Drawing the Line...

CW responds:

>Print it out on multiple sheets.
>"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The other day I needed to cut a piece of wood into a specific shape (which
>> happened to be a large oval). I didn't have anything that was the exact
>> shape I could trace on the wood. I had drawn the shape to scale on my
>> computer, but how to transfer that image onto the wood? In the end I
>> painstkingly drew a grid, and copied the pattern on that way. The
>result
>> wasn't as accurate as I would have liked, but with a bit of patience and a
>> lot of sanding I got something that looked pretty good.
>>
>> In any case, I'm thinking that there has to be a better way. Any ideas?

Print it out in multiple sheets, lay it on the wood and run a pounce wheel
along the lines to be cut. Dust chalk on the line, and remove the sheets.

Charlie Self

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain

Not sure who even started this thread but it appears to have ended up as a
thread on new math
And i do not know even if this will work for you.
It is what i use to draw an oval

http://www.anvilfire.com/21centbs/math/ovals.htm

Good luck,
George


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW responds:
>
> >Print it out on multiple sheets.
> >"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> The other day I needed to cut a piece of wood into a specific shape
(which
> >> happened to be a large oval). I didn't have anything that was the
exact
> >> shape I could trace on the wood. I had drawn the shape to scale on my
> >> computer, but how to transfer that image onto the wood? In the end I
> >> painstkingly drew a grid, and copied the pattern on that way. The
> >result
> >> wasn't as accurate as I would have liked, but with a bit of patience
and a
> >> lot of sanding I got something that looked pretty good.
> >>
> >> In any case, I'm thinking that there has to be a better way. Any
ideas?
>
> Print it out in multiple sheets, lay it on the wood and run a pounce wheel
> along the lines to be cut. Dust chalk on the line, and remove the sheets.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know
> for sure that just ain't so."
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great story, Doug ... thanks for sharing it! My Dad brought home an analog
computer when he was working on his Master's in Geophysics sometime in the
fifties. It was bigger than a large microwave of today and was my first
exposure to computers and calculators. (I used it to do math homework in jr
high a few times and that, and a Heathkit H88, started me down that slippery
slope).

I started using a slide rule in grade school, at Dad's insistence, and used
one until he bought me an electronic calculator in the 70's as a gift ... a
dim recollection of that being a TI-2500?

When I was in the service (Artillery) we used slide rules to calculate
azimuth and deflection for firing commands to the guns. There was a
rudimentary computer issued to every unit in that era, but we didn't bother
with it because we could handily beat it to the punch with a slide rule. In
my stint as a FO with an ARVN Ranger unit, I carried a slide rule and
routinely used it to send commands to the guns from _my_ position in the
boonies ... an unusual technique and something not often done, but perfected
for my own use out of self defense when calling in close fire support from a
non-American unit. Safe to say that that facility with a slide rule saved my
butt a number of times.

My Dad (an honest to goodness WWII hero) got a big kick out of that, being
that the only advice he could come up when I left to go off to war was "Just
don't zig when you should have zagged". But, he had taught me use a slide
rule many years before, and for that, Thanks again, Dad!

I haven't had a slide rule around in years ... think I'll look around for
one and take it to the shop for old times sake.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03


"Doug Miller" wrote in message

> In article "Swingman" wrote:
> >Hmmmm ... My first calculator I wore in a holster on my belt, wrote cheat
> >sheet math and chemistry formulas on it, and called it a "slide rule" ...
it
> >would do any math calculation needed at the time.
> >
> >How soon we forget ....
> >
>
> I haven't forgotten. I still have mine (and my uncle's, too -- more on
that in
> a bit) and I use it frequently. One application: cutting non-45-degree
miters.
> I know the width and length of the cut, but what's the angle? Out comes
the
> slide rule. Another one: I have a customer who does a lot of sewing. I was
at
> her house a couple days ago to take measurements for a sewing table she
wants
> made, and she asked me to figure this out for her. She wants to sew a
round
> coverlet, 36" in diameter, pieced together from from triangles
approximately
> 8" wide at the base, and she wanted to know how many triangles she would
need,
> and at what angle. Out comes the slide rule again.
>
> My father's elder brother Clyde (1915-2001) was a computer programmer
almost
> from the beginning, well before the days of hand-held calculators. I am
the
> only one of his many nephews and nieces who pursued that line of work as
well.
> When Clyde passed away, leaving no heirs but his four surviving brothers,
my
> father settled his estate. Dad called me and said he had a few things from
> Clyde's estate that he thought I'd be interested in, and he'd bring them
by.
> Wow. It's an old Pickett engineering slide rule, one of the good ones.
Heavy,
> solid, and cold as a stone. And worn from use, my uncle's hands. Sturdy
> leather case, with his name on it. I don't use it often. But I'm sure glad
to
> have it. I've taught my sons how to use a slide rule. And some day, it
will
> belong to one of them.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

George wrote:

> AH, but remember that the "early" computer languages were hex.
>
> All those computers were designed and built by people who had good
> grounding
> in "old" math. Base ten is a lot easier for math concepts, because we
> _do_
> have ten fingers. When firmly grounded, we can fold our thumbs inside.

I don't quite get the new math and hex thing either. I'm not as comfortable
in hex as I used to be, and I'm terrible in octal, but I know nothing of
"new math" and I used to do hex all the time when I was doing x86
assembler.

It's mostly just that these days you should always use the API and forget
about trying to wrestle the last ounce of performance out. Portabilty is
the rule of the day, and low level programming is the domain of kernel and
device driver hackers. Nobody else really needs those skills anymore.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

CW writes:

>If your time frame is correct, no one under the age of 70 should have any
>problem. Then again, even if they were past that age, if they had any kind
>of brain, they wouldn't have any problem either. Numbers are numbers.
>
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> CW wrote:
>> > I've heard the term "new math" for years and could never figure out
>> > what people were talking about. It's the same now as it has always
>> > been. It finally acured to me what it meant. It is an excuse people
>> > use to justify their inability to manipulate numbers.

Wel, it occurs to me that I recall set theory being called "new math" and I
also recall it being rather poorly taught. Fortunately, it didn't come along
until I was in college, so it didn't destroy what little math ability I have.

Charlie Self

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain

Dave Mundt wrote:

> 2^n series.

Bingo!

> My HP 25C cost a bit more than that...$250 or so, but, it was
> a great tool to have and made some parts of college a lot less
> painful. Plus. it was really fun to poke around with the "calculator
> games" that quickly came out for it.

Now that you mention it, the $214.48 was probably for the HP 25. A day or
two after I got it the college bookstore got in the continuous memory 25C.
I got my money back on the 25 & got the 25C. No, I don't recall that exact
amount. ;-)

-- Mark

Sorry, GIGO applies here.

Punching at the calculator can give the most amazing results for those who
have no concept of the range of possibilities. You HAVE to master
arithmetic.

I like to go to the under 30 checkout drudge and give change to make up the
even quarter or dollar _after_ they've had the machine calculate the change.
Amazing.

As to math majors - in my day they were a malodorous, bemused lot with
rumpled filthy clothes and slide rules holstered on their hip. Up on
campus today they're the same, except they have calculators in those
holsters. Hell, even my friends in the physics department think math
majors are odd....

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a
> > row in early grade school, when I should have been learning
> > arithmetic. Others say what they want, I think it did hurt my math
> > abilities. How could it not?
>
> (SWMBO is a teacher & I pick these fights from time to time. <g>)
>
> Arithmetic & math are not the same thing. Arithmetic is the grinding
> of
> numbers, in this day and age most properly done with a calculator or
> computer. Math is applying principles towards the correct solution of
> a
> problem.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:02:10 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
*snip*

>I'm not 100% sure I know my children's birthdays -- they're written down in
>my wallet ;-) -- but for some reason I know my first calculator, a 1976
>HP25C, cost $214.48. <trivia>Can anyone tell what this does?
> 01 1
> 02 STO + 0
> 03 RCL 0
> 04 GTO 02
></trivia> <g>
>
> -- Mark
>
>
2^n series.
My HP 25C cost a bit more than that...$250 or so, but, it was
a great tool to have and made some parts of college a lot less
painful. Plus. it was really fun to poke around with the "calculator
games" that quickly came out for it.
Regards
Dave Mundt

K&E? Still have one stored below the stage at school.

I'm saving my Jeppson circular for my kids.

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In junior high school we had a demonstration version of a slide rule
> that hung on the wall. It must have been six feet long. That would
> be a cool thing to have hanging in the shop.
>
> When I went to college in 1968, the engineering guys were not allowed
> to use calculators. Four years later they were all using them. Big
> transition.
>
> A big wooden slide rule would make an interesting woodworking project
> to work on with my kids.

AH, but remember that the "early" computer languages were hex.

All those computers were designed and built by people who had good grounding
in "old" math. Base ten is a lot easier for math concepts, because we _do_
have ten fingers. When firmly grounded, we can fold our thumbs inside.


"Caleb Strockbine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> With a little research, I bet one could make a pretty solid case that
> the digital age would have been a lot slower in coming without New Math.
> A core concept of new math is the ability to deal with numbers in radices
> other than 10, and it turns out that this is exactly the sort of thing
> that's helpful when you start to learn about digital computers. While
> perhaps not essential, being able to think in base 2, base 8, base 10,
> and base 16, and convert easily between them, is even today an important
> skill for hardware and software engineers alike, and was likely much
> more important back in the 60's and 70's when people worked much closer
> to the hardware.
>
> So, maybe we're not so practiced today at multiplying and dividing by
> adding and subtracting logarithms, but we're probably better prepared
> for the world many of us work in today.

Hmmmm ... My first calculator I wore in a holster on my belt, wrote cheat
sheet math and chemistry formulas on it, and called it a "slide rule" ... it
would do any math calculation needed at the time.

How soon we forget ....

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03

"CW" wrote in message
> Yes, mechanical calculators in one form or other have been around for over
a
> thousand years. My first electronic calculator I had in high school.
Bought
> in 1975. Cost $6.00. There were advantages to living in Japan.
>
>
> "Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Morgans wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost
over
> a
> > > hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> > > calculators did not exist.
> >
> > Actually, that's utter nonsense. One of my parents had a mechanical
> > calculator. I don't remember that much about it, but it was huge, gray,
> > and had lots of multi-colored round buttons that you punched to do
various
> > things. It was a lot more complicated than a simple adding machine, but
I
> > don't know what sort of advanced calculations it could do.
> >
> > Um. Something pretty much just like this:
> >
> > http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/fridenstw.html
> >
> >
> > Maybe you should have said "pocket calculators" didn't exist. I
remember
> > this thing. It was _heavy_.
> >
> > Before my day though. My first calculator was a TI with an LCD display
> that
> > only looks somewhat chunky and dated now. Probably ca. 1985.
> >
> > --
> > Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> > Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> > http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
> >
>
>

Morgans wrote:


> BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
> without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible,
> because you don't have the basics of number manipulation.

Perhaps for learning, but maybe not using. How many of today's engineers
are 10% as good at arithmetic as the slide rule generations? My late great
uncle was a EE in the 1920's - 60's. He showed me once how they roughed out
on a slide rule something having to do with (IIRC) hanging long-span
transmission lines, like over a gorge. He slid the slide & cursor around a
few times on on one side, subtracted the result from 1 in his head, flipped
the rule over, made another setting, & read the answer -- including the
correct power of 10. Multi-volume log tables were used for the final
answer, but the 10" slide rule was accurate enough for most estimations.
Those generations were *good* at arithmetic. Are today's engineers less
capable because they don't have to do that stuff? I don't think so.

> BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost
> over a hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before
> that, calculators did not exist.

I'm not 100% sure I know my children's birthdays -- they're written down in
my wallet ;-) -- but for some reason I know my first calculator, a 1976
HP25C, cost $214.48. <trivia>Can anyone tell what this does?
01 1
02 STO + 0
03 RCL 0
04 GTO 02
</trivia> <g>

-- Mark

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:59:04 -0700, Charlie Spitzer wrote:

> the first one was an hp35. i got the one that was out about 6 months later,
> the hp45.
>
> http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp35.htm
> http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp45.htm

Thanks for the links, Charlie. Mine was also the hp45 as it had the
"shift" key.

-Doug

Doug Miller wrote:

> I haven't forgotten. I still have mine (and my uncle's, too -- more
> on that in a bit) and I use it frequently. One application: cutting
> non-45-degree miters. I know the width and length of the cut,
> but what's the angle? Out comes the slide rule.

I have a Post Versalog that interestingly enough I got in trade with my high
school chemistry teacher about 1977 for a calculator I'd won at a math
contest. (It wasn't RPN. I had a HP 25C. Who needs a calculator you have
to punch parenthesis? ;-)

I can still use the Versalog's C & D scales, and multiply / divide by pi by
CF & DF, but the rest of my slide rule skills have, er, slidden. I could
pull the hardbound (!) user manul from the shelf, or play around awhile, or
DAGS, but if you'd like this opportunity to shine <g>, how did you do that?

I did college (not just attended <g>) in 1977-82. I took my slide rule and
calculator to all the exams, and I was usually the only one with a slip
stick. I actually got to use it once on a test, and I was so proud of
myself for recognizing it ahead of time. "Given these series of load and
deflection points, at what load will the beam not return to original after
the load is removed?" The 'Yield Point,' IIRC. Everyone else was
frantically plotting the points on graph paper. I set the C/D ratio of the
first point & slid the cursor to the other points. The first one that
didn't match was the weight too far. I finished all the problems before
anyone else had completed the graph of first one. I wrote "By slide rule"
on the test & fortunately the instructor was old enough that that was a good
enough explaination. Like woodworking, the right tool for the right job.
;-)

> Another one: I have a customer who does a lot of sewing.
> I was at her house a couple days ago to take measurements
> for a sewing table she wants made, and she asked me to figure
> this out for her. She wants to sew a round
> coverlet, 36" in diameter, pieced together from from triangles
> approximately 8" wide at the base, and she wanted to know how
> many triangles she would need,
> and at what angle. Out comes the slide rule again.

Ditto.

Thanks.

-- Mark

Morgans wrote:

> Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a
> row in early grade school, when I should have been learning
> arithmetic. Others say what they want, I think it did hurt my math
> abilities. How could it not?

(SWMBO is a teacher & I pick these fights from time to time. <g>)

Arithmetic & math are not the same thing. Arithmetic is the grinding
of
numbers, in this day and age most properly done with a calculator or
computer. Math is applying principles towards the correct solution of
a
problem. The most brilliant person I ever met was a Ph.D. who was
fantastic
at math but LOUSY at arithmetic. In the "real world" that's not a
handicap
because computers do all the boring arithmetic anyway.

<picking a fight>
Your learning set theory in grade school detracted from your arithmetic
skills learning in the same way that an extra period of French, Social
Studies, or even Recess would have. It was simply time devoted to a
completely different subject. IMO it's more important to learn how to
think
than to attempt to learn to beat a $5 calculator.
</picking a fight>

<g>

-- Mark

Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a
> > row in early grade school, when I should have been learning
> > arithmetic. Others say what they want, I think it did hurt my math
> > abilities. How could it not?
>
> (SWMBO is a teacher & I pick these fights from time to time. <g>)
>
> Arithmetic & math are not the same thing. Arithmetic is the grinding
> of
> numbers, in this day and age most properly done with a calculator or
> computer. Math is applying principles towards the correct solution of
> a
> problem. The most brilliant person I ever met was a Ph.D. who was
> fantastic
> at math but LOUSY at arithmetic. In the "real world" that's not a
> handicap
> because computers do all the boring arithmetic anyway.
>
> <picking a fight>
> Your learning set theory in grade school detracted from your arithmetic
> skills learning in the same way that an extra period of French, Social
> Studies, or even Recess would have. It was simply time devoted to a
> completely different subject. IMO it's more important to learn how to
> think
> than to attempt to learn to beat a $5 calculator.
> </picking a fight>
>
> <g>
>
> -- Mark

...and yet how many times have you needed to do some basic arithmatic
and have not had your calculator handy? It would also be nice if basic
arithmatic was so ingrained that you had a chance in hell of realizing
that you put an extra digit into that calculator 'cause your fingers
are too fat for those little buttons and now the answer is off by an
order of magnitude and 90 minus 10 isn't really 890. Maybe I am just
too much of an old curmudgeon at 46 or maybe it is just a case of far
too many high school kids at far too many cash registers with no
ability to grasp when the register total is WAAAAAY off from what it
was supposed to be.

Dave Hall

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>
> > BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
> > without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible,
> > because you don't have the basics of number manipulation.
>
> Perhaps for learning, but maybe not using. How many of today's engineers
> are 10% as good at arithmetic as the slide rule generations? My late great
> uncle was a EE in the 1920's - 60's. He showed me once how they roughed out
> on a slide rule something having to do with (IIRC) hanging long-span
> transmission lines, like over a gorge. He slid the slide & cursor around a
> few times on on one side, subtracted the result from 1 in his head, flipped
> the rule over, made another setting, & read the answer -- including the
> correct power of 10. Multi-volume log tables were used for the final
> answer, but the 10" slide rule was accurate enough for most estimations.
> Those generations were *good* at arithmetic. Are today's engineers less
> capable because they don't have to do that stuff? I don't think so.

...and when I first started work with an international accounting firm
the older Partners could add up a long column of numbers in thir heads
faster than I could put them into an adding machine (they were even
looking at the numbers upside down from the other side of the desk).
They laughed at me and made me practice my adding machine technique by
adding up all the phone numbers for "Smith" in the Pittsburgh
telephone directory. Standard abuse the newbie stuff.

Dave Hall

Silvan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over a
> > hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> > calculators did not exist.
>
> Actually, that's utter nonsense. One of my parents had a mechanical
> calculator. I don't remember that much about it, but it was huge, gray,
> and had lots of multi-colored round buttons that you punched to do various
> things. It was a lot more complicated than a simple adding machine, but I
> don't know what sort of advanced calculations it could do.
>
> Um. Something pretty much just like this:
>
> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/fridenstw.html
>
...aahh, a comptrometer. Played with those many years ago in the
Bureau of Business Research at West Va University. They had some with
electric motors like the one shown and some that were crank powered.
Why they were still there in 1982 I don't know, but the Director had
worked there when they actually used them to do Statistical research.
You put in even a relatively simple division problem and it would whir
and chug for several minutes before giving up an answer. Running the
manual ones kinda reminded me of running a manual ice cream machine. A
lot of cranking for very little result.

Dave Hall

George wrote:

> I like to go to the under 30 checkout drudge and give change to make up
> the even quarter or dollar _after_ they've had the machine calculate the
> change. Amazing.
>
> holsters. Hell, even my friends in the physics department think math
> majors are odd....

Funny. My wife has been a "checkout drudge" at Wal-Mart for some 10 years
now. She was a math major.

She's over 30 though.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:18:29 +0000, Mark Jerde wrote:


> Now that you mention it, the $214.48 was probably for the HP 25. A day or
> two after I got it the college bookstore got in the continuous memory 25C.
> I got my money back on the 25 & got the 25C. No, I don't recall that exact
> amount. ;-)

I can't remember the model number of my early '70's HP, but talk about new
math! RPN was/is a kick. Used RPN later in writing interpretive
languages.

-Doug

"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over
a
> > hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> > calculators did not exist.
>
> Actually, that's utter nonsense. One of my parents had a mechanical
> calculator. I don't remember that much about it, but it was huge, gray,

Try reading between the lines a little shall we? Obviously, he's referring
to digital calculators and ones that were equivalent to those that now
saturate the market.

David Hall wrote:

> ...and when I first started work with an international accounting firm
> the older Partners could add up a long column of numbers in thir heads
> faster than I could put them into an adding machine (they were even
> looking at the numbers upside down from the other side of the desk).
> They laughed at me and made me practice my adding machine technique by
> adding up all the phone numbers for "Smith" in the Pittsburgh
> telephone directory. Standard abuse the newbie stuff.

Good story! I just added it to my permanent collection. Thanks.

-- Mark

Yes, mechanical calculators in one form or other have been around for over a
thousand years. My first electronic calculator I had in high school. Bought
in 1975. Cost $6.00. There were advantages to living in Japan.


"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over
a
> > hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> > calculators did not exist.
>
> Actually, that's utter nonsense. One of my parents had a mechanical
> calculator. I don't remember that much about it, but it was huge, gray,
> and had lots of multi-colored round buttons that you punched to do various
> things. It was a lot more complicated than a simple adding machine, but I
> don't know what sort of advanced calculations it could do.
>
> Um. Something pretty much just like this:
>
> http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/fridenstw.html
>
>
> Maybe you should have said "pocket calculators" didn't exist. I remember
> this thing. It was _heavy_.
>
> Before my day though. My first calculator was a TI with an LCD display
that
> only looks somewhat chunky and dated now. Probably ca. 1985.
>
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hmmmm ... My first calculator I wore in a holster on my belt, wrote cheat
>sheet math and chemistry formulas on it, and called it a "slide rule" ... it
>would do any math calculation needed at the time.
>
>How soon we forget ....
>

I haven't forgotten. I still have mine (and my uncle's, too -- more on that in
a bit) and I use it frequently. One application: cutting non-45-degree miters.
I know the width and length of the cut, but what's the angle? Out comes the
slide rule. Another one: I have a customer who does a lot of sewing. I was at
her house a couple days ago to take measurements for a sewing table she wants
made, and she asked me to figure this out for her. She wants to sew a round
coverlet, 36" in diameter, pieced together from from triangles approximately
8" wide at the base, and she wanted to know how many triangles she would need,
and at what angle. Out comes the slide rule again.

My father's elder brother Clyde (1915-2001) was a computer programmer almost
from the beginning, well before the days of hand-held calculators. I am the
only one of his many nephews and nieces who pursued that line of work as well.
When Clyde passed away, leaving no heirs but his four surviving brothers, my
father settled his estate. Dad called me and said he had a few things from
Clyde's estate that he thought I'd be interested in, and he'd bring them by.
Wow. It's an old Pickett engineering slide rule, one of the good ones. Heavy,
solid, and cold as a stone. And worn from use, my uncle's hands. Sturdy
leather case, with his name on it. I don't use it often. But I'm sure glad to
have it. I've taught my sons how to use a slide rule. And some day, it will
belong to one of them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Tom Watson wrote:

> In junior high school we had a demonstration version of a slide rule
> that hung on the wall. It must have been six feet long. That would
> be a cool thing to have hanging in the shop.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14018&item=3248087387

<g>

-- Mark

Thanks for the offer ... However, I'd bet there is one at my parents house
(probably one of my old ones at that) that hasn't seen the light of day in
years.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03

"Silvan" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > I haven't had a slide rule around in years ... think I'll look around
for
> > one and take it to the shop for old times sake.
>
> Got one you can have, if you want. It's not fancy. Just some green/white
> plastic thing that I gather is nothing special as slide rules go.
>
> Email me with a snail mail address if you want it, or if you at least want
> me to go dig it up and give you the particulars of make and model and
> whatnot.

"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Morgans wrote:
> >
> > > Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a
> > > row in early grade school, when I should have been learning
> > > arithmetic. Others say what they want, I think it did hurt my math
> > > abilities. How could it not?
> >
> > (SWMBO is a teacher & I pick these fights from time to time. <g>)
> >
> > Arithmetic & math are not the same thing. Arithmetic is the grinding
> > of
> > numbers, in this day and age most properly done with a calculator or
> > computer. Math is applying principles towards the correct solution of
> > a
> > problem. The most brilliant person I ever met was a Ph.D. who was
> > fantastic
> > at math but LOUSY at arithmetic. In the "real world" that's not a
> > handicap
> > because computers do all the boring arithmetic anyway.
> >
> > <picking a fight>
> > Your learning set theory in grade school detracted from your arithmetic
> > skills learning in the same way that an extra period of French, Social
> > Studies, or even Recess would have. It was simply time devoted to a
> > completely different subject. IMO it's more important to learn how to
> > think
> > than to attempt to learn to beat a $5 calculator.
> > </picking a fight>
> >
> > <g>
> >
> > -- Mark
> >
> >
>
> BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
> without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible, because
you
> don't have the basics of number manipulation.
>
> BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over a
> hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> calculators did not exist.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

yes they did. they came from hp, and cost $400. i still use mine, purchased
in 1972.

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:18:29 +0000, Mark Jerde wrote:
>
>
> > Now that you mention it, the $214.48 was probably for the HP 25. A day
or
> > two after I got it the college bookstore got in the continuous memory
25C.
> > I got my money back on the 25 & got the 25C. No, I don't recall that
exact
> > amount. ;-)
>
> I can't remember the model number of my early '70's HP, but talk about new
> math! RPN was/is a kick. Used RPN later in writing interpretive
> languages.
>
> -Doug

the first one was an hp35. i got the one that was out about 6 months later,
the hp45.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp35.htm
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp45.htm

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

In article <[email protected]>, "Mark
Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>
>
>> BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
>> without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible,
>> because you don't have the basics of number manipulation.
>
>Perhaps for learning, but maybe not using. How many of today's engineers
>are 10% as good at arithmetic as the slide rule generations? My late great
>uncle was a EE in the 1920's - 60's. He showed me once how they roughed out
>on a slide rule something having to do with (IIRC) hanging long-span
>transmission lines, like over a gorge. He slid the slide & cursor around a
>few times on on one side, subtracted the result from 1 in his head, flipped
>the rule over, made another setting, & read the answer -- including the
>correct power of 10. Multi-volume log tables were used for the final
>answer, but the 10" slide rule was accurate enough for most estimations.
>Those generations were *good* at arithmetic. Are today's engineers less
>capable because they don't have to do that stuff? I don't think so.



With a little research, I bet one could make a pretty solid case that
the digital age would have been a lot slower in coming without New Math.
A core concept of new math is the ability to deal with numbers in radices
other than 10, and it turns out that this is exactly the sort of thing
that's helpful when you start to learn about digital computers. While
perhaps not essential, being able to think in base 2, base 8, base 10,
and base 16, and convert easily between them, is even today an important
skill for hardware and software engineers alike, and was likely much
more important back in the 60's and 70's when people worked much closer
to the hardware.

So, maybe we're not so practiced today at multiplying and dividing by
adding and subtracting logarithms, but we're probably better prepared
for the world many of us work in today.

Morgans wrote:

> BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over a
> hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> calculators did not exist.

Actually, that's utter nonsense. One of my parents had a mechanical
calculator. I don't remember that much about it, but it was huge, gray,
and had lots of multi-colored round buttons that you punched to do various
things. It was a lot more complicated than a simple adding machine, but I
don't know what sort of advanced calculations it could do.

Um. Something pretty much just like this:

http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/fridenstw.html


Maybe you should have said "pocket calculators" didn't exist. I remember
this thing. It was _heavy_.

Before my day though. My first calculator was a TI with an LCD display that
only looks somewhat chunky and dated now. Probably ca. 1985.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Swingman wrote:

> I haven't had a slide rule around in years ... think I'll look around for
> one and take it to the shop for old times sake.

Got one you can have, if you want. It's not fancy. Just some green/white
plastic thing that I gather is nothing special as slide rules go.

Email me with a snail mail address if you want it, or if you at least want
me to go dig it up and give you the particulars of make and model and
whatnot.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:33:55 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

> It's an old Pickett engineering slide rule, one of the good ones. Heavy,
>solid, and cold as a stone. And worn from use, my uncle's hands. Sturdy
>leather case, with his name on it. I don't use it often. But I'm sure glad to
>have it. I've taught my sons how to use a slide rule. And some day, it will
>belong to one of them.

What a great thing to have and be able to pass on, Doug.

Mine was a cheapish white plastic Pickett but I've come across some
beautiful old wooden ones. I've seen a fair number that appear to be
boxwood and some that were mahogany - a few that look to be rosewood.

In junior high school we had a demonstration version of a slide rule
that hung on the wall. It must have been six feet long. That would
be a cool thing to have hanging in the shop.

When I went to college in 1968, the engineering guys were not allowed
to use calculators. Four years later they were all using them. Big
transition.

A big wooden slide rule would make an interesting woodworking project
to work on with my kids.

Hmmmmm.


Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

Morgans wrote:


> BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost
> over a hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before
> that, calculators did not exist.

Wanna bet? <g> Calculators used to be people who did calculations for a
living. I've seen pictures of rooms of people working 8 hours a day on the
arithmetic of having bridges stay standing and the wings stay on airplanes.
There were quite a few of these folks who could add a long list of two digit
numbers in a single pass. Personally, I'd rather be a garbage collector.
;-)

-- Mark

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW writes:
>
> >If your time frame is correct, no one under the age of 70 should have any
> >problem. Then again, even if they were past that age, if they had any
kind
> >of brain, they wouldn't have any problem either. Numbers are numbers.
> >
> >"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> CW wrote:
> >> > I've heard the term "new math" for years and could never figure out
> >> > what people were talking about. It's the same now as it has always
> >> > been. It finally acured to me what it meant. It is an excuse people
> >> > use to justify their inability to manipulate numbers.
>
> Wel, it occurs to me that I recall set theory being called "new math" and
I
> also recall it being rather poorly taught. Fortunately, it didn't come
along
> until I was in college, so it didn't destroy what little math ability I
have.
>
> Charlie Self

Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a row in
early grade school, when I should have been learning arithmetic. Others say
what they want, I think it did hurt my math abilities. How could it not?
--
Jim in NC

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > Seems to me, I learned about sets and subsets about three years in a
> > row in early grade school, when I should have been learning
> > arithmetic. Others say what they want, I think it did hurt my math
> > abilities. How could it not?
>
> (SWMBO is a teacher & I pick these fights from time to time. <g>)
>
> Arithmetic & math are not the same thing. Arithmetic is the grinding
> of
> numbers, in this day and age most properly done with a calculator or
> computer. Math is applying principles towards the correct solution of
> a
> problem. The most brilliant person I ever met was a Ph.D. who was
> fantastic
> at math but LOUSY at arithmetic. In the "real world" that's not a
> handicap
> because computers do all the boring arithmetic anyway.
>
> <picking a fight>
> Your learning set theory in grade school detracted from your arithmetic
> skills learning in the same way that an extra period of French, Social
> Studies, or even Recess would have. It was simply time devoted to a
> completely different subject. IMO it's more important to learn how to
> think
> than to attempt to learn to beat a $5 calculator.
> </picking a fight>
>
> <g>
>
> -- Mark
>
>

BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible, because you
don't have the basics of number manipulation.

BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over a
hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
calculators did not exist.
--
Jim in NC

"Charlie Spitzer" <[email protected]> wrote in

> > BUT: Without the arithmetic skills, math is a drag, you fall behind,
> > without the math, the higher level stuff is near to impossible, because
> you
> > don't have the basics of number manipulation.
> >
> > BTW, my first calculator was bought as a junior in HS, and it cost over
a
> > hundred, and did what a 5 buck calculator does now. Before that,
> > calculators did not exist.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
>
> yes they did. they came from hp, and cost $400. i still use mine,
purchased
> in 1972.
>
You have me beat by about 1 year. Mine was a HP, also.
--
Jim in NC