same scale that lines up with the other end of the line (should be 4.6)

Put the left hand end of the meters - feet line on the 2, the right
hand end tells you that 2m is 6.6' (note not 6'6")

All the conversions are doing is in effect multiplying or dividing by a
conversion factor. The cute bit is the factor is "built in to" the
length of the loop on the sliding scale, so there is no need to remember
any conversion factors.



[1] Yes I know you need the other side of the rule to work out the
bulking up factor for the excavated soil ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Pah - there is only one ...
Kaye and Labey

Physical and Chemical Constants etc

Agreed & on my bookshelf within easy reach.

Mind you it's a little tattered now, being 10th Edition 1949.

Don

"Donwill" popple @diddle .dot wrote in message
...
Pah - there is only one ...
Kaye and Labey

Physical and Chemical Constants etc

Agreed & on my bookshelf within easy reach.

Mind you it's a little tattered now, being 10th Edition 1949.

That's probably the one on our shelf too, hasn't been used for a very long
time but it was excellent when we needed it.

Mary

In message , Adrian C
writes
and this thing ...
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/mathematics/1986-1556.aspx
Wow, I've got one of those somewhere complete with the 'stylus' and
instruction manual!

But I was a decimal taught kid at school. Work that one out ;-)


--
Clint Sharp

"Clint Sharp" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian C
writes
and this thing ...
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/mathematics/1986-1556.aspx
Wow, I've got one of those somewhere complete with the 'stylus' and
instruction manual!

I have one too, no manual but you don't need it.

Mary

Donwill wrote:
Pah - there is only one ...
Kaye and Labey

Physical and Chemical Constants etc
Agreed & on my bookshelf within easy reach.
Mind you it's a little tattered now, being 10th Edition 1949.

It's freely available up-to-date and on-line these days:
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/

--
Andy

replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...es-483412-.htm

On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You cant express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

Only Rational Numbers can be expressed like that.

Rational Numbers are either terminating decimals or recurring ones.

Pi doesnt terminate nor does it recur, it is an Irrational Number.

Brian Reay wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You can't express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

Only Rational Numbers can be expressed like that.

Rational Numbers are either terminating decimals or recurring ones.

Pi doesn't terminate nor does it recur, it is an Irrational Number.

He knows that. It is an engineering approximation, and easier to
remember than the equivalent precision in actual digits.


--

Roger Hayter

On 07/12/2019 23:48, Brian Reay wrote:


Pi doesnt terminate nor does it recur, it is an Irrational Number.

Maybe I should have called my mother-in-law Pi.
Bill

I'd rather have a pie myself.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"ZW" m wrote in message
oupdirect.com...
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

--
for full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...es-483412-.htm

Or listen to the Kate Bush song and notice a one digit error in it.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use three
and a seventh.

Bill

Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote

I'd rather have a pie myself.

That’s why you are so fat, you animal.

"ZW" m wrote in message
oupdirect.com...
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

--
for full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...es-483412-.htm

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 20:42:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I'd rather have a pie myself.

That¢s why you are so fat, you animal.

Is THAT what he gets for being one of the few posters who regularly feed
you, senile troll?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You can‘t express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

ISTR we used 22/7 in simple calculations at school. At university, my slide
rule had a pi mark.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/12/2019 00:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You can't express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

Only Rational Numbers can be expressed like that.

Rational Numbers are either terminating decimals or recurring ones.

Pi doesn't terminate nor does it recur, it is an Irrational Number.

He knows that. It is an engineering approximation, and easier to
remember than the equivalent precision in actual digits.

Useful for a 16 bit computer that doesn't do decimals. BBC Micro Forth
used 355/113.

--
Max Demian

On 07/12/2019 23:48:34, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You cant express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

You can, but it depends on how accurate you want it to be. You don't
sound like an engineer.

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

On 08/12/2019 11:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/12/2019 23:48:34, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You cant express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

You can, but it depends on how accurate you want it to be. You don't
sound like an engineer.

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

GPS: it mandates 3.1415926535898 - neither more nor less accurate

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 08/12/2019 13:22, Robin wrote:
On 08/12/2019 11:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/12/2019 23:48:34, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You cant express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

You can, but it depends on how accurate you want it to be. You don't
sound like an engineer.

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

GPS: it mandates 3.1415926535898 - neither more nor less accurate


More than 'good enough' for most things, certainly any Nav than most
people will be doing. In the pre-GPS days of Transat, one of the
calculations I used to do involved checking positions from the raw time
data*. I can't recall the exact number of decimal points I used but it
wasn't huge.

*This was required as it was used with other data and you needed to know
the processing etc.

On 08/12/2019 00:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

Steve Walker wrote:
On 07/12/2019 20:08, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/12/2019 16:23, Andy Bennet wrote:
On 07/12/2019 13:14, ZW wrote:
replying to Bruce, ZW wrote:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

3.141592653589 etc

My tape measure doesn't go to 64,452 decimal places, so I always use
three and a seventh.

Bill

355/113

SteveW



You can't express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

Only Rational Numbers can be expressed like that.

Rational Numbers are either terminating decimals or recurring ones.

Pi doesn't terminate nor does it recur, it is an Irrational Number.

He knows that. It is an engineering approximation, and easier to
remember than the equivalent precision in actual digits.


It's good to 7 digits IIRC

On 08/12/2019 18:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Fredxx
wrote:
On 07/12/2019 23:48:34, Brian Reay wrote:

You cant express Pi like that- one integer divided by another integer.

You can, but it depends on how accurate you want it to be. You don't
sound like an engineer.

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

I regularly calculate the circumference of the universe given its
radius.

Does a hypersphere have a circumference?

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:
On 08/12/2019 18:24, Tim Streater wrote:
I regularly calculate the circumference of the universe given its
radius.

Does a hypersphere have a circumference?

You both seem to be making the assumption that the universe is finite,
not to mention that since spacetime is not flat, the relationship between
circumference and radius is not necessarily so straightforward.

#Paul

On 08/12/2019 14:51, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/12/2019 13:22, Robin wrote:
On 08/12/2019 11:57, Fredxx wrote:

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

GPS: it mandates 3.1415926535898 - neither more nor less accurate

More than 'good enough' for most things, certainly any Nav than most
people will be doing. In the pre-GPS days of Transat, one of the
calculations I used to do involved checking positions from the raw time
data*. I can't recall the exact number of decimal points I used but it
wasn't huge.

What is 'Transat' in this context?

*This was required as it was used with other data and you needed to know
the processing etc.

The Germans in WWII could locate a 100 yard wide radio beam over a
target at 200 miles range, to give their bomber force a bombing
accuracy rather better than could be achieved with daylight methods,
using seven-figure logs to set up the beams over the target.

They had published the tables prior to WWII, with a prize for anyone who
discovered an error. The Brits were very good at this, winning a number
of prizes...


--
Spike

On 09/12/2019 12:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Spike
wrote:

On 08/12/2019 14:51, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/12/2019 13:22, Robin wrote:
On 08/12/2019 11:57, Fredxx wrote:

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

GPS: it mandates 3.1415926535898 - neither more nor less accurate

More than 'good enough' for most things, certainly any Nav than most
people will be doing. In the pre-GPS days of Transat, one of the
calculations I used to do involved checking positions from the raw time
data*. I can't recall the exact number of decimal points I used but it
wasn't huge.

What is 'Transat' in this context?

*This was required as it was used with other data and you needed to know
the processing etc.

The Germans in WWII could locate a 100 yard wide radio beam over a
target at 200 miles range

Frequency?

Knickebein was ~30 Mc/s, but I was referring to X-Gerate aka the
'Rivers' beams on ~70 Mc/s.


--
Spike

On 09/12/2019 09:33, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2019 14:51, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/12/2019 13:22, Robin wrote:
On 08/12/2019 11:57, Fredxx wrote:

22/7 is just 0.04% in error
355/113 is just 0.000000085% in error

If you can find an application where you need more accuracy please do
let us know.

GPS: it mandates 3.1415926535898 - neither more nor less accurate

More than 'good enough' for most things, certainly any Nav than most
people will be doing. In the pre-GPS days of Transat, one of the
calculations I used to do involved checking positions from the raw time
data*. I can't recall the exact number of decimal points I used but it
wasn't huge.

What is 'Transat' in this context?


Transat was was the name of the satellites and they were provided the
signals for the Transit Nav system. (Not sure why there were two names
although the satellites had (at least) two roles from memory so perhaps
that is the reason.

It was the first sat based nav system. Mainly used by the US but the UK
used it, especially the Royal Navy. It was used until the 1990s as I
recall although it was in the 80s I was using it.

On Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM UTC+1, Dave wrote:
I wanted to show our g daughters what we used for a calculator before
electronic calculators came into existence, but it has developed a fault.

Faber Castell is the maker and the two fixed scales look to have bent
towards each other, making the slide difficult to move. I have tried
putting a bit of hard soap on the slide, but that has not improved
things very much.

Can anyone offer any advice on this problem?

Dave

I studied Engineering to degree level in the late 60's and a slide rule was an essential and indispensable tool. I still have mine. It's a Thornton P201. Two sided with 3 "Log Log" scales (LL1, LL2 and LL3) which I never did find a use for. Still has a silky smoooth action. Talk in earlier posts about the accuracy of calculations made me smile - we used to call it a "guessing stick". Nothing annoys me more these days than football commentators who refer to an accurate pass as a "slide rule pass"!
Pete

On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:22:23 -0800, petek wrote:

I studied Engineering to degree level in the late 60's and a slide rule
was an essential and indispensable tool. I still have mine. It's a
Thornton P201. Two sided with 3 "Log Log" scales (LL1, LL2 and LL3)
which I never did find a use for.

I have a Thornton AA010. Also two sided, LL1, LL2, LL3 (and inverse
LL1,LL2,LL3). And lots of other scales I don't remember! I don't know
where the manual went.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:22:23 -0800, petek wrote:

Thornton P201. Two sided with 3 "Log Log" scales (LL1, LL2 and LL3)
which I never did find a use for. Still has a silky smoooth action. Talk

Ah. It seems that mine has: LL1-3, LL1-3 reciprocal, Reciprocal C and D,
Pi-displaced C and D (conventional multiplication), cube roots,
logarithms, orthodox trigonometric, vector analysis ...

Bloody clever these things were!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:22:23 -0800, petek wrote:

Thornton P201. Two sided with 3 "Log Log" scales (LL1, LL2 and LL3)
which I never did find a use for. Still has a silky smoooth action. Talk

Ah. It seems that mine has: LL1-3, LL1-3 reciprocal, Reciprocal C and D,
Pi-displaced C and D (conventional multiplication), cube roots,
logarithms, orthodox trigonometric, vector analysis ...

Bloody clever these things were!

Just dug out of the drawer.. mine is an Aristo scholar with more scales
than I ever found useful. Because it does not have a solid spine,
gripping the sides locks the slider which, once you have practiced,
avoids movement errors.


--
Tim Lamb

I have a Faber-Castell Novo duplex which was a 12in double scale, giving
twice the accuracy. Still with case and instructions. These are on Ebay
for over £50

Regards

Bob Eager has brought this to us :
I have a Thornton AA010. Also two sided, LL1, LL2, LL3 (and inverse
LL1,LL2,LL3). And lots of other scales I don't remember! I don't know
where the manual went.

I threw mine away, when cheap calculators came on the scene, I do wish
I had kept it now.

In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:
In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 15:22:23 -0800, petek wrote:

Thornton P201. Two sided with 3 "Log Log" scales (LL1, LL2 and LL3)
which I never did find a use for. Still has a silky smoooth action.
Talk

Ah. It seems that mine has: LL1-3, LL1-3 reciprocal, Reciprocal C and D,
Pi-displaced C and D (conventional multiplication), cube roots,
logarithms, orthodox trigonometric, vector analysis ...

Bloody clever these things were!

Just dug out of the drawer.. mine is an Aristo scholar with more scales
than I ever found useful. Because it does not have a solid spine,
gripping the sides locks the slider which, once you have practiced,
avoids movement errors.


mine was also an Aristo, but not Scholar - ISTR Studio; Not sure where it
is, though,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle