HP Forums

Full Version: thoughts about HP-35S P<-->R
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Hello all,

Yes, yes. I have used the P<--R conversion routines here in the Software Library. Although, it's exactly how HP made it before. But, what are your impressions of the following method:

for rectangular to polar:

x [i] y [ENTER^]

[ARG] ==> angle

[x<>y] [ABS] ==> r

I just haven't figured out the polar to rectangular process as I get stuck from that mousetrap of the HP-35s inability to decompose complex numbers. Any ideas?

!!I think I might've figured it out!!

r [theta] theta [ENTER^] [ENTER^]

[ABS] [LASTx] [ARG] [COS] [*] [ ==> X coord

[x<>y] [ABS] [LASTx] [ARG] [SIN] [*] [ ==> Y coord

So, what do you think?

Edited: 7 Apr 2012, 8:45 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

1) Throw the 35S in the trash

2) Buy a 33S or use your 32SII

Well, it was a good challenge and yes, I'll admit, like I've said before, HP did drop the ball on the 35S.


I've been running through the Polar-to-Rectangular steps I've devised and it does indeed decompose a complex number!

Here's the algorithm again:

For Polar to Rectangular Conversions AND to decompose a complex number:

(if Complex number is in display, omit this step) r [theta] theta [ENTER]

Otherwise proceed from here:

[ENTER] [ABS] [LASTx] [ARG] [SIN] [*] ==> Y coord (or imaginary component)

[x<>y] [ABS [LASTx] [ARG] [COS] [*] ==> X coord (or real component)

Edited: 7 Apr 2012, 11:41 p.m.

I got so fed up with the 35S and its shortcomings that I returned it. Whoever designed it seemed to think units conversion was more important than coordinate conversions. I knew if I kept it any longer it would end up underneath a large hammer.