On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:10:44 -0700, meow2222 wrote:
I think my hand-wavy calculations led me to believe a new one would need
to last a decade in order to pay for itself in energy savings, and
I didn't have much faith in any modern company either building
something that'd last that long or still being around in such a
*vast* time period :-)

(Our Whirlpool fridge/freezer's comfortably over 30 years old now and
still going strong - parts still seem to be readily available for when it
does eventually have issues)

Basic ffs are really very reliable, its only when you get into frost
frees that things go wrong.

Ours doesn't seem to have any frosting issues - I think we have
the manual somewhere, so I'll have to see if it says anything
about frost-free operation. I did have to take a fan motor out of the
freezer section last year as it was noisy - I was going to replace it,
but gave the bearings a light oil and it's been OK since. I suspect its
days are numbered)

1970s... you're spending a lot of money
you needn't. Even comparing an old one given for free with a brand new
machine the new one's cheaper.

Not so sure - I think most of our 'leccy bill goes on the baseboard
heaters, tumble dryer, water heater, and cooker. I'm not sure a different
fridge would make much of a dent in that - it might knock off 10% or so,
but 10% still works out to about ten years for a typical fridge/freezer
(electricity is pretty cheap this side of the Pond, whilst ff's are
comparatively expensive*).

* I was amused the other week to see thay they sell ones with LCD TVs
built into the door these days...

cheers

Jules

In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:03:57 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

That's probably because I never bought anything from him. I _could_
have got a calculator, but RPN was enough to put me off. Well, that,
and the reliability...

The Sinclair Scientific was RPN but that came after the Cambridge which
had "normal" notation. Much to my surprise, I thought the Scientific came
before the Cambridge.

Came just at the right time as electronic calculators where just being
allowed in "O" Level science exams but they had to be no more than four
function and possibly no memory. The Cambridge fitted the bill nicely as
it was cheap and four function.

Battery life was about the duration of the exam too. ;-)

Other calculators about at that time where
expensive and over specced for exam use.

I might still have mine somewhere and last time I tried it worked.

I also stayed away from the Sinclair ones. They were poor build
quality, and not as accurate as most others. My very first pocket
calculator is still knocking around somewhere -- 4 functions plus
square root, and still working. Ah - the magic of the web...
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/mini_7.html

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:03:57 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

That's probably because I never bought anything from him. I _could_
have got a calculator, but RPN was enough to put me off. Well, that,
and the reliability...

The Sinclair Scientific was RPN but that came after the Cambridge which
had "normal" notation. Much to my surprise, I thought the Scientific came
before the Cambridge.

Came just at the right time as electronic calculators where just being
allowed in "O" Level science exams but they had to be no more than four
function and possibly no memory. The Cambridge fitted the bill nicely as
it was cheap and four function.

Battery life was about the duration of the exam too. ;-)

Other calculators about at that time where
expensive and over specced for exam use.

I might still have mine somewhere and last time I tried it worked.

I also stayed away from the Sinclair ones. They were poor build
quality, and not as accurate as most others. My very first pocket
calculator is still knocking around somewhere -- 4 functions plus
square root, and still working. Ah - the magic of the web...
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/mini_7.html


Ahh the Sinclair Cambridge. I got mine in kit form for (I think) a smidge
under £12 which was a fortune. Soldering the display in was a pain and
resulted in one slightly damaged LED lens but it did work (unlike my kit
Sinclair matchbox radio). Just to be awkward I still use an HP35 RPN
calculator on my desk at work (well I am an old fart).


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not) --
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:40:43 UTC, Jules
wrote:

Working? :-) Dead ones are very common - although working ones aren't too
hard to find either. They really were awful, though - the Spectrum was far
better when it arrived.

Working, with the original manual..

I don't think anyone's mentioned the Zike yet, have they?
(http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/vehicles/zike.htm)

No, although I did remember it this morning when discussing this thread
with SWMBO...

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:16:43 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

I also stayed away from the Sinclair ones. They were poor build
quality, and not as accurate as most others. My very first pocket
calculator is still knocking around somewhere -- 4 functions plus
square root, and still working. Ah - the magic of the web...
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/mini_7.html

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

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

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:16:43 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

I also stayed away from the Sinclair ones. They were poor build
quality, and not as accurate as most others. My very first pocket
calculator is still knocking around somewhere -- 4 functions plus
square root, and still working. Ah - the magic of the web...
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/mini_7.html

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

I'd lost my slide rule, but I decided I'd like another one whilst I
could still get one, so I bought one off eBay (again, British Thornton).
I could still remember exactly how to use it, although it came with
the original box and instructions too.

One day when I'm working in the office, I'm going to get it out of
my drawer to do a calculation when some young whipersnapper comes
and asks a question! (I'm very rarely in the office though.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Bob Eager wrote:

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

I'm puzzled by those saying that they coudl take a Sinclair into exams.
They were banned from all exams that I took up to and including my
university finals. They were on sale when I went into the third form, so
I'm puzzled by which exam board permitted their use and which
examinations.

I had to use my British Thornton slide rule until I graduated. I've
still got it in a drawer in my office, it's still faster for
approximations than most calculators.

In article ,
(Steve Firth) writes:
Bob Eager wrote:

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

I'm puzzled by those saying that they coudl take a Sinclair into exams.
They were banned from all exams that I took up to and including my
university finals. They were on sale when I went into the third form, so
I'm puzzled by which exam board permitted their use and which
examinations.

My (very vague) recollection is that it varied by examination board
for O and A levels, and changed quite quickly over time as technology
moved on. I recall one exam (probably A level) where you could take
one in, providing it wasn't programmable, and you had to put the model
number at the top of the paper. However, in practice, it wasn't really
much help.

People made mistakes with calculators, just as they did with slide
rules. The nature of the mistakes was often different. e.g. on a slide
rule, a common mistake was to be out by a factor of ten with multiply
due to handling that wrongly. With a calculator, mistakes would be
more likely down to miskeying (particularly those early ones with
very poor keypads compared with today's), and not doing a mental
plusability check on the answer.

I had to use my British Thornton slide rule until I graduated. I've
still got it in a drawer in my office, it's still faster for
approximations than most calculators.

You probably have a built-in mental plusability check on the answer
too, which you never see in today's kids.

I recall some maths tests where you had multiple choice answers,
and were told you won't have time to work out more than a small
percentage of the answers, but you should go down as quickly as
you can and just select the most plausible answer for as many as
you can. That was what this was testing.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

You probably have a built-in mental plusability check on the answer
too, which you never see in today's kids.

Apart of course from orders of magnitude which I cock up over and over
again. I'm the bloke who would order a 1/10th scale Stonehenge for a
prop for a rock concert.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:42:13 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

You probably have a built-in mental plusability check on the answer
too, which you never see in today's kids.

Apart of course from orders of magnitude which I cock up over and over
again. I'm the bloke who would order a 1/10th scale Stonehenge for a
prop for a rock concert.

.... but own a calculator with a volume control that goes up to 11?

In message . com, Jules
writes
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:15:58 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
BTW, I was recently given a ZX81!

Working? :-) Dead ones are very common - although working ones aren't too
hard to find either. They really were awful, though - the Spectrum was far
better when it arrived.

Got both somewhere, and the digital watch


I don't think anyone's mentioned the Zike yet, have they?
(http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/vehicles/zike.htm)

cheers

Jules


--
geoff

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

You probably have a built-in mental plusability check on the answer
too, which you never see in today's kids.

Apart of course from orders of magnitude which I cock up over and over
again. I'm the bloke who would order a 1/10th scale Stonehenge for a
prop for a rock concert.

How big would you have it (out of interest)? The sarsen circle is 108ft
diameter soo 1/10th scale would be 10ft diameter - bit small, I guess.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:16:43 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

I also stayed away from the Sinclair ones. They were poor build
quality, and not as accurate as most others. My very first pocket
calculator is still knocking around somewhere -- 4 functions plus
square root, and still working. Ah - the magic of the web...
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/mini_7.html

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

Still have mine, bought in 1972. When I bought it the lines on the slide
didn't quite match those on the static bit end to end, and still don't. It
was then I started to worry about British manufacturing. Good enough for my
calculations though


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not

Jules wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:10:44 -0700, meow2222 wrote:
I think my hand-wavy calculations led me to believe a new one would need
to last a decade in order to pay for itself in energy savings, and
I didn't have much faith in any modern company either building
something that'd last that long or still being around in such a
*vast* time period :-)

(Our Whirlpool fridge/freezer's comfortably over 30 years old now and
still going strong - parts still seem to be readily available for when it
does eventually have issues)

Basic ffs are really very reliable, its only when you get into frost
frees that things go wrong.

Ours doesn't seem to have any frosting issues - I think we have
the manual somewhere, so I'll have to see if it says anything
about frost-free operation. I did have to take a fan motor out of the
freezer section last year as it was noisy - I was going to replace it,
but gave the bearings a light oil and it's been OK since. I suspect its
days are numbered)

1970s... you're spending a lot of money
you needn't. Even comparing an old one given for free with a brand new
machine the new one's cheaper.

Not so sure - I think most of our 'leccy bill goes on the baseboard
heaters, tumble dryer, water heater, and cooker. I'm not sure a different
fridge would make much of a dent in that - it might knock off 10% or so,
but 10% still works out to about ten years for a typical fridge/freezer
(electricity is pretty cheap this side of the Pond, whilst ff's are
comparatively expensive*).

i am, i calculated it a few years ago. A new machine will ballpark a
third the energy of an oldie. What your other appliances use is not
relevant.


NT

On 08 Jun 2009 17:24:26 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

My (very vague) recollection is that it varied by examination board
for O and A levels, and changed quite quickly over time as technology
moved on.

I can't remember what boards I took my O and A levels with. But as you say
it did change very quickly. My O levels where the first year four function
calculators allowed at all, two years later at A level you could have a
multi function scientific calculator:

http://www.vintage-technology.info/p...re/co4148r.htm

Still have that, still works, though the internal rechargables gave up
years ago due to lack of use. Of course at A level it's not so much
getting the correct numerical answer but how you get there that is
important.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Bob Mannix wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..

Apart of course from orders of magnitude which I cock up over and over
again. I'm the bloke who would order a 1/10th scale Stonehenge for a
prop for a rock concert.

How big would you have it (out of interest)? The sarsen circle is 108ft
diameter soo 1/10th scale would be 10ft diameter - bit small, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlf5ucFanpY

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Bob Mannix wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..

Apart of course from orders of magnitude which I cock up over and over
again. I'm the bloke who would order a 1/10th scale Stonehenge for a
prop for a rock concert.

How big would you have it (out of interest)? The sarsen circle is 108ft
diameter soo 1/10th scale would be 10ft diameter - bit small, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlf5ucFanpY

Ah. I'll get my coat.....

On 9 June, 10:45, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On 08 Jun 2009 17:24:26 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I can't remember what boards I took my O and A levels with. But as you say
it did change very quickly. My O levels where the first year four function
calculators allowed at all, two years later at A level you could have a
multi function scientific calculator:

I started at a Polytechnic in September 1976 with my shiny new
rechargeable calculator. One of the lecturers had a show of hands on
slide rules v calculators. I think about 2/3rds had calculators. He
commented that the previous year about 2/3rds had had slide rules.


http://www.vintage-technology.info/p...mmodore/co4148...

Still have that, still works, though the internal rechargables gave up
years ago due to lack of use. Of course at A level it's not so much
getting the correct numerical answer but how you get there that is
important.

I have one in my desk drawer. I bought new batteries from Maplins a
few weeks back but the wires broke off with minor movements prior to
soldering. On having a better look, there seems to be quite a bit of
corrosion on the soldered connections. It did work, though I'm not
sure if I'll be able to resurrect it now.

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:08:29 -0700, meow2222 wrote:
1970s... you're spending a lot of money
you needn't. Even comparing an old one given for free with a brand new
machine the new one's cheaper.

Not so sure - I think most of our 'leccy bill goes on the baseboard
heaters, tumble dryer, water heater, and cooker. I'm not sure a different
fridge would make much of a dent in that - it might knock off 10% or so,
but 10% still works out to about ten years for a typical fridge/freezer
(electricity is pretty cheap this side of the Pond, whilst ff's are
comparatively expensive*).

i am, i calculated it a few years ago. A new machine will ballpark a
third the energy of an oldie. What your other appliances use is not
relevant.

It's relevant in that it gives me an estimation of what proportion of our
monthly bill is down to the ff, rather than other devices.

1/3 power will cost $7/month to run rather than (an estimated) $20. That's
a saving of $13/month, or $156/year.

At a typical price of about $1200 for a ff of similar capacity with some
kind of energy efficiency rating (the cheaper ones here are either a lot
smaller, or still enourmously power-hungry), that's still 7 years before
it pays for itself, assuming no major malfunction in that time.

If the modern product came with something like a free 15-year
warranty, I'd listen - but all the new ones I've looked at around that
price point don't exactly inspire confidence in them running for 7 years
without some kind of problem.

Of course I don't know if the current one will last another 7 years,
either - that might be asking a lot of it :-) But if it'll do another 2 or
3, I expect that there will be quite a few second-hand ones on the market
that will be modern enough to run cheaply, not be as costly as a new one,
yet hopefully have a little better build quality (plus I can assess the
spares market a little too and avoid the unknowns and difficult-to-repair
brands).

It's hard to tell how this stacks up in the UK, though - electricity there
always seemed far more expensive, and I honestly don't recall what
typical ff prices were like (possibly cheaper than the US as they
tend to be smaller* on average!)

* US folk look horrified at the thought of keeping eggs, ketchup, jams
etc. in regular cupboards :-)

cheers

Jules

On 9 Jun 2009 07:46:42 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2009-06-08, Steve Firth wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

I had mine (Casio I think) for many years; gone now. Still have my
British Thornton slide rule, though..

I'm puzzled by those saying that they coudl take a Sinclair into exams.
They were banned from all exams that I took up to and including my
university finals. They were on sale when I went into the third form, so
I'm puzzled by which exam board permitted their use and which
examinations.

I had to use my British Thornton slide rule until I graduated. I've
still got it in a drawer in my office, it's still faster for
approximations than most calculators.

[Rummage, rummage]

I still have a faber/Castell 52/82 slide rule in my desk drawer. I still
don't know how to use some of the scales ...

I've one of those somewhere. Also have a french curve - thinking of trading
it in for a Carla Bruni.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

The message
from Onetap contains these words:

On 9 June, 10:45, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On 08 Jun 2009 17:24:26 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I can't remember what boards I took my O and A levels with. But as you say
it did change very quickly. My O levels where the first year four function
calculators allowed at all, two years later at A level you could have a
multi function scientific calculator:

When I took my O and A levels slide rules were verboten. Log tables were
the order of the day. I think I still have a set of 7 figure log tables
somewhere in addition to the usual 4 figure ones.

I started at a Polytechnic in September 1976 with my shiny new
rechargeable calculator. One of the lecturers had a show of hands on
slide rules v calculators. I think about 2/3rds had calculators. He
commented that the previous year about 2/3rds had had slide rules.

I started at college (the brand new Beaconside site of what is now
Staffordshire University but was then a mere College of Technology) in
62/63. Some of us (me included) didn't know how to use a slide rule.

At some time we were introduced in passing to calculators when maths
turned very briefly to computers. That was the mechanical sort of
calculator where you had to wind a handle (among other things) in order
to perform a calculation. IIRC the college's 'new' computer was a
venerable English Electric Deuce that EECo had decided was too dated to
be useful in a commercial environment. Compiler on punched cards.
Programming onto punched tape using Alphacode. All very much a side
issue.


http://www.vintage-technology.info/p...mmodore/co4148...

Still have that, still works, though the internal rechargables gave up
years ago due to lack of use. Of course at A level it's not so much
getting the correct numerical answer but how you get there that is
important.

I have one in my desk drawer. I bought new batteries from Maplins a
few weeks back but the wires broke off with minor movements prior to
soldering. On having a better look, there seems to be quite a bit of
corrosion on the soldered connections. It did work, though I'm not
sure if I'll be able to resurrect it now.

I still have my Sun Hemmi bamboo slide rule (circa 1962) complete with
leather case and somewhere in the bookcase I have the instruction book
as well. I don't think I actually bought a calculator until some 20
years later.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:38:40 UTC, Roger
wrote:

When I took my O and A levels slide rules were verboten. Log tables were
the order of the day. I think I still have a set of 7 figure log tables
somewhere in addition to the usual 4 figure ones.

Same here. That was in 69 and 70.

I started at a Polytechnic in September 1976 with my shiny new
rechargeable calculator. One of the lecturers had a show of hands on
slide rules v calculators. I think about 2/3rds had calculators. He
commented that the previous year about 2/3rds had had slide rules.

I started at college (the brand new Beaconside site of what is now
Staffordshire University but was then a mere College of Technology) in
62/63. Some of us (me included) didn't know how to use a slide rule.

My father had given me a spare one to play with, and I could use it for
basic functions. I went to university in 1970 and it was pretty
essential; I decided to get the bargain (bulk purchase) British Thornton
one they were offering, and that's the one I still have. I used it
mainly for the physics in the first year of my course, but started using
the computer for major stuff.

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

Tim S wrote:

Domestic meters are designed to read true power (kVAh meters do/did exists
for industrial environments where the billing was sometimes done by the
VA-h rather than a W-h).

I've never come across a kVAh meter. The usual industrial arrangement
is a regular kWh meter plus a kVARh meter - reactive consumption being
billed at x pence per kilovar-hour on top of the normal kWh charge.
Kilovars (kVAR) - kilovolt-amps-reactive - is the 'reactive power' -
i.e. the product of voltage and the quadrature component of the current
(V*I*sin(phi), as opposed to V*I*cos(phi) for kW).

On a tariff where you're paying for kVARh there will normally also be a
maximum demand charge, based on the monthly maximum demand in kVA
(averaged over 30 minutes to exclude motor starting and similar inrush
transient currents). In the past the maximum demand indicator would
have been a third item of metering equipment. Nowadays all three
functions are usually incorporated into one electronic meter.

--
Andy

On Jun 9, 2:54*pm, Jules
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:08:29 -0700, meow2222 wrote:

1970s... you're spending a lot of money
you needn't. Even comparing an old one given for free with a brand new
machine the new one's cheaper.

Not so sure - I think most of our 'leccy bill goes on the baseboard
heaters, tumble dryer, water heater, and cooker. I'm not sure a different
fridge would make much of a dent in that - it might knock off 10% or so,
but 10% still works out to about ten years for a typical fridge/freezer
(electricity is pretty cheap this side of the Pond, whilst ff's are
comparatively expensive*).

i am, i calculated it a few years ago. A new machine will ballpark a
third the energy of an oldie. What your other appliances use is not
relevant.


1/3 power will cost $7/month to run rather than (an estimated) $20. That's
a saving of $13/month, or $156/year.

At a typical price of about $1200 for a ff of similar capacity with

this is uk.diy, not us.diy. FFs cost us 200-300.


NT

NT wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:54 pm, Jules
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:08:29 -0700, meow2222 wrote:

1970s... you're spending a lot of money
you needn't. Even comparing an old one given for free with a brand new
machine the new one's cheaper.
Not so sure - I think most of our 'leccy bill goes on the baseboard
heaters, tumble dryer, water heater, and cooker. I'm not sure a different
fridge would make much of a dent in that - it might knock off 10% or so,
but 10% still works out to about ten years for a typical fridge/freezer
(electricity is pretty cheap this side of the Pond, whilst ff's are
comparatively expensive*).
i am, i calculated it a few years ago. A new machine will ballpark a
third the energy of an oldie. What your other appliances use is not
relevant.


1/3 power will cost $7/month to run rather than (an estimated) $20. That's
a saving of $13/month, or $156/year.

At a typical price of about $1200 for a ff of similar capacity with

this is uk.diy, not us.diy. FFs cost us 200-300.

A decent one is nearer 700.


NT