Non-Scientific Survey of Scientific Calculators

HP-28C HP-41C HP-16C

I have a Sharp EL-5806 (LCD Scientific Calculator) that had roughly the same functions as the old HP-35, but I made it all the way through college on one set of button batteries. It cost about $30 while the HP-35 was still selling for a few hundred.

But my favorite for quickie calculations is a Post Versalog. I figure that if I ever find a Curta in nice shape for a reasonable price, those two will be all that I'll need.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.
                -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo"

I suppose it is. I was speaking of small, handheld calculator display sized variety, but OK, you got me.

I have an HP15C, bought new in 1983 or so.

But Python kicks some serious ass:

factorial(233) =

96880983124035637644628191427119032733410705766804841418415225561765 76280421062462948122443032002951114258628286734856010518352708847732 53711866852861601188768943382892452021980925745460719696427232466166 17867678202922360665112163722099321474343230404599030924937888027299 55239815426546885435563751053492486124730997038979044397842341709680 06523472643833033511643549004183981614317813988279189504000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000L

My HP stops a little short of that result...

-- Mike --

Every good computer language can do this. Note: in C and Java you can't do this without some additional work (in C you need to write your own functions and memory handling for large numbers and in Java it doesn't look very nice with BigInteger).

In Lisp factorial is not pre-defined, you can define it like this:

(defun factorial (x) (reduce #'* (loop for i from 1 to x collect i)))

and then use it like this:

(factorial 233)

A nice solution in Haskell, which uses currying:

factorial = product . enumFromTo 1

Usage:

factorial 233

And my favorite when I want to make some (more complicated) calculations is Mathematica, where it is a built-in operator:

233!

If I'm not at the computer, where I use most of the time just "calc" in Windows, I'm using an old Casio fx-50F.

--
Frank Buss, fb@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de

I have been a proud user of a sharp EL-5100 since 1980. Besides the usual functions, it allows some simple "programming", has an 80 (scrolling) digit display and was the first (?) one able to "play-back", i.e. to edit your last entry. Imho it is the best calculator I have seen. Unfortunately, the LCD display has degraded so much in these 27 years of use and abuse that it is barely readable now. I will _have_ to look for a substitute. Sniff.

Pere

mpm hath wroth:

In order of preference: HP-35s HP-41CX HP-48G HP-16c HP-12c (for financial calcs) various emulators running on Windoze and Windoze Mobile 2005.

I use the HP41CX for most number grinding because of the programs I have stored on the magnetic strips. I'm considering replacing it with an HP-50G but haven't found the appropriate excuse.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

John Larkin hath wroth:

No schematic, but the service manual and the owners manual are on the HP Museum DVD. Also some application program listings:

Some reading on the HP-9100:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

I have exactly the same unit, working perfectly except that the display is going so dark that it's not worth using. The thing that made it good for me was the long line of the display, the ten letter variable keys, and the incredibly long battery life. But really, a multi-line graphic unit like the TI-89 has it all over the EL-5100.

--
John

I have the service manual. It has schematics for the power supply and CRT circuit, but none for the logic. The HP archivist claims she has all that stuff, but won't let anybody see it. So they spent a million bucks or two to buy "the garage" but let unrepairable 9100's go into dumpsters.

John

Sounds good, but hey, even 10 cents an oyster could be expensive in today-dollars...you have to eat a lot of those slimy devils. I slurped my share by the Lakefront marina, mostly with beer or (shudder) (*) tequila.

(*) The thought of tequila makes me shudder, ever since a tragic miscalculation of youth regarding consumption of same, even nearly three decades hence.

Cheers, James Arthur

Yes; you've restated your premise.

I recall small houses and single-car families (Mom stays home while Dad drives the family's one car to work) as being the norm.

Statistics bear this out too -- houses are MUCH bigger, ordinary families have several cars, televisions, microwave ovens, computers etc. So much so that they *throw them away* with scarcely a care, to buy new, more fashionable replacements.

But, just from common sense, we use much more gas and energy and raw and finished material per capita than ever before. How is that possible unless folks are buying, consuming, and enjoying these things in greater abundance than ever?

Cheers, James Arthur

Try the Calculator Forensics formula found at [

] and [ ]:

arcsin(arccos(arctan(tan(cos(sin(9))))))

--
Guy Macon

Heh, my Canon F-502 gives the 8.63704 (should be -1.36296) millionths mantissa;

Reminds me, toss that on your pile of calc states, whoever-started-this-thread... that's right, I use an old $10 calculator. Quite sufficient for my purposes!

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

My HP35S goes to 253! = 5.1743460993E499 (limited to E=500?) It seems that XCALC is limited by the display: 449! =

38.5193051802807E996, but doesn't give an error at 450!!

Excalibur "only" goes to 170!

--
  Keith

The problem was "the peak" vs "a peak". I hope it is clearer now.

Yes, the family only had one wage earner. Mothers did produce value such as cooking etc but these were not accounted for. During the 1969 to 1973 era, the US standard of living took a huge hit because of the inflation and Nixon's wage and price controls.

Some items such as you suggest have become less expensive. Others like the cost of a house, health car and university educations have become more expensive. Some items were very hard to compare from year to year during the early 1970s.

With price controls the only what that profits could be increased was to produce products more cheaply. For example: The names of cars remained the same from year to year buy the 1972 models were complete crap.

People are working longer hours wives are not staying at home etc. You have a shift in peoples priorities biasing things.

I hope it didn't put you off oysters.

There was the night by the pool, out in Metairie, when a couple of nubile young ladies plied me with sloe gin and coke. Never again! The sloe gin, I mean.

John

George,

Thanks for the idea. My eBay HP-11C just arrived. Man, this is like unexpectedly meeting an old, good friend after many years.

I'm absolutely delighted this evening!

Thanks again,

Tom