I found the 4 stack no limitation in the real world. It makes possible the repeating t register which I really took advantage of.
When you have 3 memories like the original 35 you have to squeeze what you can out of few resources. I used the t register to store
Resistance in a divider ans solved for the divider fraction and the output resistance. My solution has no precedence but it works.
I used 2(Pi)F repeatedly fo solve the resonance equation at a fixed frequency. 2(Pi)F multiplied twice by L or C and invert to see the resonant element. I used it similarly for 2(Pi)FRC-1 to solve RC corners for compensation of Op amps.
I note a dearth of younger and older MOHPC members around the central cluster. TI in the classroom? Too bad HP abandoned the field. Sam
In defence of a 4 stack
|
02-22-2009, 03:44 PM
02-22-2009, 04:12 PM
Hello Sam, for sake of clarity please note a repeating t register is not bonded to 4 level stacks, but may also be present with any other fixed stack depth. Having 6 stack registers, x y z 4 5 t for example, will allow you all the tricks you do with 4 levels PLUS straight forward computing of more complicated equations than a 4 level stack can take. Best regards, Walter
02-23-2009, 11:14 AM
designnut,
Would you share with this mathophobe/mathoklutz (mathsophobe/mathsoklutzo) your keystrokes Thanks, Ren dona nobis pacem
02-23-2009, 12:57 PM
True but I find it very difficult to keep tabs with more than 4 stack registers at a time... my brain isn't what it used to be, it seems. Four works like a champ.
Best,
02-23-2009, 01:00 PM
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read=701
02-24-2009, 01:31 AM
Buenas dias Ángel, Quote:May I point you to another post? Your preference may depend on the dominant use of your calculator: If it's stack gymnastics, I agree 4 levels are enough, but if it's number crunching, a few (!) more levels are beneficial. That was why I vote for a settable fixed stack depth. 4 levels in vintage mode and e.g. 6 or 8 levels in power mode. Cordialmente, Walter
Edited: 24 Feb 2009, 1:42 a.m.
02-24-2009, 02:26 AM
Walter:
You wrote: Quote:I would suggest different set of options for the stack: 1. An infinite stack such as on the 28 and 48. 2. A settable stack depth with the vintage type of t register replacement at the top, but not because I would personally use it. How did HP choose the four level stack mechanization? Was there some sort of efficiency study at the time the 35 was designed, or was it mostly a matter of memory limitations? Palmer |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|