HP-28
C with
it
=A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson
=A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |
=A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|
=A0 =A0|
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 |
=A0|
=A0 |
od.
technology.com=A0jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
dn't
=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson
=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |
=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|
=A0|
=A0 =A0 =A0 |
I don't know if it's age, or what, but I couldn't pass up the 'tongue in cheek" name calling. Must be taking lessons from Phil.Albeit, a MUCH milder form. I mean, come on. Who can take offense at that name?! I just kept envisioning the scene between Leslie Nielson and Robert Goulet. "...we're all adults here..."
Regarding RPN, I did some side by side comparisons with a highly skilled analog engineer who absolutely swore that the RPN was the best way to go. We did a somewhat simple, parallel impedance calculation. I was done first, with the 'right' answer. I attribute being faster AND getting the right answer to not having to worry about all that entry stuff. Plus, he USED his calculator everyday, I had been away from mine for a long time. You should have seen the flurry of activity when he tried to do complex impedance calculations, while muttering, "No, that doesn't look right, wait, I'll do it again, etc etc." And you could see his eyes glaze over as he started concentrating on the 'tool' rather than the 'problem'. Yep! regular entry calculators, the only way to go.