Prefered resistor range

I am not saying that a complete change from a formula based computation to table lookups would be an improvement. In general, I try to use tables for values that are inherently arbitrary. For example, the allowed values for tolerance might be 1%, 5%, and 10%. There is no real reason, apart from people favoring numbers related to how many digits they find on their hands, for those numbers to be used. Now imagine that series of numbers generated by, say, a quadratic formula given inputs {1,2,3}, probably with rounding, to produce that same set of values. Some people would see it and say "Neat!" Other people may notice it took 3 input numbers to get 3 output numbers. Still others wonder how it will fare when a new value is added to the series, say 0.5% (woops, gotta revise the polynomial and the rounding scheme) or 20% (probably just requires a cubic in lieu of the quadratic).

I'm not sure that's true if the code space needed for computing the transcendental functions is charged against your "space". It could be close, but I imagine you may be right if an FPU or uncharged (DLL) library handles the serious arithmetic.

Actually they are not "odd values" at all- but your perspective is very telling. As I have stated before, to the point of becoming tedious, your narcissism is so pronounced that you once again declare the whole world defective when it fails to live up to your ego centric fiction.

Nah- an approach which although highly sophisticated compared to your Perl kluge, is still too pedestrian to be truly successful.

It took me about 60 minutes of sheer joy to break that code- I will not reveal it yet- having too much fun reading the conjectures. Right now we have Brasfield, Woodgate, and the Phantom in the race. Phantom is leading, but Woodgate is starting to heat things up. Brasfield comes in dead last because he thinks he knows everything and is content to stay with his little Perl kluge, whereas Phantom and Woodgate are in the numerical explore phase, actively searching for answers and recognizing inconsistencies- good for them.

eh- shut- the-f-up...snip the rest of your garbage.

what the hell are you using for your calculations - an abacus?

I concede it would be a pain on a calculator, but thats about it

Although I confess I do most of this manually, without even a calculator :]

Cheers Terry

Ludicrous amounts of computing power is a truly wonderful thing. It just pisses me off when its used to animate a stupid puppy in a search utility, thats too f****ng stupid to let me select a particular directory within which to search. Thankfully I have Ztree.

Cheers Terry

JS is much like C/C++ and so is PHP which IMO, is the preferred CGI scripting language. Python isn't a bad language, either. I never did like perl, but reading about perl did at least open my eyes to how malformed queries can cause commands to be executed as root. IIRC, the backtick " ` " in a perl script tells the perl executable to execute a system command and if it's slipped into a query properly and there's no input validation, you're screwed.

Cool trick. Thanks... ;)

John,

Did you post this? If so, my news service missed it. Would you be so kind as to post it again?

Thanks.

I guess Fred isn't going to give us the answer. I was hoping. :-)

Fred posted something clever on this a few weeks back. It looked like it might have nearly replicated the process that was used to create the values long ago, when folks used published logarithm tables with 4 or 5 decimal digits of precision to do arithmetic. (Of course, his post speaks for itself; I say this only to suggest it is worth a look.)

The Phantom wrote: >> It took me about 60 minutes of sheer joy to break that code- I will >> not reveal it yet- having too much fun reading the conjectures. >> Right now we have Brasfield, Woodgate, and the Phantom in the race. >> Phantom is leading, but Woodgate is starting to heat things up. >> Brasfield comes in dead last because he thinks he knows everything >> and is content to stay with his little Perl kluge, whereas Phantom >> and Woodgate are in the numerical explore phase, actively searching >> for answers and recognizing inconsistencies- good for them. >>

I did post it under "E96 series computation", E192 and E48 left as exercise for the student:

For the **E96** series the basic calculation is something like this, where Log's are base 10, and R is input value normalized to 100